Angry tourists break mugger's neck

[Keith Hamburger]

Angry tourists break mugger's neck - Yahoo! News

A group of U.S. tourists, including a former Marine, killed a Costa Rican mugger by breaking his neck after he pulled a gun on them in a Caribbean port, a local police official said on Thursday. The cruise ship passengers told police they jumped on Wagner Segura, 20, to defend themselves when he pointed a .38 caliber revolver at them near the Caribbean port of Limon on Wednesday, and somehow snapped his neck, regional police director Luis Hernandez said.

Well, I guess guns aren't absolutely necessary. But, in such a situation I would prefer one.

But, at least justice was served.

Keith

[Osborn F Enready]

Glad they knew how, and did defend themselves.

Always hate to hear of a death, but, thats the risk you take when you point guns at people making demands.

[Chaossaber314]

Quote by: Keith Hamburger Angry tourists break mugger's neck - Yahoo! News Well, I guess guns aren't absolutely necessary. But, in such a situation I would prefer one. But, at least justice was served. Keith

Death for an assault? Attempted robbery?

That's not my definition of justice though I'm glad none of the tourists got hurt.

[Osborn F Enready]

He obviously intended to threaten death, since he used a gun.

Assume the worst, and be safe to have second thoughts.
Assume the best, and you might not have any more thoughts.

I would always rather be judged by 12, than carried by 6.

[notworthabean]

Ya, if your being robbed/assualted it is ok to murder the person in self defense as long as its not like your knock him uncocnios then start stabbing him or soemthing. I remember in endlant my legal studies teacher talking about "propportaionl response" I was like "so if a guy punches me and I break his arm I am the one who gets in trouble" she goes "yes"

and shes a law professor for an oxford college (or something related like that-and she was a lawyer)

[The Dunedan]

Murder =! Self Defense.

And yes, proportionality of response is important, especially when the incident occurs in public, as in this case.

On a purely personal note, it's good to see that Natural Selection is still up and running, in some places anyway. People who see armed robbery as a workable means of securing an income need to evolve right out of the gene pool, ASAP.

[Mia]

I wish more people had the means to defend themselves, and maybe this would lower the crime rate.

[Epistemologist]

There was a guy in my area who just had his store robbed, and when the robber was running away through the parking lot, the owner got into his SUV and ran him over in order to get back the stuff. There was controversy because the robber was black, but finally the owner was acquitted.

[Nono]

Quote by: Keith At least justice was served.

Jungle justice. If you think jungle hard enough, you'll get jungle.

Quote by: Ep The owner got into his SUV and ran him over in order to get back the stuff. There was controversy because the robber was black.

Controversy? Why on earth? What could be more important than defending one's stuff ferchrissakes? That's what the American Dream is all about.

Anyway, of course he was acquitted. He was, presumably, white, and the robber was black. Simple.

[Epistemologist]

I know, I think it's appropriate to attack your attackers. The controversy was there because apparently the robber had "potential" in life. At least that's what his dad said. The owner was Chinese btw.

[Nono]

Attack your attackers? You mean resist theft? Or crush to death somebody who's swiped some of your precious stuff?

I think purse-snatchers should be publicly strung up by their hemorrhoids prior to being beheaded by their little-old-lady victims.
That'd teach 'em.

[Epistemologist]

Well, that was that owner's only source of income, and the robber stole all the day's earnings I think. In court the owner said he was scared; I doubt that made him think irrationally, though, because it seems like disabling your robber is a pretty rational thing to do. The robber had a gun too.

[Boetie]

Epistemologist quotes: There was a guy in my area who just had his store robbed, and when the robber was running away through the parking lot, the owner got into his SUV and ran him over in order to get back the stuff.

Quote by: Epistemologist Well, that was that owner's only source of income, and the robber stole all the day's earnings I think. In court the owner said he was scared...

The owner's testimony that he was scared sounds fishy because according to the story the owner got into a vehicle and drove after a guy with a gun. A person would have to be pretty brave to go after a guy with a gun.

