Angry tourists break mugger's neck

[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.

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]

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]

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.

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?

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.

[Osborn F Enready]

Nono said:
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.

How is it a strawman, when it clearly exposed your reasoning behind your STATED position?

Why is my statement in retort to yours a "less appropriate" caricature of socialism, then you saying capitalism, the american dream are "just about stuff" or saying that our interpretation of rights is somehow "jungle justice" ?

I smell a big hypocritical realization sneaking up on you.

Nono said:
This seems rather likely when you think about it.

Why does it seem LIKELY?!? It is certainly possible, but why do you alledge LIKELY?

Nono said:
He was holding them at gun- and knife-point? And what was he going to take the loot with, his dick?

Speaking of strawmen?

[bishop]

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?

did you miss the part where i typed "THEY"? i.e. more than one person, i.e. not the same guy who was holding the gun....

moreover, the 70 year old who killed the robber wasn't even the person being held up at gunpoint. he wasn't protecting his "stuff" at all, but i wouldn't expect you to get the full story before tossing your usual anti-american comments.

ContraCostaTimes.com | 02/24/2007 | U.S. veteran saves tourists in Costa Rican attack

An American tourist who watched as a U.S. military veteran in his 70s used his bare hands to kill an armed assailant in Costa Rica said she thought the attempted robbery was a joke -- until the masked attacker held a gun to her head.

"I thought it was a skit. But then he pointed the gun at my head and grabbed me by the throat and I thought I was going to die," Clova Adams, 54, said by telephone Friday from the Carnival Liberty cruise ship.

The assault occurred during a ship stopover Wednesday in Limon, 80 miles east of San Jose, Costa Rica's capital.

Adams was with 12 American tourists who hired a driver to explore Costa Rica for a few hours. They were climbing out of the van to visit a Caribbean beach when three masked men ran toward them, she said. One held a gun to her head, and the other two pulled out knives.

Suddenly, one of the tourists, a U.S. military veteran trained in self defense, jumped out of the van and put the gunman in a headlock, according to Limon police chief Luis Hernandez.

Hernandez said the American, whom he refused to identify, struggled with the robber, breaking his collarbone and eventually killing him. Police identified the dead man as Warner Segura, 20. The other two assailants fled.

[Gods_Mercenary]

I'd have done the same thing, you point a gun at me in the intention threatening me to do something, and let your guard down, it'll probably be the last thing you do. When you violate me that way, the rules go out the window like that, the rules go out the window.

I seriously doubt that you wouldn't think I'd gotten what I deserved if I held you at gunpoint, nono.

[Chaossaber314]

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.

I know, I'm just being difficult.

Though I believe there's a clear distinction between beating the crap out of someone and disarming them as opposed to killing them. Sure it could be argued that it was in the heat of the moment but that doesn't excuse "crimes of passion" for instance. Mob mentality, perhaps?

The other thing that stands out to me is that with a crowd of people it would have been significantly easier to restrain him than with just one. I really think his death was unnecessary given the fact that appears like they got the upper hand and took it too far.

I know it's a little hypocritical of me but if this was an instance where the old woman had a gun, the guy tried to rob her, and she shot him killing him, I would be alright with it because she was defending herself against an immediate threat.

The difference to this appears to be that there are stages.

-Man points gun at crowd. Man is armed. Crowd is not.
-Crowd takes down man. Gun is presumably removed or at least restricted.

At this point he's no longer a direct threat to them.

-Crowd kills man.

Note: I'm using crowd as a pronoun not necessarily to indicate more than one person

At least if he had been killed outright by another gun it would have been equal potential force. At the point they had this man on the ground, he was no longer a real threat.