Wendy's employee is victim of armed robbery, kills perp with his own gun

[dangonay]

Originally Posted by kuruuze

bet the fear of being pumped full of slug rounds would deter robbers to the point that break-ins are rare... but no that would work too well and this is anti-gun Vancouver.

And how's that working out in the US? Along with the death penalty they have the worlds lowest crime rate.
Posted via RS Mobile

[Bahhbeehhaaaa]

hope the shooter won't get into much shit for self defence

[Bonjour43MA]

Originally Posted by Bahhbeehhaaaa

hope the shooter won't get into much shit for self defence

Normally I'd side with the victim but in this case I think he went overboard with chasing after the robbers and shooting them in the parking lot.

If I were him, I'd scare off the robbers with guns, lock the doors, and call the cops.

[Noir]

Originally Posted by MindBomber

Vigilante justice has no place in an evolved society, the person did not have the right to issue a death sentence to the individual.

Of course, America is not an evolved society.

Dude, it's an armed robbery. If you stop playing devil's advocate for a moment with your, holier-than-though diplomatic civility stance, this one dead robber means, there's 2, 3, 4, 5, etc more innocent fast-food or convenient store employees who will not have a firearm shoved in their face in the coming future.


I know it's a slippery slope argument but despite the letter of the law, society has an unspoken line that when crossed, you're not going to get any sympathy from your fellow citizens; and that robber crossed that line with the use of firearms because you're basically using the threat of death for compliance.


Good attempt at trying to show you're above the rest of us though.

[Bonjour43MA]

^^^ nah, he's just an idealist that thinks that the hug-a-thug way of fighting crime will make the world a better place. Surely those murderers and robbers were all just about to turn their lives around, after that one last go at hurting/robbing/killing some innocent person, right? Give them a chance! They'll come around!

Right................

It's people like him that get into politics, con their way into parliament, and write/make some of the most ridiculous laws that give criminals more rights than innocent, law abiding citizens. Just look at what the Liberals have done to this country in terms of law & order over the past 15 years...

Bottom line is - when you make a CONSCIOUS decision to break the law, with the intent to HURT/KILL another person, you've already given up your rights in society to be considered an upstanding "fellow citizen". You have to be responsible for your own actions and if that means putting your own life on the line, it was YOUR choice - the consequence of your action (armed robbery) may result in DEATH, and it is no one else's fault except for your own. No one "gave" you a death sentence - you did it yourself.

[MindBomber]

Originally Posted by Bonjour43MA

^^^ nah, he's just an idealist that thinks that the hug-a-thug way of fighting crime will make the world a better place. Surely those murderers and robbers were all just about to turn their lives around, after that one last go at hurting/robbing/killing some innocent person, right? Give them a chance! They'll come around!

Right................

It's people like him that get into politics, con their way into parliament, and write/make some of the most ridiculous laws that give criminals more rights than innocent, law abiding citizens. Just look at what the Liberals have done to this country in terms of law & order over the past 15 years...

Bottom line is - when you make a CONSCIOUS decision to break the law, with the intent to HURT/KILL another person, you've already given up your rights in society to be considered an upstanding "fellow citizen". You have to be responsible for your own actions and if that means putting your own life on the line, it was YOUR choice - the consequence of your action (armed robbery) may result in DEATH, and it is no one else's fault except for your own. No one "gave" you a death sentence - you did it yourself.

That is beyond unnecessary and a ridiculous extrapolation, it's comments like that ruin otherwise intelligent discussions.

Originally Posted by Bonjour43MA

Normally I'd side with the victim but in this case I think he went overboard with chasing after the robbers and shooting them in the parking lot.

If I were him, I'd scare off the robbers with guns, lock the doors, and call the cops.

I'm confused, because according to this post, we agree?

Does that mean we're both hug-a-thug idealists or was that extrapolation ridiculous and based on no knowledge of my actual stance on issues, I wonder..

Originally Posted by Noir

Dude, it's an armed robbery. If you stop playing devil's advocate for a moment with your, holier-than-though diplomatic civility stance, this one dead robber means, there's 2, 3, 4, 5, etc more innocent fast-food or convenient store employees who will not have a firearm shoved in their face in the coming future.


