"Man has no regrets defending Oklahoma City pharmacy"

imported post

Caution Here. We are getting all of our information from the "general media" and we know how "accurate" and "trustworthy" they are.

I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

imported post

Yeah, but the most information I need is the video showing two thugs in masks coming into the store waving a big friggin gun in the pharmacists face.... that's it... after that, it's elementary. Shoot the little buggers... make sure they're dead so they can't pull out a weapon and shoot you. Dead people cannot pull triggers. Its sad that a 16 year old and a 14 year old chose to commit armed robbery... basically a death sentence if they come face to face with an armed citizen like they did. I only wish that every punk armed robber would get killed in their attempted armed robbery. It would save our country a hell of a lot of money in prison time... I mean, 16 years old... probably end up spending 30 years or more of his life in prison at around 60,000 per year... hell, a gun owner just saved Oklahoma City a cool 1.8 million dollars.... they should give him an award or the keys to the City.

imported post

Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:

Yeah, but the most information I need is the video showing two thugs in masks coming into the store waving a big friggin gun in the pharmacists face.... that's it... after that, it's elementary. Shoot the little buggers... make sure they're dead so they can't pull out a weapon and shoot you. Dead people cannot pull triggers. Its sad that a 16 year old and a 14 year old chose to commit armed robbery... basically a death sentence if they come face to face with an armed citizen like they did. I only wish that every punk armed robber would get killed in their attempted armed robbery. It would save our country a hell of a lot of money in prison time... I mean, 16 years old... probably end up spending 30 years or more of his life in prison at around 60,000 per year... hell, a gun owner just saved Oklahoma City a cool 1.8 million dollars.... they should give him an award or the keys to the City.

Click to expand...

Agree with all of this. "Don't start nothin', won't be nothin'"

imported post

Even after watching the video we have NO idea what this man saw, he is a war vet and is getting smeared probably because of racial pressure.

For all we know this man saw the kid reaching for something and decided not to take a chance.

Or he mercifily ended his life

Or he told him to "&^%# off" and boom

either way the kid was an idiot and got what he deserved, screw the "we can reabilitate him" liberal crap, how's THAT working out?

imported post

My family owns a business. So this story puts a smile on my face. Not to laugh at anothers pain. This man had the right to shoot that thug as many times as he felt he needed to. Not only to assure this maggot didn't get up but also to assure the safety of his fellow workers.Armed robbers are the same as unarmed robbers. They are robbers.Defend your life your business and your family and your a criminal. This reminds me of the situation in the United Kingdom. Pretty soon the only people who will be armed in this country are the bad guys and the really bad guys. I say kill them before they kill you. The lines are getting soblurry between the authorities and the bad guys I think we should justcall a spade a spade. And what will you do when this type ofthing happens to you and you become a political prisoner?:cuss:

imported post

What happened to "don't shoot to kill, shoot to end the threat"? The key here is we don't know what was occurring off camera, so therefore I'm willing to give the war vet the benefit of the doubt. That said, I am truly nauseated by all the rhetoric on here that says the kids deserved to die. It's just not the case- they deserved to be stopped!

The man had a right to defend his life. PERIOD! If the perpetrators died in the process, sad but they made the choice. If the perpetrators could be stopped without the taking of life, then he had a moral and legal obligation to stop. Beyond that you're no better than the criminal!

imported post

Well when I go to the range I am practicing for a real life encounter with a bad guy. In a real life situation though things become different. I believe this man did what he thought was best to take out thethreat. Its just too bad he didn't take out the one who had the gun and pointed it at innocent people. Why send thugs to prison when we can send them to meet their maker? Kill two birds with one bullet.

imported post

I would also like to add. When perps die it isn't sad. Not to me. What gets me choked up is the thought of what may of happened if that man didn't have his gun that day. Thats what makes me sad. This story could of had a sad ending. Instead it reminded us why we need to be armed. And also why we need a good lawyer.



When seconds count. Your being shot at. Your being raped. Your being killed. Your children are in danger. Call us. We are only minutes away.

imported post

I don't think I would have conducted myself as this man did....but, I am not the one that's life was put in danger. He protected both himself and others, for that I commend him.

