Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 58

Thread: Who's right? Who's Wrong? Either? Both? None of the above?

  1. #1
    Regular Member Gil223's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Weber County Utah
    Posts
    1,428

    Who's right? Who's Wrong? Either? Both? None of the above?

    Here's a video-clip from KHOU-TV, taken from a security camera at a convenience store in Houston TX. Somebody assaulted the store clerk. That assault was countered with a well-place shot to the abdomen. The two "armed" associates outside were (apparently) out of range of the security camera during the entire incident (we do not see the gun or the shot being fired, either). The black community is outraged over the shooting since the shooter was white. Would there be a similar outrage if the clerk had also been black? I don't think so...
    http://www.khou.com/news/local/-Surv...181127601.html
    How about if the clerk had been black and the assaulter white? Who would get the blame from the black community then? Pax...
    Last edited by Gil223; 11-30-2012 at 06:00 PM.
    MOLON LABE
    COUNTRY FIRST
    Glocks ROCK!

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    210

    Re: Who's right? Who's Wrong? Either? Both? None of the above?

    Quote Originally Posted by Gil223 View Post
    Here's a video-clip from KHOU-TV, taken from a security camera at a convenience store in Houston TX. Somebody assaulted the store clerk. That assault was countered with a well-place shot to the abdomen. The two "armed" associates outside were (apparently) out of range of the security camera during the entire incident (we do not see the gun or the shot being fired, either). The black community is outraged over the shooting since the shooter was white. Would there be a similar outrage if the clerk had also been black? I don't think so...
    http://www.khou.com/news/local/-Surv...181127601.html
    How about if the clerk had been black and the assaulter white? Who would get the blame from the black community then? Pax...
    I would have shot him.

    Actually, no I wouldn't. I would never have stepped outside if they were out there...

    Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2
    Last edited by Anonymouse; 11-30-2012 at 06:03 PM.

  3. #3
    Regular Member compmanio365's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pierce County, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,013
    Laws change, and I think we all know that just because something is the LAW, doesn't make it RIGHT. My personal belief on what is RIGHT, is that good and moral people don't go around placing their hands on other people, period. And if you do, all applicable force should be available to the victim to stop you from furthering that attack. Just because someone doesn't have a weapon doesn't mean I should sit there and get my a** handed to me in an unprovoked attack.

    Oh, and of course the black community is outraged. Just like they are about Trayvon Martin, just like they are anytime someone has the audacity to defend themselves against a black person attacking somebody else. Cue Jesse Jackson ranting and Obama saying "If I had a son, he'd be just like that boy at the store in Texas". Every action against them, even when justified, is "racism". You should just sit there and let them beat and kill you for the change in your pocket cause you sure don't want to be a "racist".
    Last edited by compmanio365; 11-30-2012 at 06:58 PM.

  4. #4
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Evaluate the shooting in terms of AOJ/I: Ability, Opportunity, Jeopardy/Intent. Include clean hands and disparity of force.

    Since the video is cut short, we can't tell for sure, but just going on what the video and story show:

    I'm betting the clerk gave up his mantle of innocence by unlocking the door--I'm betting he unlocked the door to contribute to the difficulty, not defuse or de-escalate.

    The punch to the jaw didn't knock him down (gotta admire the stoutness of that lad) or out.

    Mr. Puncher wasn't there for a beat down. He even backs up and drops his hands after the punch. As though to await the clerk's response. Had Puncher been interested in administering a beat down he would have laid into the clerk. In fact, it kinda looks like the punch might have been intended as a provocation, "Come on, lets fight."

    This looks like a fist-fight settled with a gun. I'm thinking the clerk used the gun to punch back, rather than use his fist or disengage.

    Based on the info so far, I'm gonna say bad shoot.


    ETA: Be sure to watch the whole video--just suffer through the bad journalism. At the very end the reporter passes along the info that the shooter said he was fearful of the punchers two companions who had guns. I'm not sure I quite accept that. Although I can see someone standing at a door and arguing with strangers known to be armed, I don't quite see opening the door if you foresaw the possibility of a gunfight. I'd be getting the heck away from the door, myself. Not opening it.
    Last edited by Citizen; 11-30-2012 at 07:21 PM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    210

    Re: Who's right? Who's Wrong? Either? Both? None of the above?