I know it's a slippery slope argument but despite the letter of the law, society has an unspoken line that when crossed, you're not going to get any sympathy from your fellow citizens; and that robber crossed that line with the use of firearms because you're basically using the threat of death for compliance.


Good attempt at trying to show you're above the rest of us though.

I'm not above the rest, I have a different and more analytical perspective, nothing more.

I don't feel sympathetic for the robber who was killed, but I also won't feel sympathetic for the Wendy's employee if he's charged with murder.

In our society we've chosen to set clearly defined laws and due process, we punish the guilty as a people with established consequences, for that system to continue to function there cannot be room for flexibility.

In this case, the burger flipper chose to pursue and kill the robber, because he had robbed a store. Call it cool, no loss to society.
Next month, a wife chooses to kill her abusive husband rather than pursuing intervention from authorities. Meh, society doesn't need abusers, it's all good.
Two months from now, a man widowed by a drunk driver is in trial, the man shoots the driver dead in the court room. Eye for an eye, score settled.

Society is better off without the killed in the above examples, but is it better off with people so freely taking justice into their own hands?

I would argue no, you can argue yes, but don't insult me for that having that thought process.

[Bouncing Bettys]

Posted via RS Mobile

[RSXBoii]

[dangonay]

Originally Posted by Bonjour43MA

It's people like him that get into politics, con their way into parliament, and write/make some of the most ridiculous laws that give criminals more rights than innocent, law abiding citizens. Just look at what the Liberals have done to this country in terms of law & order over the past 15 years...

And it's people like you who think it's OK to bend the rules for "lowlifes" as punishing them/locking them up/killing them is for the "greater good" and then screaming bloody murder if anything happens to you and you don't get your due process.

[Bonjour43MA]

Originally Posted by dangonay

And it's people like you who think it's OK to bend the rules for "lowlifes" as punishing them/locking them up/killing them is for the "greater good" and then screaming bloody murder if anything happens to you and you don't get your due process.

That's the whole problem - our rules/legal system is broken, so you think we're "bending the rules" when in fact those rules shouldn't have been there in the first place.

People make mistakes, we all do. But it's different when you INTEND on killing/hurting someone, KNOWING what the consequences may be (life imprisonment, or death if you're in the US). When you make that conscious choice to NOT obey the law, why should you be given a chance to go through our FLAWED legal system and somehow get out of it scott free? Those dead robbery/murder victims sure didn't get that chance?!!?

You know the difference between murder and manslaughter - I'm arguing that if someone commits MURDER, that they are risking their own life to get whatever it is that they're after, so at that point, it's fair game as far as their intended victims are concerned. Self-defense with lethal force is warranted under those circumstances.

[Bonjour43MA]

Originally Posted by MindBomber

That is beyond unnecessary and a ridiculous extrapolation, it's comments like that ruin otherwise intelligent discussions.

It isn't. You offered your view and opinion on a topic, presented your arguments, and people that have read them formed their idea of why you would arrive at your conclusion. Mine is exactly what I had posted.

Originally Posted by MindBomber

I'm confused, because according to this post, we agree?

Does that mean we're both hug-a-thug idealists or was that extrapolation ridiculous and based on no knowledge of my actual stance on issues, I wonder..

If you had bothered to read my previous posts, you'd seen that I AGREED, in THIS particular case, that the store clerk crossed the line when he chased after the robbers and shot them. He should not have done that - that is not self-defense. He should've stayed in the store, locked the doors, and called the cops.

You know, for someone that seems intelligent and logical (albeit biased), you sure have a way of being selective in (mis)quoting others.

Originally Posted by MindBomber

I'm not above the rest, I have a different and more analytical perspective, nothing more.

Get off your pedestal there, buddy. You just proved his point. Gosh, people like you are so self-righteous to a point where you're completely oblivious to your own arrogance.

Originally Posted by MindBomber

In our society we've chosen to set clearly defined laws and due process, we punish the guilty as a people with established consequences, for that system to continue to function there cannot be room for flexibility.

I got news for you - our system is FLAWED/Broken. More rights for the criminals than the victims... sorry that just doesn't work.