Would I have done something different, I would like to think so...but I have little interest in Monday morning quarterbacking him into the ground. It is just too easy for one to do that from safety.



No battle plan ever survives contact with the enemy. —Field Marshall Helmuth Carl Bernard von Moltke

imported post

Dahwg wrote:

What happened to "don't shoot to kill, shoot to end the threat"? The key here is we don't know what was occurring off camera, so therefore I'm willing to give the war vet the benefit of the doubt. That said, I am truly nauseated by all the rhetoric on here that says the kids deserved to die. It's just not the case- they deserved to be stopped!

The man had a right to defend his life. PERIOD! If the perpetrators died in the process, sad but they made the choice. If the perpetrators could be stopped without the taking of life, then he had a moral and legal obligation to stop. Beyond that you're no better than the criminal!

Click to expand...

Yes, so they could serve as little time as possible because of politically correct prosecutors feeling sorry for 16 and 14year olds... only send them to juvenile correctional facilities to become even more dangerous criminals. Then, when they're released at 18, they go out and rob someone who doesn't have a gun and kill them. The little criminals who should have been dead at their first encounter with a citizen with a gun, instead lived to kill two or five more people... yeah... great idea... a bunch of whiny liberal crap is what that is... you cannot rehabilitate these punks... killing them is the best for everyone. You have the moral obligation to make sure armed robbers are dead.

imported post

Here is my proof that letting punks live after they threaten to kill you means you or someone else will likely die. I think that if gangbangers threaten to kill you... you should have the right to kill them first. Obviously the police are useless in this situation... and if you shoot the gangbangers... you most likely won't have to plant weapons since they all carry knives or guns.

Want to end up like these stories?

http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2009/05/man-found-slain-at-convenience-store.html

Had he killed them when they threatened his life... he might still be alive today...

http://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/2009/01/store_owner_killed_in_robbery.html

Punks that might have been killed by a civilian had the law supported killing criminals who threaten your life.

http://www.mycentraljersey.com/article/20090319/STATE/90319011/0/NEWS

What do you want to bet the shooter is a kid in his late teens or early twenties? Letting these punks live means you're condemning someone else to death at their hands.

http://www.news10.net/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=59523

From the article "Detectives questioned Sergio before arresting and booking him into the county jail on burglary and violating probation charges." and what were they on probation for... "Sacramento County court records show both Vincent and Sergio Arauza were currently on probation for burglary." Repeat offenders... hmmm, wonder if they would have escalated to armed robbery... or at least armed themselves for their burglaries.

http://www.officer.com/web/online/Officer-Down-News/California-Deputy-Shot--Killed-by-Parolee/2846

Yes, another case of a parolee killing someone... the parolee couldn't have killed that officer if he was DEAD!

Do I need to post more stories of shop owners being killed... and proof that parolees usually go back to crime and worse... kill people?

If they're robbing you... make sure they're dead. Kill them. You're stopping all future threats that person will very likely be a part of. Killing them is stopping the threat once and for all.

http://www.nytimes.com/1992/05/29/us/michigan-parolee-says-he-killed-4-teen-age-girls.html

And finally, had just one of his first rape victims had a gun, and killed him... 4 girls would be alive today... or do you think sex offenders can be rehabilitated? I don't. Pedophiles almost always re-offend... as do rapists... I say let women kill the men who would rape them... it would end up saving many lives.

imported post

Good information. Me and the wife just moved from Seattle about 6 months ago. I was so suprised how guns were excepted and my favorite range was in Bellevue. I kinda feel just as at home here too cause lots of people are shooters here. And you know most people here own guns. Especially out on the local farms. Dial911 and wait. Or dial your gun safe. Your choice.

imported post

"Accepted."
Not "excepted."

imported post

I think there is one thing that more than a few people are forgetting here....We are NOT Judge, Jury, and Executioner. We sit here and talk about how unfairly we are treated sometimes by LEOs for lawfully carrying handguns, lest we forget that carrying that gun weighs a HUGE responsibility. I'll agree that the initial shooting is justified, and I will also agree that none of us can see in the video footage what the BG was doing when the man walked back to him and shot him 5 more times! If the BG did have a gun and aiming it at him, then yes by all means it is also justified. If not, he will be hard pressed to prove he was still being threatened.

