Two men are accused of beating a criminal

Montcalm · Post by **Montcalm** » 2003-06-30 09:35pm

after three robbery in their conveniant store,they`ve decided to get the robbers,but discovered criminals have more rightsthan honnest citizen

thecreech · Post by **thecreech** » 2003-06-30 09:59pm

Montcalm wrote:after three robbery in their conveniant store,they`ve decided to get the robbers,but discovered criminals have more rightsthan honnest citizen

Damn and i was hoping that stuff only happened in america

J · Post by J » 2003-06-30 10:11pm

thecreech wrote:Damn and i was hoping that stuff only happened in america

Unfortunately it happens in Canada too, just ask my sister who spent some time in a police holding cell after she beat the crap out of some punks in a self defence scenario. In terms of these "excessive force" charges were just as bad in dealing with them in our major cities & urbanized areas as they are in the States, ergo, citizens are often brought up on nuisance charges for defending themselves or their property when the badguys get in contact with their sleazy sympathetic lawyers. It's a trend which I find most unsettling.

Hethrir · Post by **Hethrir** » 2003-06-30 11:42pm

Montcalm wrote:after three robbery in their conveniant store,they`ve decided to get the robbers,but discovered criminals have more rightsthan honnest citizen

I can understand that the police don't want people to take the law into their own hands, but if he didn't get beat too badly I would almost expect it to be selfdefence.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-06-30 11:58pm

It sounds like they attacked him before he actually stole anything. In which case I kind of side with the law in this one. Now if they'd hit him as he fled or was in the act its another story.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2003-07-01 03:20am

Beat a guy with a fucking baseball bat?

Lock them up for a few years.

Alex Moon · Post by **Alex Moon** » 2003-07-01 04:31am

Sea Skimmer wrote:It sounds like they attacked him before he actually stole anything. In which case I kind of side with the law in this one. Now if they'd hit him as he fled or was in the act its another story.

The story is too vague on that point. We don't know precisely when the owner attacked the man, or if the robbers were the same ones who were responsible for the other robberies mentioned in the article, which would give the owner some justification for acting quickly.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-07-01 07:51am

Alex Moon wrote:
The story is too vague on that point. We don't know precisely when the owner attacked the man, or if the robbers were the same ones who were responsible for the other robberies mentioned in the article, which would give the owner some justification for acting quickly.

If he was stupid enough to rob a place three times in three weeks, that guy deserved to get smashed in the head.

TheFeniX · Post by **TheFeniX** » 2003-07-01 02:36pm

What a whiney crook. He's lucky, in Texas they would have gunned him down.

Personally, I'd like to see the video before I passed any judgements on whether they used excessive force (fat chance).

Side question for any Canadians: As far as I know, handguns are illegal in Canada. Am I off on this? If not, how bad is the gun control? Is it easy for criminals to get their hands on guns?

aerius · Post by **aerius** » 2003-07-01 08:32pm

TheFeniX wrote:Side question for any Canadians: As far as I know, handguns are illegal in Canada. Am I off on this? If not, how bad is the gun control? Is it easy for criminals to get their hands on guns?

Handguns are perfectly legal in Canada, but they do have restrictions on magazine capacity and barrel lengths (must be 4.1" or longer) & calibers (no .25 & .32 unless it's a competition gun). Once you have your firearms certificate you can go buy them and register them with the Feds. Our gun control laws are tighter than I'd like, no full-auto, no large capacity magazines, just go here to see the list of restricted & prohibited firearms.

As for how easy it is for criminals to get guns? Laughably easy. I could leave my house right now and come back within an hour with several guns in hand purchased off the black market. I'd probably have more trouble finding a hooker without getting busted than finding an illegal handgun.

The Albino Raven · Post by **The Albino Raven** » 2003-07-01 09:10pm

i understand defending your property, but surely that can be done without beating a guy with a fucking bat. I mean, thats pretty excesive anyway you look at it, plus, I doubt the owner only hit him when he was standing, from the article, it sounded like a couple of the shots were while the guy was on the ground, which to me is excessive.

Montcalm · Post by **Montcalm** » 2003-07-01 09:24pm

Fremen_Muhadib wrote:i understand defending your property, but surely that can be done without beating a guy with a fucking bat. I mean, thats pretty excesive anyway you look at it, plus, I doubt the owner only hit him when he was standing, from the article, it sounded like a couple of the shots were while the guy was on the ground, which to me is excessive.

Who cares about excessive force when you beat a criminal,does the so-called justice care when bums attack and kill innocent citizens and children.

aerius · Post by **aerius** » 2003-07-01 09:28pm

Fremen_Muhadib wrote:i understand defending your property, but surely that can be done without beating a guy with a fucking bat. I mean, thats pretty excesive anyway you look at it, plus, I doubt the owner only hit him when he was standing, from the article, it sounded like a couple of the shots were while the guy was on the ground, which to me is excessive.

What do you want to do, hit him with a Nerf bat and hope he stops? Snap him with a wet bath towel? Slap him in the face? Like that's gonna stop a guy from robbing the store. To stop a guy from robbing a store, one can:

a) kill him
b) beat him unconscious
c) cripple him (eg. break his legs)
d) cause him enough pain that he leaves
e) make him uncomfortable enough to leave

A-C are surefire ways to stop him, D is somewhat iffy, and E is a complete crapshoot. Boo-hoo, the no good thief got beat on while he was down on the ground, serves him right, damn perp shouldn't have been robbing the store. Personally I favor breaking the thief's legs with a ball bat, it's non-fatal, causes no permanent harm, and the perp ain't gonna get away, but that's just me.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2003-07-01 09:39pm

You beat a guy with a baseball bat when he's not an immediate threat to your life, you should go to jail. I don't care what the fuck he did before.