Originally Posted by MindBomber

In this case, the burger flipper chose to pursue and kill the robber, because he had robbed a store. Call it cool, no loss to society.
Next month, a wife chooses to kill her abusive husband rather than pursuing intervention from authorities. Meh, society doesn't need abusers, it's all good.
Two months from now, a man widowed by a drunk driver is in trial, the man shoots the driver dead in the court room. Eye for an eye, score settled.

I'll play.

Women's issue (abusive husbands) - Are you KIDDING ME? Are you suggesting that, if a woman was being attacked by her abusive husband and is about to die, that she should somehow find a way to NOT defend herself and save her own life, and should instead let her husband beat the crap out of her, and hope that she will survive so that later on she can "pursue intervention" from authorities?

Drunk drivers - Why are you intentionally confusing others by bringing this up? This has NOTHING to do with self-defense, and if the husband takes justice into his own hands by killing the drunk driver in court, then he's in the wrong and should be prosecuted as such.

Originally Posted by MindBomber

Society is better off without the killed in the above examples, but is it better off with people so freely taking justice into their own hands?

No it is not, but we're talking about self-defense here, where you have SECONDS to make a decision on either being a victim (dead), or stand up for yourself (shoot your attacker). This is NOT vigilante justice, this is preserving your own life as a basic HUMAN RIGHT. Why is that so hard to get through to your head?

God, I feel like talking to those political science majors back in Uni, where they all thought they knew how to fix all the worlds' problems with the most lenient legal system they could come up with, and when you engage in a discussion with them, they mix-and-match completely irrelevant topics to confuse their audience.

[Bonjour43MA]

Originally Posted by RSXBoii

You should, because one day when you're in that exact situation where you are forced to defend your life, the last thing you want on your mind is, "Am I going to go to jail for defending my life by killing this attacker?"

[The7even]

Alright let me clear this up so you guys can stop arguing.

Ultimately , MindBomber does have a point. The person(s) robbing might have been doing so out of necessity. But more than half the time, they're doing so because they're a low life piece of shit (not to be confused with poor) who don't want to work and just steal.

So what's the right thing to do?

It's to let it go, it's sad when anyone dies, even a robber because they might have been doing it to survive, but then again he might have been doing it just because he wants someone else's money that he him self has never earned and will do so with complete disregard for anyone else's life.. in which case he should be tortured until he's killed. A simple gun shot to the head would not suffice.

So what's the answer? Since we don't know the circumstances, we can't comment. We can.. actually but we'd be talking out of our asses. Both sides are right, and wrong.. You both win and lose. Leaving you exactly where you started before the argument began.


Unless we find out who he was as a person of course.. Until then, it's a moot point.

[MindBomber]

Originally Posted by Bonjour43MA

It isn't. You offered your view and opinion on a topic, presented your arguments, and people that have read them formed their idea of why you would arrive at your conclusion. Mine is exactly what I had posted.

Well, the conclusions aren't overly accurate.

Originally Posted by Bonjour43MA

If you had bothered to read my previously posts, you'd seen that I AGREED, in THIS particular case, that the store clerk crossed the line when he chased after the robbers and shot them. He should not have done that - that is not self-defense. He should've stayed in the store, locked the doors, and called the cops.

I've read all your posts and we completely agree on the situation that is the subject of the article, that's why I'm a bit lost.

Originally Posted by Bonjour43MA

You know, for someone that seems intelligent and logical (albeit biased), you sure have a way of being selective in (mis)quoting others.

I didn't mean to selective misquote, it's a forum response, in all honesty I don't put that much thought into it. If I did, I apologize.

Originally Posted by Bonjour43MA

Get off your pedestal there, buddy. You just proved his point. Gosh, people like you are so self-righteous to a point where you're completely oblivious to your own arrogance.

How am I self-righteous?

Most people do purely base opinion on emotional knee-jerk reactions, which is why in my mind some people think what the employee did is okay. "Who the fuck cares, he's an armed robber, the world's better off without him", type responses, with no thought to the actual consequences of allowing something like that to go unpunished.

Originally Posted by Bonjour43MA

I got news for you - our system is FLAWED/Broken. More rights for the criminals than the victims... sorry that just doesn't work.