Please remember....IF you ever have to shoot....you shoot to STOP the immediate threat! No more than that! Anymore than that is vigilante, that we are not. If the BG is no longer a threat to you or anyone else around you, you would not be justified in shooting him again.

As far as weak judges, savvy lawyers, and jurys not having much choice as far as the laws being what they are, I agree 100%. We need hard-nosed judges that will uphold the laws and not be so leiniant, more severe punishment for crimes commited....period, and change the laws so jurys can make the right moral and well as legal judgements. Lets not forget Law Enforcement, lets help them when possible, and make sure they are getting the job done right, so the BGs don't get off or get their sentence reduced because of a "technicality".

We have all seen too many times when LE has taken things too far, over-reacted, and taken the law into their own hands. At the same time WE cannot expect them to hold high standards if we don't ourselves.

imported post

MarlboroLts5150 wrote:

I think there is one thing that more than a few people are forgetting here....We are NOT Judge, Jury, and Executioner. We sit here and talk about how unfairly we are treated sometimes by LEOs for lawfully carrying handguns, lest we forget that carrying that gun weighs a HUGE responsibility. I'll agree that the initial shooting is justified, and I will also agree that none of us can see in the video footage what the BG was doing when the man walked back to him and shot him 5 more times! If the BG did have a gun and aiming it at him, then yes by all means it is also justified. If not, he will be hard pressed to prove he was still being threatened.

Please remember....IF you ever have to shoot....you shoot to STOP the immediate threat! No more than that! Anymore than that is vigilante, that we are not. If the BG is no longer a threat to you or anyone else around you, you would not be justified in shooting him again.

As far as weak judges, savvy lawyers, and jurys not having much choice as far as the laws being what they are, I agree 100%. We need hard-nosed judges that will uphold the laws and not be so leiniant, more severe punishment for crimes commited....period, and change the laws so jurys can make the right moral and well as legal judgements. Lets not forget Law Enforcement, lets help them when possible, and make sure they are getting the job done right, so the BGs don't get off or get their sentence reduced because of a "technicality".

We have all seen too many times when LE has taken things too far, over-reacted, and taken the law into their own hands. At the same time WE cannot expect them to hold high standards if we don't ourselves.

Click to expand...

Sorry, but that is a load of crap. Vigilantes go out hunting down criminals... when they come into your home or your business and threaten you with a gun... killing them does NOT make you a vigilante. Just the fact that you'd even say that crap is unforgivable. We're not forming posses to go out and hunt down robbers. We're not becoming lynch mobs stringing up suspected robbers... we're only talking about when they're in your home or your business and are partaking in a robbery.

My standards are "How was my grouping?" Other than that... anyone invades my home or business with the intent to rob me is going to die. I will not let them live... especially because I have no idea if there is anyone else with them or if the threat could escalate... one or two live perps you might be able to handle... but what if more join the crowd... and they're armed too? Well, if you had killed the first group... you'll have a better chance of surviving the second group.

Again, let me repeat... calling an armed citizen defending themselves in their home or business a vigilante is disgusting and completely wrong... You want to know what a vigilante is... read about the Subway Vigilante of New York... he went looking for trouble... that is vigilantism.

imported post

I'm thinking that if I ever found myself as a clerk at a convenience store that I'd invest in some body armor and a short-barreled shotgun. I'd rather be a living "murderer" than a dead "hero".

I'll reserve judgment on the pharmacist till more details come out. It certainly is an interesting case though. I'm thinking he'll win his case though, it is dead robber vs living victim. The video shows that young man helping to rob the victim but it does not show anything relating to his actions after he is shot. It shows the pharmacist reloading and walking over and apparently shooting into the wounded robber.

So what's the jury to do based on the evidence (as it has been revealed so far)? Convict a man who was robbed and defended himself with murder based on a video that does not show the robber's actions at the time of his death? I think not.