TheFeniX · Post by **TheFeniX** » 2003-07-01 09:41pm

aerius wrote:
TheFeniX wrote:Side question for any Canadians: As far as I know, handguns are illegal in Canada. Am I off on this? If not, how bad is the gun control? Is it easy for criminals to get their hands on guns?
Handguns are perfectly legal in Canada, but they do have restrictions on magazine capacity and barrel lengths

Thanks for the info. Sounds a lot like Texas.

I was always worried by the fact that if I made one phone call, I could get an uzi with the serial filed off. I always thought Canada was a lot tougher on gun control than America. Of course, here all you have to have is a clean record (no felonies) and it's "shootin time..."

Montcalm · Post by **Montcalm** » 2003-07-01 09:42pm

Howedar wrote:You beat a guy with a baseball bat when he's not an immediate threat to your life, you should go to jail. I don't care what the fuck he did before.

And keeping them in jail at the expense of the tax payer,is wasting money.

aerius · Post by **aerius** » 2003-07-01 09:50pm

Howedar wrote:You beat a guy with a baseball bat when he's not an immediate threat to your life, you should go to jail. I don't care what the fuck he did before.

Hope you still feel that way after your car get stolen, your house broken into and robbed, and your bank acount & credit gets completely fucked over with your stolen bank & credit cards. And BTW, the bad guy that did it gets away with 50 hours of community service and a clean record. Now tell me, if he tries to rob your house again, are you going to let him or are you gonna beat the living shit out of him with a ball bat?

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2003-07-02 02:12am

Now tell me, if he tries to rob your house again, are you going to let him or are you gonna beat the living shit out of him with a ball bat?

If he's in my house, I'll defend my home as allowed under IC 35-41-3-2.

Hmmm....

.45 ACP, .38 Special, 9mm Para, or 12 gauge #4 buck?

Decisions, decisions.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-07-02 02:43am

Glocksman wrote:
Hmmm....

.45 ACP, .38 Special, 9mm Para, or 12 gauge #4 buck?

Decisions, decisions.

"And so that’s how one gun becomes five guns." -Moe

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2003-07-02 02:46am

aerius wrote:
Howedar wrote:You beat a guy with a baseball bat when he's not an immediate threat to your life, you should go to jail. I don't care what the fuck he did before.
Hope you still feel that way after your car get stolen, your house broken into and robbed, and your bank acount & credit gets completely fucked over with your stolen bank & credit cards.

I would. It should be mentioned that your scenario is goofy, as one is liable (at least in Oregon) for all of $50 dollars of stolen credit card debts.

And BTW, the bad guy that did it gets away with 50 hours of community service and a clean record.

How can he have a clean record if he was convicted of a crime?

Now tell me, if he tries to rob your house again, are you going to let him or are you gonna beat the living shit out of him with a ball bat?

I'll beat him up. Clubbing him is another step that I would not take unless I was in danger personally.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2003-07-02 02:46am

Breaking into a house is also considerably different from breaking into a store.

Rubberanvil · Post by **Rubberanvil** » 2003-07-02 03:40am

Howedar wrote:Breaking into a house is also considerably different from breaking into a store.

Say that to the people who had a gun pointed toward their face at their stores.

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2003-07-02 01:21pm

Say that to the people who had a gun pointed toward their face at their stores.

I wouldn't advise trying to draw your own gun while under that of the criminal unless you think he's going to kill you then and there.

If it looks like all he wants is the money, give it to him and let him go.

If it looks like he'll shoot you regardless of your cooperation, you've got nothing to lose by ducking down and going for your own gun.

That was my policy when I worked at a convenience store.

Cooperate with the robber unless it looked as if he was going to kill me anyway.

At that point, I would have dived to one side and went for the 9mm Glock (legally carried, but in direct violation of company policy) under my vest.

Rubberanvil · Post by **Rubberanvil** » 2003-07-02 01:23pm

I stand corrected.

Raoul Duke, Jr. · Post by **Raoul Duke, Jr.** » 2003-07-02 08:54pm

Howedar wrote:You beat a guy with a baseball bat when he's not an immediate threat to your life, you should go to jail. I don't care what the fuck he did before.

I think I'm with Aerius on this -- and no, it isn't a logical perspective, nor is it likely to strike most people as an acceptable one.

If someone enters your property and either A) commits a crime, or B) has committed crimes on your property in the past as a matter of practice, you have several options. The main options are to let the criminal succeed, in which case he will probably do it again, call the police (and file a report, because he'll be gone by the time they get there) or respond with force.

Now responding with force isn't nice. I think 9 out of 10 thieves would tell you that they think it's just plain rude of prospective victims to fight back.

Responding with force is likewise not always safe. The baseball-bat user was lucky the individual he struck didn't have a gun. Conversely, the erstwhile thief was lucky the baseball bat was the weapon used against him rather than a gun.

I agree that striking the man while he was down probably constitutes excessive force, but that would depend on what the bat-wielder saw -- the man on the floor may have been reaching for a firearm, or giving the appearance of such an action, in which case the man with the bat perceived that he was only forestalling a potentially fatal escalation of force.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Two men are accused of beating a criminal

Two men are accused of beating a criminal

Re: Two men are accused of beating a criminal

Re: Two men are accused of beating a criminal

Re: Two men are accused of beating a criminal