I agree, our system does not function, drastic reforms are needed. It's illogical to continually release people who everyone knows will re-offend.

Originally Posted by Bonjour43MA

I'll play.

Women's issue (abusive husbands) - Are you KIDDING ME? Are you suggesting that, if a woman was being attacked by her abusive husband and is about to die, that she should somehow find a way to NOT defend herself and save her own life, and should instead let her husband beat the crap out of her, and hope that she will survive so that later on she can "pursue intervention" from authorities?

No, you're looking at it from the immediate kill or potentially be killed scenario, obviously if any person is in immanent danger they have the right to defend themselves with necessary force.

The situation I had in mind, would be a woman shooting her abusive husband in his sleep. In line with the situation in the article, the shooter not being in immediate danger, but pursuing their interpretation of justice.

Originally Posted by Bonjour43MA

Drunk drivers - Why are you intentionally confusing others by bringing this up? This has NOTHING to do with self-defense, and if the husband takes justice into his own hands by killing the drunk driver in court, then he's in the wrong and should be prosecuted as such.

My intention was to demonstrate the slippery slope, perhaps I did that poorly.

If a person is allowed to act as a vigilante and appoint themselves judge and jury, as the Wendy's employee did, then it sets a precedence. If the Wendy's employee could kill an armed robber, because he committed armed robbery, why can't a husband kill a drunk driver who widowed him?

Originally Posted by Bonjour43MA

No it is not, but we're talking about self-defense here, where you have SECONDS to make a decision on either being a victim (dead), or stand up for yourself (shoot your attacker). This is NOT vigilante justice, this is preserving your own life as a basic HUMAN RIGHT. Why is that so hard to get through to your head?

I missed where the discussion shifted away from the Wendy's article, like I said, all my responses were geared towards the employee pursuing the robber when he was out of immediate danger. Which, although you and I do not agree with, correct me if I'm wrong, others think is entirely justified. That sets the path for the slope I tried to illustrate.

Self-defence is an entirely different discussion, if your life is in imminent danger that's not vigilante justice.

Originally Posted by Bonjour43MA

God, I feel like talking to those political science majors back in Uni, where they all thought they knew how to fix all the worlds' problems with the most lenient legal system they could come up with, and when you engage in a discussion with them, they mix-and-match completely irrelevant topics to confuse their audience.

I had a long discussion with a professor over the frequent illogic employed by political science majors the other day, I'm certainly not one of them. The most annoying students in possibly the most useless degree program.

[dangonay]

Originally Posted by Bonjour43MA

That's the whole problem - our rules/legal system is broken, so you think we're "bending the rules" when in fact those rules shouldn't have been there in the first place.

People make mistakes, we all do. But it's different when you INTEND on killing/hurting someone, KNOWING what the consequences may be (life imprisonment, or death if you're in the US). When you make that conscious choice to NOT obey the law, why should you be given a chance to go through our FLAWED legal system and somehow get out of it scott free? Those dead robbery/murder victims sure didn't get that chance?!!?

You know the difference between murder and manslaughter - I'm arguing that if someone commits MURDER, that they are risking their own life to get whatever it is that they're after, so at that point, it's fair game as far as their intended victims are concerned. Self-defense with lethal force is warranted under those circumstances.

So then once someone threatens someone or robs someone they deserve to die? Where do you draw the line? 5 minutes after the robbery? 1 hour? The next day? At which point is it no longer OK for a victim to use lethal force since they are no longer under threat of violence? I'm really curious where you stand as to what events need to transpire before it's no longer OK.

I think as soon as the robbers left, and the employee (who is the store manager, BTW, not some burger flipper) was no longer in any danger, that it's no longer OK to use lethal force. Had he shot a robber while they were pointing a gun at him then it's justified because at that moment in time you don't know if they are going to kill you or are just bluffing.

[JD¹³]

Just another delinquent sent packing from the gene pool. I won't be losing any sleep over some petty criminal getting wasted. The vast vast vast majority of people who pull stuff like this are chronic offenders.