Whether the young man deserved to die or not doesn't matter, he shouldn't haved expected too rob someone and not face dire consequences up to and including termination.

imported post

Thankyou for the spelling correction.

imported post

Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:

MarlboroLts5150 wrote:

I think there is one thing that more than a few people are forgetting here....We are NOT Judge, Jury, and Executioner. We sit here and talk about how unfairly we are treated sometimes by LEOs for lawfully carrying handguns, lest we forget that carrying that gun weighs a HUGE responsibility. I'll agree that the initial shooting is justified, and I will also agree that none of us can see in the video footage what the BG was doing when the man walked back to him and shot him 5 more times! If the BG did have a gun and aiming it at him, then yes by all means it is also justified. If not, he will be hard pressed to prove he was still being threatened.

Please remember....IF you ever have to shoot....you shoot to STOP the immediate threat! No more than that! Anymore than that is vigilante, that we are not. If the BG is no longer a threat to you or anyone else around you, you would not be justified in shooting him again.

As far as weak judges, savvy lawyers, and jurys not having much choice as far as the laws being what they are, I agree 100%. We need hard-nosed judges that will uphold the laws and not be so leiniant, more severe punishment for crimes commited....period, and change the laws so jurys can make the right moral and well as legal judgements. Lets not forget Law Enforcement, lets help them when possible, and make sure they are getting the job done right, so the BGs don't get off or get their sentence reduced because of a "technicality".

We have all seen too many times when LE has taken things too far, over-reacted, and taken the law into their own hands. At the same time WE cannot expect them to hold high standards if we don't ourselves.

Click to expand...

Sorry, but that is a load of crap. Vigilantes go out hunting down criminals... when they come into your home or your business and threaten you with a gun... killing them does NOT make you a vigilante. Just the fact that you'd even say that crap is unforgivable. We're not forming posses to go out and hunt down robbers. We're not becoming lynch mobs stringing up suspected robbers... we're only talking about when they're in your home or your business and are partaking in a robbery.

My standards are "How was my grouping?" Other than that... anyone invades my home or business with the intent to rob me is going to die. I will not let them live... especially because I have no idea if there is anyone else with them or if the threat could escalate... one or two live perps you might be able to handle... but what if more join the crowd... and they're armed too? Well, if you had killed the first group... you'll have a better chance of surviving the second group.

Again, let me repeat... calling an armed citizen defending themselves in their home or business a vigilante is disgusting and completely wrong... You want to know what a vigilante is... read about the Subway Vigilante of New York... he went looking for trouble... that is vigilantism.

Click to expand...

You really need to reread my post friend. 1) I never called the man, or any armed person protecting themselves a vigilante....my point is "you shoot to STOP the immediate threat! No more than that! Any more than that is vigilante, that we are not. If the BG is no longer a threat to you or anyone else around you, you would not be justified in shooting him again" .......

"none of us can see in the video footage what the BG was doing when the man walked back to him and shot him 5 more times! If the BG did have a gun and aiming it at him, then yes by all means it is also justified. If not, he will be hard pressed to prove he was still being threatened"

If the BG still had a gun, then by all means YES he is justified in shooting him again, I haven't been able to find any article on this yet thats states the BG he shot was armed, I can only assume that he was at this point. Look up the definition for vigilante......

": a member of a volunteer committee organized to suppress and punish crime summarily (as when the processes of law are viewed as inadequate)

; broadly : a self-appointed doer of justice (Merriam-Webster Online)

The point I am making is that WE are not judges, or lawyers, or LE. I am not judging the mans actions, merely pointing out what I observed in the video footage, and forming an opinion on what I saw, nothing more.

imported post

MarlboroLts5150 wrote:

Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:

MarlboroLts5150 wrote:

I think there is one thing that more than a few people are forgetting here....We are NOT Judge, Jury, and Executioner. We sit here and talk about how unfairly we are treated sometimes by LEOs for lawfully carrying handguns, lest we forget that carrying that gun weighs a HUGE responsibility. I'll agree that the initial shooting is justified, and I will also agree that none of us can see in the video footage what the BG was doing when the man walked back to him and shot him 5 more times! If the BG did have a gun and aiming it at him, then yes by all means it is also justified. If not, he will be hard pressed to prove he was still being threatened.

Please remember....IF you ever have to shoot....you shoot to STOP the immediate threat! No more than that! Anymore than that is vigilante, that we are not. If the BG is no longer a threat to you or anyone else around you, you would not be justified in shooting him again.