    Quote Originally Posted by compmanio365 View Post

    Oh, and of course the black community is outraged. Just like they are about Trayvon Martin, just like they are anytime someone has the audacity to defend themselves against a black person attacking somebody else. Cue Jesse Jackson ranting and Obama saying "If I had a son, he'd be just like that boy at the store in Texas". Every action against them, even when justified, is "racism". You should just sit there and let them beat and kill you for the change in your pocket cause you sure don't want to be a "racist".
    Look at the comments . Quite a few black people siding with the clerk.

    Might want to wat h your generalizations there...

    Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    210

    Re: Who's right? Who's Wrong? Either? Both? None of the above?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ca Patriot View Post
    The video doesnt show the entire situation and the reporting doesnt give the entire account either. However......

    I think the store employee used poor judgement but I think he was justified in the shooting.

    Also, the black man in a suit talking about "respect" is a well known black panther who has previously called for blacks to kill white people and kill jews.
    Anyone changing their name to whatever X in the last 20 years is automatically suspect.

    Why did the clerk go outside though???


    Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

  7. #7
    Regular Member Gil223's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Weber County Utah
    Posts
    1,428
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    Evaluate the shooting in terms of AOJ/I: Ability, Opportunity, Jeopardy/Intent. Include clean hands and disparity of force.

    Since the video is cut short, we can't tell for sure, but just going on what the video and story show:

    I'm betting the clerk gave up his mantle of innocence by unlocking the door--I'm betting he unlocked the door to contribute to the difficulty, not defuse or de-escalate.

    The punch to the jaw didn't knock him down (gotta admire the stoutness of that lad) or out.

    Mr. Puncher wasn't there for a beat down. He even backs up and drops his hands after the punch. As though to await the clerk's response. Had Puncher been interested in administering a beat down he would have laid into the clerk. In fact, it kinda looks like the punch might have been intended as a provocation, "Come on, lets fight."

    This looks like a fist-fight settled with a gun. I'm thinking the clerk used the gun to punch back, rather than use his fist or disengage.

    Based on the info so far, I'm gonna say bad shoot.


    ETA: Be sure to watch the whole video--just suffer through the bad journalism. At the very end the reporter passes along the info that the shooter said he was fearful of the punchers two companions who had guns. I'm not sure I quite accept that. Although I can see someone standing at a door and arguing with strangers known to be armed, I don't quite see opening the door if you foresaw the possibility of a gunfight. I'd be getting the heck away from the door, myself. Not opening it.
    We're pretty-much in agreement there, Citizen. Unlocking the door was a very bad decision (as opposed to an overt criminal act), and was the gateway to further escalating the confrontation. Was opening the door intentionally designed to provide the clerk with an opportunity to use his gun? Only one person knows the true answer to that... and, if he's half-smart, he ain't sayin'.
    Not opening the door, retreating from the doorway (yet still keeping an eye on it), gaining concealment (assuming no real cover was available), and calling 911 would have been my approach. Then, 30 minutes later when HPD officer(s) showed up, I would (perhaps) be alive to give them a description of the armed miscreants.
    It doesn't appear to be a "righteous shoot", but we've all made bad decisions in our lives... unfortunately, this one resulted in a shooting.
    Arrest him? I dunno about that. He may have been hypersensitive to the presence of guns outside, since he was "shot in the leg last year" during a store robbery, which may have been the driving force behind the trigger pull. The report didn't make it clear (to me, anyway) whether he noticed the gunmen before or after he opened the door. If before - he must have been painfully stupid to open the door. If after - he may have seen himself as trapped, and made a split-second decision to shoot his way out of the trap, simply based upon last year's experience.
    To my way of thinking this shooting requires something much greater than a superficial investigation, but far short of a Congressional Hearing. Pax...
    MOLON LABE
    COUNTRY FIRST
    Glocks ROCK!

