How To Stop An Armed Massacre?

[commanding]

But who complained about forum rules? You were...

I called out the fallacy that put a robbery in lieu of a massacre. Matter of intent etc...so again, why are we talking forum rules? The spin was in the clip already, no need to spin the title, and no one complained about or chastised the OP.

So...you say you did not complain about the title of the OP?

It looks to me, that the title (at least) lacks relevance to the actual content.

But feel free to tell me the contrary, after all a robbery, massacre what´s the difference?

Your words, not mine.

[Laconian]

Intent is everything. The suspects had the obvious intention to rob the place, not to kill everyone inside. A man armed, with the intent to kill, would be JUST like the granpa pictured. He would shoot first, ask questions later. IE the video is the best advocacy towards mental control... TCP in your neighbourhood soon.

Every armed robber I have hunted down or sat across from at an interview table had already crossed a line. They were more than willing to kill whoever got in there way, but just chose not to ride a murder beef, but also knew that they had no problem with it, if it came down to that. Some couldn't tell you why they did or didn't shoot,but everyone also said they were more than willing to shoot if that meant they could get away.

Giving in to an armed robber carries just the same odds as fighting them off. Chose to do what you chose to do, but don't think for a second the hold-up man has any regard for life other than their own, they don't.

[Corrupt]

I can see Kotomores point. I don't have a problem with an armed citizen shooting an armed robber, or a gunman on a spree, both are good shoots. However I'd agree the article title is deliberately misleading. It was not an "armed massacre" in any way, shape, or form. I'm astounded someone had the balls to paint it as such so soon after Denver, which was a massacre. What's wrong with "Armed citizen prevents armed robbery" or something, which is a much more accurate title?

[KoTeMoRe]

So...you say you did not complain about the title of the OP?



Your words, not mine.

1. The video is NOT a massacre.
2. I do not talk about forum rules or ask for a title change.
3. I am discussing the content of it, the OP produced the material as he saw it...did you read at any point, my comment on how custodes should drop the title?
4. The editor of the clip has purposedly made a statement, which proves fallacious.

Every armed robber I have hunted down or sat across from at an interview table had already crossed a line. They were more than willing to kill whoever got in there way, but just chose not to ride a murder beef, but also knew that they had no problem with it, if it came down to that. Some couldn't tell you why they did or didn't shoot,but everyone also said they were more than willing to shoot if that meant they could get away.

Giving in to an armed robber carries just the same odds as fighting them off. Chose to do what you chose to do, but don't think for a second the hold-up man has any regard for life other than their own, they don't.

You cannot judge intent even in the thick of it prior to the actual case. There are piles of studies out there. Pointing to Pinatel and De Greef (who like you worked with convicts) the steps to killing are so different from one person to another. Choice is however a differential I would not use. There are various lines people cross everyday that have more in common with murder than an attempted robbery. Psychologically we are not dealing with the same stimulus.

Before you give me the whole they will care only about themselves, I would say that this is a pre-judgment and a categorisation that does intrinsically converge with the one the perps have. They will kill me anyway, they look at me as a target, threat etc.

I will not wander in the more tenuous aspects of etiology in criminal cases (which ironically rely on a cause and not on a status) and their specifics (the perps are high, low-high IQ, planning and execution, opportunity or premeditation etc). But telling me that you consider that giving in to a perpetrator in a robbery case entails the same risks and byproducts than resisting, goes actually against what the Police WORLD WIDE advises.

[DS73]

1. The video is NOT a massacre.
2. I do not talk about forum rules or ask for a title change.
3. I am discussing the content of it, the OP produced the material as he saw it...did you read at any point, my comment on how custodes should drop the title?
4. The editor of the clip has purposedly made a statement, which proves fallacious.



You cannot judge intent even in the thick of it prior to the actual case. There are piles of studies out there. Pointing to Pinatel and De Greef (who like you worked with convicts) the steps to killing are so different from one person to another. Choice is however a differential I would not use. There are various lines people cross everyday that have more in common with murder than an attempted robbery. Psychologically we are not dealing with the same stimulus.

Before you give me the whole they will care only about themselves, I would say that this is a pre-judgment and a categorisation that does intrinsically converge with the one the perps have. They will kill me anyway, they look at me as a target, threat etc.

I will not wander in the more tenuous aspects of etiology in criminal cases (which ironically rely on a cause and not on a status) and their specifics (the perps are high, low-high IQ, planning and execution, opportunity or premeditation etc). But telling me that you consider that giving in to a perpetrator in a robbery case entails the same risks and byproducts than resisting, goes actually against what the Police WORLD WIDE advises.

what Pinatel and de Greef have to do with Laconian post?
As usually you don't understand a word about things you try to discuss about and you throw irrelevant crap.

Police WORLD WIDE advices not to object verbally robbers and to weight risks and consequences of violent actions. They advice not to irritate attacker.
No police around the world would ever advice not to use personal guns or other weapons for self-protection. (well, may be British would. It looks like they have lost "common sense" lately). Not to protect yourself. The idea itself is beyond ridiculous.