As far as weak judges, savvy lawyers, and jurys not having much choice as far as the laws being what they are, I agree 100%. We need hard-nosed judges that will uphold the laws and not be so leiniant, more severe punishment for crimes commited....period, and change the laws so jurys can make the right moral and well as legal judgements. Lets not forget Law Enforcement, lets help them when possible, and make sure they are getting the job done right, so the BGs don't get off or get their sentence reduced because of a "technicality".

We have all seen too many times when LE has taken things too far, over-reacted, and taken the law into their own hands. At the same time WE cannot expect them to hold high standards if we don't ourselves.

Click to expand...

Sorry, but that is a load of crap. Vigilantes go out hunting down criminals... when they come into your home or your business and threaten you with a gun... killing them does NOT make you a vigilante. Just the fact that you'd even say that crap is unforgivable. We're not forming posses to go out and hunt down robbers. We're not becoming lynch mobs stringing up suspected robbers... we're only talking about when they're in your home or your business and are partaking in a robbery.

My standards are "How was my grouping?" Other than that... anyone invades my home or business with the intent to rob me is going to die. I will not let them live... especially because I have no idea if there is anyone else with them or if the threat could escalate... one or two live perps you might be able to handle... but what if more join the crowd... and they're armed too? Well, if you had killed the first group... you'll have a better chance of surviving the second group.

Again, let me repeat... calling an armed citizen defending themselves in their home or business a vigilante is disgusting and completely wrong... You want to know what a vigilante is... read about the Subway Vigilante of New York... he went looking for trouble... that is vigilantism.

Click to expand...

You really need to reread my post friend. 1) I never called the man, or any armed person protecting themselves a vigilante....my point is "you shoot to STOP the immediate threat! No more than that! Any more than that is vigilante, that we are not. If the BG is no longer a threat to you or anyone else around you, you would not be justified in shooting him again" .......

"none of us can see in the video footage what the BG was doing when the man walked back to him and shot him 5 more times! If the BG did have a gun and aiming it at him, then yes by all means it is also justified. If not, he will be hard pressed to prove he was still being threatened"

If the BG still had a gun, then by all means YES he is justified in shooting him again, I haven't been able to find any article on this yet thats states the BG he shot was armed, I can only assume that he was at this point. Look up the definition for vigilante......

": a member of a volunteer committee organized to suppress and punish crime summarily (as when the processes of law are viewed as inadequate)

; broadly : a self-appointed doer of justice (Merriam-Webster Online)

The point I am making is that WE are not judges, or lawyers, or LE. I am not judging the mans actions, merely pointing out what I observed in the video footage, and forming an opinion on what I saw, nothing more.

Click to expand...

So you're saying that if I kill a man who's in my home at night with a mask on and armed with whatever... that I'm a vigilante? Who makes the decision that the person is no longer a threat? You? Or some idiot liberal who thinks that four time Murderers like 'Tookie Williams' can be Rehabilitated or should be allowed to live??? In any situation where they came into my home or my business... I make the decision when they are no longer a threat... and to me, a robber is no longer a threat when he's dead.

I looked up the definition and none of those describe a person who's minding their own business when all of a sudden, armed criminals burst into their home or business threatening the owner's life... Read the definition... vigilantes go out seeking criminals on whom they intend to deliver justice. Someone defending their property and life is not a vigilante.

Your continued desire to label these people vigilantes is disgusting and un-American... you sir are a sick individual.

imported post

"Your continued desire to label these people vigilantes is disgusting and un-American... you sir are a sick individual."

Well, I can see right now we are just going to have to agree to disagree. You are more than entitled to your opinion, as am I, and everyone else here.

I will state, "for the record", one more time......I am not labeling him, or anyone for that matter, a vigilante. The story and the footage available doesn't show what the BG on the ground was doing or if he had or still had a gun, plain and simple. The only point I am making isIF the BG is no longer a threat, ie.....has a gun or something else and is still capable of hurting you (a THREAT), than it is not justifiable to shoot him again! That is acting as a vigilante. If the BG IS still a threat, then by all means...BLAST AWAY!

You know as well as I do, that if you're involved in a shooting and you kill someone, you must be able to justify your actions, just as any LEO or anyone else would have to. And for the record, I hope he is justified and let go.

I am a "sick individual" for having an opinion? Who's attacking who here?