Man, 19, killed in alleged theft in Royal Palm pleaded guilty to 2010 attempted murder

[Bonjour43MA]

Originally Posted by dangonay

So then once someone threatens someone or robs someone they deserve to die? Where do you draw the line? 5 minutes after the robbery? 1 hour? The next day? At which point is it no longer OK for a victim to use lethal force since they are no longer under threat of violence? I'm really curious where you stand as to what events need to transpire before it's no longer OK.

I think as soon as the robbers left, and the employee (who is the store manager, BTW, not some burger flipper) was no longer in any danger, that it's no longer OK to use lethal force. Had he shot a robber while they were pointing a gun at him then it's justified because at that moment in time you don't know if they are going to kill you or are just bluffing.

Once again, in this particular case, I sided against the store manager because he was NOT in danger once the robbers left, and had no business to chase after them and then shooting them. I said it many times already that he was wrong in doing so, and will pay the consequences for his actions. We all agree on that point and there's no reason to keep going back to it. I've made myself clear already.

As far as what needs to transpire before it's NOT OK to shoot a home invader/robber, let me give you a few scenarios that will demonstrate it:

- you're asleep when some loud noises wake you up, you take your gun and go downstairs to check it out. You see an intruder with a knife that turns towards you. You yell out "Get out of my house right now!". The robber refuses and starts to come towards you, raising his arm with the knife in hand. You raise your gun and point it at him, yelling "Back off or I will shoot!" He complies and leaves your house. You lock the doors and call the cops. No one was shot.

- same scenario as above, except that the person now has a gun, or something that looks like a gun in his hand. He is far away from you but points the gun at you as soon as you see him. You try to find something to hide behind, then yell out "Get out of my house or I will shoot". The intruder leaves. You lock the doors and call the cops. No one was shot.

In both cases the intruder leaves after being warned that they may be met with lethal force if they intend to come at you to harm you... no shots are fired. HOWEVER, if they did not comply and kept coming at you, and you are certained that your life is in immediate danger - PULL THE TRIGGER. Obviously it's easy to sit here and go through this in a logical manner, when in real life situations you probably have just a few seconds to make those decisions, but that is something that each firearms owner should be prepared to do if the decision is made to use guns as self-defense measures.

I think if one day, the government/RCMP changes the law to allow citizens to use guns for self-defense purposes, there should be mandatory safety courses to prepare owners for those type of situations, as there currently are for safety handling of firearms (Canadian Firearms Safety Course, CFSC, which is required before you can apply for a firearms license).

[Nightwalker]

Fair enough for the robber to be killed. He knew the risks.

Still doesn't justify the store manager whatsoever though. As soon as the robbers left and he pursued with his gun, he was the aggressor.

[MindBomber]

Originally Posted by Bonjour43MA

I think if one day, the government/RCMP changes the law to allow citizens to use guns for self-defense purposes, there should be mandatory safety courses to prepare owners for those type of situations, as there currently are for safety handling of firearms (Canadian Firearms Safety Course, CFSC, which is required before you can apply for a firearms license).

Both situations you describe involve an intruder entering a home uninvited, a massive breach of personal safety must occur to initiate that very controlled scenario. Under those conditions, I agree with a person being entitled to defend themselves by threatening an intruder with a firearm.

I would be vehemently opposed to a change in laws to allow citizens to carry firearms for self-defense purposes outside their residence, however. Outside ones home the situations are too unpredictable and majority of people too illogical and emotional to responsibly handle a firearm, the Wendy's case is an example of that.

[zulutango]

"Ultimately , MindBomber does have a point. The person(s) robbing might have been doing so out of necessity"

I agree but nobody in the US has to rob somebody with a gun to survive. This is not some remote 3rd world country where free food and a place to sleep are not available and you might actually "have" to rob someone to keep from starving to death....you know, some time back in the 1700s. They were not Robin Hood and his Merrie Men, they were a bunch of criminals who chose to use weapons and violence to get something they wanted, not something they needed or even deserved. The death was a predictable outcome of their choices.

Don't bring a working & loaded gun (it was, cause it did) with you if you are not going to use it. Not sure of the laws where it happened, but what was to prevent them coming back after they decided to eliminate the witness? Just a thought.

[$_$]

Why was he carrying a gun while working at Wendy's ?

[Psykopathik]

Wendy's guy need a big billboard put up with a picture of him him standing over the dead thief.

you threaten someone's life for fucking money, no one will cry for you when your victim fucks you up.