More of it there is sufficient research done which observed, pointed and discussed obvious fact for anybody even remotely related to law: active resistance to attack reduces risk for injury or death.

The topic video is actually rather typical example of what happens when supposed victim shows up his teethes. Attacker runs. Sometimes he gets killed (like few days ago in the NL).

[muck]

Intent is everything. The suspects had the obvious intention to rob the place, not to kill everyone inside. A man armed, with the intent to kill, would be JUST like the granpa pictured. He would shoot first, ask questions later. IE the video is the best advocacy towards mental control... TCP in your neighbourhood soon.

They went to the place armed. I don't give a damn about their noble intentions... even robbers who said they didn't plan to lay a finger on anybody have ended up killing people. Imagine a patron trying to overpower the robber, a scuffle breaks out and BAM a gun discharges? Yes a taken life cannot be given back but I'd rather its the lives of perps who caused the dilemma by putting innocents on the line.

The one issue I have with the "armed population" concept is that a concealed carry permit doesn't automatically turn a person into a good shot. The oldster in this case could've killed an innocent bystander just as well... admittely I don't see a way how to untie that Gordian knot.

[KoTeMoRe]

what Pinatel and de Greef have to do with Laconian post?
As usually you don't understand a word about things you try to discuss about and you trow irrelevant crap.

Police WORLD WIDE advices not to object verbally robbers and to weight risks and consequences of violent actions. They advice not to irritate attacker.
No police around the world would ever advice not to use personal guns or other weapons for self-protection. (well, may be British would. It looks like they have lost "common sense" lately). Not to protect yourself. The idea itself is beyond ridiculous.

More of it there is sufficient research done which observed, pointed and discussed obvious fact for anybody even remotely related to law: active resistance to attack reduces risk for injury or death.

The topic video is actually rather typical example of what happens when supposed victim shows up his teethes. Attacker runs. Sometimes he gets killed (like few days ago in the NL).

Active resistance done in proportion, actually does not reduce the risk of injury (it is a mathematical rule), if guns are fired on both sides, the risk is augmented. Not taking to account your own assertion that a party of the two dropped dead, means there is loss of life and injuries. Your logic is flawed.

Pinatel and De Greef have to do in the fact Laconian would regard the perpetrators as a status (crossing the line). IE they do what they are, not they are what they do. The notion that a thief, armed robber would have the same intent than a murderer transgresses at least three points of Pinatel´s octalogue.

A robber might become a murderer or not but that has to do with a ****load of aspects of his personality that even a LEO cannot gauge on a glimpse. Therefore directly applying a defense instinct (negative approach) is pretty much problematic. However the member of the public IS NOT a LEO therefore his judgment cannot hold ground as an absolute way to determie the intent of the perpetrators in the use of ones firearm. As a matter of fact, you cannot follow the robber and shoot him on the back, that is not self-defence as per Belgian and NL law. When held at gun point, having a run at your attacker is generally not a good idea.

By all accounts, you once again just leashed out one of your proverbial all-breaks-loose-moderate-retarded rants which make me sad every time I have to correct you.

Oh and See this folder of the Gendarmerie Nationale about various such threats...

http://www.drome.pref.gouv.fr/sectio...=1309358107.67

[Laconian]

I don't give sh*t about the intellectual clap trap. I work in reality and the reality is that there are a boat load of burglars, thieves, con men, auto thieves that get up to the armed robbery line and turn back. The ones that cross it are a special type of bad guy. They will use firearms or any other weapon to take what they want. They don't care about the victims and they will do whatever it takes, including killing to get away. That's why agencies will spend OT money when there isn't any to run them to ground, they will haul in their mommas and their friends, making them so hot there is no place for them to hide.

I prejudge every person brandishing a firearm during a crime as a dangerous animal. I don't care about their reasons, I don't care about their soul. I don't care about their sad pathetic life that brought them to the point they're at (other than to use whatever is there to hunt them down). I don't care about the math.

[KoTeMoRe]

Thank you for your epidermic reaction. The reality is also a violent, more lethal, more criminogen place at the other side of the pond. I´ll take your expert words for proof and example on why that is so.

[seraosha]

Thank you for your epidermic reaction. The reality is also a violent, more lethal, more criminogen place at the other side of the pond. I´ll take your expert words for proof and example on why that is so.

Is someone handing out quarters for words with an abundance of vowels in them? Why was I not informed?

Kote, I still think you are trying to horn in one just "being an ass because it's fun" schtick.

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

Just remember, goods, valuable, money and pride can be replaced. A life destroyed can not.

[seraosha]

Just remember, goods, valuable, money and pride can be replaced. A life destroyed can not.

Agree 100%, so shoot straight and kill your enemy before he kills you, or others.

[Spartan10k]

Agree 100%, so shoot straight and kill your enemy before he kills you, or others.

Don't think that's what he had in mind , but totally agree.

[picanha the second]

Grandpa was feckin lucky that the perps where not of the very attentive and reactive kind look where the robbers weapon points at at 0:30.....