  8. #8
    Regular Member EMNofSeattle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    S. Kitsap, Washington state
    Posts
    3,763
    Well, the cops have fingered this as justifiable, and I (naturally ) side with them...

    it may have been bad judgement for the kid to open the door, but bad judgement doesn't mean the victim deserves to be attacked. thats like saying a woman who's raped after being pulled off the sidewalk on a college grounds where she could've called a security escort is at fault for her assault because she was walking alone at night, sure walking alone at night is inherently dangerous in several areas, but that in NO WAY WHATSOEVER means a victim is responsible for their own assault. and it certainly doesn't mean one fofeits their right to defend themselves

    Calloway had thrown the punch, so maybe he wasn't beating people down, but he did strike an individual, closed fist, on the head. head injuries can be serious, the fact that calloway decided to escalate a verbal argument into a punch shows he's capable of undue violence. maybe opening the door was a bad decision, but now that it was open what was to stop callo from entering the store and continuing his assault?

    maybe the clerk made bad or shady decisions, but that's irrelevant, all that matters is, was it reasonable for the clerk to expect death or grave bodily harm if the felonious assault by callo was allowed to continue? I say.... Yes it was reasonable.
    Last edited by EMNofSeattle; 11-30-2012 at 08:54 PM.
    they love our milk and honey, but they preach about some other way of living, when they're running down my country man they're walkin' on the fightin side of me

    NRA Member

  9. #9
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,915
    "First, be innocent of instigation."

    “I’m just hurt,” said Allexander Calloway. “He didn’t have to shoot my son. He didn’t have to shoot my son.”
    Yeah, well your son didn't have to physically assault someone, so um... Eff him.

  10. #10
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by EMNofSeattle View Post
    Well, the cops have fingered this as justifiable, and I (naturally ) side with them...

    it may have been bad judgement for the kid to open the door, but bad judgement doesn't mean the victim deserves to be attacked. thats like saying a woman who's raped after being pulled off the sidewalk on a college grounds where she could've called a security escort is at fault for her assault because she was walking alone at night, sure walking alone at night is inherently dangerous in several areas, but that in NO WAY WHATSOEVER means a victim is responsible for their own assault. and it certainly doesn't mean one fofeits their right to defend themselves

    Calloway had thrown the punch, so maybe he wasn't beating people down, but he did strike an individual, closed fist, on the head. head injuries can be serious, the fact that calloway decided to escalate a verbal argument into a punch shows he's capable of undue violence. maybe opening the door was a bad decision, but now that it was open what was to stop callo from entering the store and continuing his assault?

    maybe the clerk made bad or shady decisions, but that's irrelevant, all that matters is, was it reasonable for the clerk to expect death or grave bodily harm if the felonious assault by callo was allowed to continue? I say.... Yes it was reasonable.
    I say it wasn't. What we see on the video is that the puncher clearly did not follow up. He actually backed up and lowered his hands, rather than raise them. Although punches to the head can cause grave bodily injury, this one didn't--the shooter stays not only conscious, but upright, and doesn't even sway or stagger. There is no report of a broken jaw, etc. It is purely speculative that the assault might continue. Insofar as the assault stopped with one punch any further punching would be a new assault for the purposes of figuring out whether the shooter could respond differently.

    The shooter's bad decisions are far from irrelevant. Whatever the argument, it started before the door was unlocked. The shooter is not free from having contributed to the difficulty.

    I am unconvinced by the police determination that the shooting was justified. I have little or no expectation for them to know the legal fine points on lawful lethal force as applied to citizens.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  11. #11
    Regular Member MKEgal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    in front of my computer, WI
    Posts
    4,426
    Quote Originally Posted by EMNofSeattle
    sure walking alone at night is inherently dangerous in several areas, but that in NO WAY WHATSOEVER means a victim is responsible for their own assault.
    Someone circle this day on the calendar. EMN & I agree on something.

  12. #12
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Regardless of anything else - why would someone go from a place of relative safety to a place of relative risk. Stay behind a counter behind a locked door, with a phone in my hand, or go outside unarmed and engage with one or more persons who appear to be upset and wanting to express that towards me personally? Let me think about that for a moment.

