This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
A shame that one needs a lawyer after doing a good deed though.
I look forward to a time when each person consults their lawyer before any decision starting with what to wear in the morning to which stall to use for a mid-morning dump, right on through to whether they ought to bed the skank they are hitting on in the bar after work. We lawyers are loveable, cuddly, and should be an essential part of your day. Hire us now. Keep us on speed dial. We will be happy to work out an automatic withdrawal from your accounts to our trust accounts so we are perpetually on retainer. I can tell you there is nothing that gets the ladies hotter than knowing you have one of us on perpetual retainer. You want some guaranteed leg tonight, hire one of us today. The higher the pay rate the better the strange.
Are you considering return fire? Or if he has an accomplice "laying low" also in the bank?
The robber had a weapon. When you threaten people with a weapon, it's not just money at risk.
It's fortunate this one turned out OK. But it was possible this could have resulted in an exchange of gunfire. I just read what was posted in the brief article, but bank robbers almost always want to be quickly in and out without hurting anyone. Shooting at the robber increases danger to everyone present. If I were at that credit union, I wouldn't want anyone to try to be a hero.
Exactly. You have no idea what his intentions are. When you threaten peoples' lives in such a matter, you don't get the benefit of the doubt.
With the shot he had, he could have hit him center mass and killed him. In the same situation, I probably would have. As to not hurting someone, if you're carrying a gun into a bank robbery, you are at least threatening to do harm. Nice try, but poor logic.
That's not really the point though. Of course the robber deserves to die, no question. The only question is whether the guy who pulled his gun and shot down the robber made the situation safer or more dangerous.
You have two different concepts.
He shot the robber but didn't even hurt him enough where he couldn't get away. Everyone is lucky the robber didn't return fire.
Especially the robber. Had he turned to return fire, the shooter would have gotten off another shot. The shooter's intent obviously was not to kill, but had the robber turned, it was like 15 feet - the robber would have no chance to aim and fire. None.
Conservatives/republicans often make laws against research/investigations on these types of subjects.
I'd prefer not to kill someone - just stop him. They'll find him - you don't walk around with a bullet in you - eventually he'll seek medical help.
It's very rare for there to be violence in a bank robbery. I think TV shows give people a warped view on things. The "rule" is to comply with the robber's request so he will be on his way. People trying to be heroes can make the situation more dangerous. Every credible law enforcement expert agrees with this. There can be situations where the "rule" should be broken but these are incredibly unusual.
But then you let the guy go and he ends up car-jacking your wife in the parking lot who was waiting for you to return, the armed robber shoots her in the head and kills her. And you could have stopped him...
I phrased that poorly. Sometimes people want to stop the robber at great risks because of the money. Peoples lives and safety is what's truly important, not whether the robber gets away with the money. That's what I meant.
yeah no. way more likely somebody gets hurt in the bank thanks to Cletus Bronson not just getting out of the way and letting the guy get on his way. Not that most using a gun to commit a crime don't deserve to get shot. Because they do.
What are you talking about? Banks and credit unions get robbed all the time.
ummm, he shot the guy and the dude was able to get away. either he panicked or he's a horrible shot.
I think the whole point is we don't need moron sidearm carrying morons applying justice to things that 99.9% of humans never encounter. Go ahead and try to wrap your head around that, Louisiana.
Did I hit a nerve there, sport? Wasn't trying to. You seem angry. Try answering the question next time, or just move along. If that doesn't work for you, then try not to be completely illiterate when you call someone a moron.
Didn't call you a moron billy, and it's funny a guy from the state with the worst schools in the country would call anyone illiterate.
I get it. You know the answer to my question, and it bothers you, so you chose not to answer it. Of course you'd rather have a gun in that scenario. Everybody would. No matter how unlikely it is to happen, It's the only reasonable response. But that doesn't fit your anti gun narrative, so you lash out at me and the entire state of Louisiana. You also slurred your words when you did it, and looked a little foolish. Sorry to get you so upset. Your state is awesome. Whichever one it is.Didn't call you a moron billy, and it's funny a guy from the state with the worst schools in the country would call anyone illiterate.