[dasani604]

Originally Posted by The7even

Alright let me clear this up so you guys can stop arguing.

Ultimately , MindBomber does have a point. The person(s) robbing might have been doing so out of necessity. But more than half the time, they're doing so because they're a low life piece of shit (not to be confused with poor) who don't want to work and just steal.

So what's the right thing to do?

It's to let it go, it's sad when anyone dies, even a robber because they might have been doing it to survive, but then again he might have been doing it just because he wants someone else's money that he him self has never earned and will do so with complete disregard for anyone else's life.. in which case he should be tortured until he's killed. A simple gun shot to the head would not suffice.

So what's the answer? Since we don't know the circumstances, we can't comment. We can.. actually but we'd be talking out of our asses. Both sides are right, and wrong.. You both win and lose. Leaving you exactly where you started before the argument began.


Unless we find out who he was as a person of course.. Until then, it's a moot point.

"Ultimately , MindBomber does have a point. The person(s) robbing might have been doing so out of necessity."

I stopped right there. I do not agree with MindBomber's point at all. We don't need huge groups of vigilantes but we need citizens who are just and have the balls to stop people who are scum.

In a 24 paper the other day (yes..24), there was this article about a man who has had 78 convictions and was known to target elderly and homeless people via theft and assault. He was sent to prison for 2 years and was released. Recently, he just assaulted a girl. You tell me, why must this man walk among innocent people? Give me any just reason, MindBomber or anyone who agrees with him, why this man should be allowed back into our society. Surely it's not because he's a Canadian citizen and deserves every right that we have. The "punishment" of jail time has done nothing to change him and he hasn't even realized his problem. This overlooked example is an excellent reflection on how shit the justice system is in Canada. What could have prevented past assaults on elderly people and the most recent on that girl? His death. Who could have done it? Someone who had the balls to do so. This isn't necessarily an action of vigilantism - it's justice for the good of mankind.

Back to the Wendy's situation. When you look at the grand scheme of things, you have to find the reason for the robber's action. If it is out of necessity, how did he come into such a situation in the first place? If he fucked up due to drugs or is poor then it still gives him no excuse for threatening someone's life. It is his own doing that he either 1) got into drugs, 2) didn't take his education seriously, 3) couldn't realize that he was in the wrong crowd, etc. (could be anything). In the end, he made these choices and he most certainly made the choice to rob that Wendy's that night. Little did he know that there was someone there who would have the balls to put an end to his miserable life. I hope the Wendy's employee doesn't have a severe punishment for this as I know the system won't allow him to get away scot-free.

System...man talk about The Matrix

[Psykopathik]

we know who he was as a person, someone who values $ over human life. His circumstances don't matter. there are always ways to get $ without threatening someone elses life. he chose wrong.

[Gridlock]

Originally Posted by dasani604

In a 24 paper the other day (yes..24), there was this article about a man who has had 78 convictions and was known to target elderly and homeless people via theft and assault. He was sent to prison for 2 years and was released. Recently, he just assaulted a girl. You tell me, why must this man walk among innocent people? Give me any just reason, MindBomber or anyone who agrees with him, why this man should be allowed back into our society. Surely it's not because he's a Canadian citizen and deserves every right that we have. The "punishment" of jail time has done nothing to change him and he hasn't even realized his problem. This overlooked example is an excellent reflection on how shit the justice system is in Canada. What could have prevented past assaults on elderly people and the most recent on that girl? His death. Who could have done it? Someone who had the balls to do so. This isn't necessarily an action of vigilantism - it's justice for the good of mankind.

So in relation to this thread, you would advocate finding him on the street and shooting him?

That is some pretty wild circular logic you're working with.

The issue, as I see it, is not that the Wendy's employee was capable of defending himself. In the US they value 2nd ammendment rights...we gave our rights to own guns up long ago.

It was the fact that he chased after him down the street and shot him. That is no longer defense. If the man pulls a gun, in employee's face and he pulls as well and shoots, then I agree, that is self-defense.

But chasing him down is vigilantism. The actual robbery will be a mitigating factor, but he should not walk free and clear from his actions.