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  13. #13
    Regular Member hjmoosejaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    N.W. Pa.
    Posts
    406
    Note to self: If you punch somebody in the face, you may be shot................. That's not so hard to remember.
    watch your top knot !

  14. #14
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by Ca Patriot View Post
    The video cuts out before you can see what happens after the punch.

    Punches to the head that result in serious injury often dont produce symptons for hours. By the time a victim is suffering from symptons its often too late.
    If you argue that, you arguing for retaliation, not prevention.

    And, it still doesn't address the clerk not being free of contributing to the difficulty.

    But, I think the only way the discussion can go further is to see the whole video. Otherwise, we are just going to end up arguing suppositions endlessly. I am already making supposition that the clerk unlocked the door to continue an argument and confront the puncher. We can only add more suppositions from here. Or, just ignore the law on self-defense.

    Also, I should note that I am discussing the legality of the shooting. Not the presence or absence of moral justification. We should keep in mind that the elements of not contributing to the difficulty and being free from blame are artifices of the legal system designed to prevent a killer from provoking someone into assaulting him so he can kill, claiming self-defense, and getting away with it.
    Last edited by Citizen; 12-01-2012 at 01:18 AM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  15. #15
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Given the fact that the clerk has been shot before by members of the same community as they guy who punched him, I am siding with the clerk mostly.

    Now there is the whole we don't know what was being said or what was happening that the clerk felt that opening the door was the correct action.

    I would thing that a guy willing to throw a punch like that would be willing to break down doors to harm others, his body language after he struck the clerk, tells ME that we wanted to escalate the fight. Now it can be true that he backed away but that can be used to create a false impression.

    If someone wants to kill another person and make it look justified, hit him hard enough to hurt but not hard enough for a knock down. Back away and hope they swing at you. Now you can tell the police that he threw the first punch, you punched him back, he was coming in with another punch and so you shot/killed him in self defense.

    If someone wants to throw a punch at me like that one, I am not a fighter and I don't run fast. Yes, I will use my self defense tool(s).
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  16. #16
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    I'm working at a store, I have my firearm at my side, guy gets in my face, I'm shooting, even before he hits me, if I have the chance.

    If person has their sidearm at their side, and the individual still approaches, they are demanding to be shot.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    210

    Re: Who's right? Who's Wrong? Either? Both? None of the above?

    Quote Originally Posted by EMNofSeattle View Post
    sure walking alone at night is inherently dangerous in several areas, but that in NO WAY WHATSOEVER means a victim is responsible for their own assault.
    Everyone likes to say this, especially women's advocacy groups.

    I call BS. PC nonsense...

    If you put yourself in a bad spot you are absolutely responsible. Does this mean the criminal bears no responsibility? Absolutely not. Does this mean you forfeit any right to self defense? Absolutely not.

    However this is the real world. Actions have consequences and you need to be aware of them and accept responsibility for them.

    You walk in a bad neighborhood at night and get robbed, murdered, raped then it is your fault. Sure, its the criminals fault too but you are as responsible. What are yoy doing there?

    The common response to this is that you have the right to go anywhere and be safe. Imagine a zebra telling that to a lion. Lol.

    Should you be punished or vilified though for being a victim? Nope, hopefully you learned your lesson. Hopefully you lived and won't make that mistake again.

    Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2
    Last edited by Anonymouse; 12-01-2012 at 07:48 PM.

  18. #18
    Regular Member hjmoosejaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    N.W. Pa.
    Posts
    406
    The common response to this is that you have the right to go anywhere and be safe. Imagine a zebra telling that to a lion. Lol.
    Now imagine that same zebra armed.
    watch your top knot !

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    210

    Re: Who's right? Who's Wrong? Either? Both? None of the above?

    Quote Originally Posted by hjmoosejaw View Post
    Now imagine that same zebra armed.
    That's my point. People are absolutely responsible for their safety.