[Epistemologist]

I know, obviously, it's pretty fishy, but yeah, it was looking pretty bad for him in court, so he had to use whatever he could use. It's a pretty ridiculous system imo.

[Osborn F Enready]

Nono is a socialist, he doesn't respect property rights, or the amount of force used to STEAL it by gubbmint or the so-called "less fortunate" as he often paints theives, crooks and political criminals who believe in wealth redistribution.

Perhaps the store owner should have used a pillow gun on the intruder, and then smothered him in free goods to keep him there until the police came, eh Nono?

Its not about being greedy Nono, its about protecting what you earn, and the right to KEEP what you earn. You know, that ideal you are always railing against.

[Nono]

Quote by: Os Nono is a socialist, he doesn't respect property rights.

Knock off the caricature, Os. Socialist, yes. And I do have respect for property rights -- but rights tempered by the requirements of civilized society. Into which them big ol' bang-bangs don't fit.

If I understand you correctly, all I have to do is buy a bigger gun than you, then I can come take all your stuff, since it's all about brute force. Right?

[Osborn F Enready]

Nono said: Knock off the caricature, Os.

How was it a caricature? Did I disfigure, or accentuate something in a funny way, that still resembles your position?

Nono said: Socialist, yes. And I do have respect for property rights -- but rights tempered by the requirements of civilized society. Into which them big ol' bang-bangs don't fit.

That was my point. Obviously you don't respect rights, if you think some collective can take away rights from individuals because their a "majority".

Nono said: If I understand you correctly, all I have to do is buy a bigger gun than you, then I can come take all your stuff, since it's all about brute force. Right?

Thats faulted logic. A bigger gun doesn't win a gun fight defacto. Its training, application and instinct that wins a gun fight.

Having a gun means being able to match lethal force, to unjust lethal force used against you, regardless of the issuer of that force, 1 or 100.

Guns empower the individual, against mobs, even if the mob is armed.... .you know, like a gubbmint gone bad.

[bishop]

i definitely support the tourists on this one.. when you pull a gun out on someone, all the rules become obsolete and it's all about survival. if a gun were pulled on me, the last thing i'd be concerned with is protecting my stuff - and i doubt anyone else would either. the only thing i'd be thinking of in that situation is protecting my life - and the fight or flight reaction would kick into effect. it's a shame that some of our "civilized" friends here fail to recognize that and can't get past the tired stereotypes and stuck up nonsense. or, "civilized" indoctrination teaches only to flee.


other articles also mentioned that they held them at knife-point as well. and, it was a 70 year old man who broke the robber's neck - apparently it happened very fast and wasn't slow enough to be considered intentional murder.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: bishop it's a shame that some of our "civilized" friends here fail to recognize that and can't get past the tired stereotypes and stuck up nonsense. or, "civilized" indoctrination teaches only to flee.

It's our violent American culture dontcha know...


I also believe the tourists were in the right for exactly the reason bishop articulated.


That is why here in our violent American culture, the street teaches you not to pull that thing out unless you are prepared to use it. Obviously, if they are prepared to use force, they ( or anybody else ) should not be surprised to be met with equal, or superior force.


As long as other humas retain their primitive brain stem, none of this should come as a suprise to anybody. People have the potential to become violent, period.

[Nono]

Just to clear things up here, when I discuss "stuff", I'm talking about the Florida thing. Unlike KH, I wouldn't venture to judge the tourists without knowing the exact chain of events.

In other words, did they lash out to protect themselves in a life-threatening situation (i.e. a gun pointed at them) and kill the guy in the process? If so, well he should have thought about that before he pulled the gun.

Or did they render him harmless and then break his neck? This seems rather likely when you think about it. And to call it "justice" is straight caveman talk.

Quote by: bishop other articles also mentioned that they held them at knife-point as well.

Think about the possible credibility of that for a sec. He was holding them at gun- and knife-point? And what was he going to take the loot with, his dick?

Quote by: Os Did I disfigure, or accentuate something in a funny way, that still resembles your position?

If you look at the rest of the dictionary definition, you'll see that it doesn't have to be funny. Just a strawman exaggeration.