    Being armed is just one part. Situational awareness, not putting yourself in bad situations, not going outside a locked store to do whatever with hoods in Houston...

    Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2
    Last edited by Anonymouse; 12-01-2012 at 07:58 PM.

  20. #20
    Regular Member EMNofSeattle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    S. Kitsap, Washington state
    Posts
    3,763
    Quote Originally Posted by Anonymouse View Post
    Everyone likes to say this, especially women's advocacy groups.

    I call BS. PC nonsense...

    If you put yourself in a bad spot you are absolutely responsible. Does this mean the criminal bears no responsibility? Absolutely not. Does this mean you forfeit any right to self defense? Absolutely not.

    However this is the real world. Actions have consequences and you need to be aware of them and accept responsibility for them.

    You walk in a bad neighborhood at night and get robbed, murdered, raped then it is your fault. Sure, its the criminals fault too but you are as responsible. What are yoy doing there?

    The common response to this is that you have the right to go anywhere and be safe. Imagine a zebra telling that to a lion. Lol.

    Should you be punished or vilified though for being a victim? Nope, hopefully you learned your lesson. Hopefully you lived and won't make that mistake again.

    Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2
    Sir, please don't take this the wrong way......


    they love our milk and honey, but they preach about some other way of living, when they're running down my country man they're walkin' on the fightin side of me

    NRA Member

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    210

    Re: Who's right? Who's Wrong? Either? Both? None of the above?

    Quote Originally Posted by EMNofSeattle View Post
    Sir, please don't take this the wrong way......


    Not really. The lack of personal responsibility and the whining that invariably follows it will be the ultimate downfall of this country.

    I'd imagine that someone that gets into OC would be someone that held personal responsibility as a moral imperative.

    Shrug... You can deny responsibility all you want but responsibility cannot be abdicated sir.

    Eleanor Roosevelt said it better than I can.

    " One's philosophy is not best expressed in words; it is expressed in the choices one makes... and the choices we make are ultimately our responsibility."

    You choose to go into a bad situation then you must take responsibility for it. Natural selection doesn't make allowances for your silly notions but our gene pool does thank you.




    Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2
    Last edited by Anonymouse; 12-01-2012 at 08:15 PM.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    210

    Re: Who's right? Who's Wrong? Either? Both? None of the above?

    Better yet...

    "I want you to assume that you are 100 percent responsible for everything that goes on in your life—good or bad.”
    — Dr. Phil

    Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

  23. #23
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    One person (say, a criminal) bearing a huge responsibility for a situation (say, a crime) does not mean that no one else (say, the victim) bears any responsibility for the predictable consequences of their behavior (say, walking unarmed through a high-crime neighborhood).

    Responsibility means having the wherewithal to make choices and to deal with the outcomes, good or bad.

    If I were to choose to walk through such a high-crime neighborhood unarmed, then the natural consequence for exercising my responsibility so poorly would be serious injury or death combined with a large loss of personal property. Both I and the criminal would be responsible for what happened to me, except that his responsibility would be criminal as well as personal. Mine would only per personal. We both would suffer consequences. Mine would be natural consequences. His consequences (we hope) would be logical consequences, aka criminal penalties.

  24. #24
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by Anonymouse View Post
    Better yet...

    "I want you to assume that you are 100 percent responsible for everything that goes on in your life—good or bad.”
    — Dr. Phil

    Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2
    That's the best gotcha on this site in years. Way to turn the tables on someone making a poorly chosen jab.

    Who was responsible for your wildly successful retort? Him for setting himself up, or you for knocking him down?

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    210

    Re: Who's right? Who's Wrong? Either? Both? None of the above?

    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    Who was responsible for your wildly successful retort? Him for setting himself up, or you for knocking him down?
    Definitely me. If you don't know any better, like a young child, and get into a bad situation you are excused from responsibility due to ignorance and youth. At best you get a lesson.

    Not his fault, he couldn't have known any better. Lololol

    He knows now though. Lesson over...

    I jest. Please don't take that the wrong way sir.


    Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2
    Last edited by Anonymouse; 12-01-2012 at 08:50 PM.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •