that how we do it in alaska
The customer had no gun yet attacked a gunman with 2 guns, a knife and over 70 rounds.
The customer was shot, notice at the end of the video there is a dispute between the customer and the bank over compensation for the customers injuries.
Live Free or Die!
that how we do it in alaska
It's too bad this happened in California....most other places the law abiding citizen could have been armed and taken care of the problem quickly.
sarapalin wrote:No, in AK, you will have a loaded gun and can shoot the SOB. In CA, you get shot in the leg for your efforts.that how we do it in alaska
eye95 wrote:If your lucky, even if you don't get shot in the leg. The state will do its damnedest to send you to jail and make the criminal out to be the victim of racism.sarapalin wrote:No, in AK, you will have a loaded gun and can shoot the SOB. In CA, you get shot in the leg for your efforts.that how we do it in alaska
-I come in peace, I didn't bring artillery. But I am pleading with you with tears in my eyes: If you screw with me, I'll kill you all.
-Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet.
Marine General James Mattis,
Once upon a time, I tackled some ******* at my college that was chasing a friend of mine with a knife. He had the exact same complaint(I can't breath). I just told him to shut up and dug my knee into his chest a bit more.
The guy wasn't that big, he was smaller than me and I was one of, if not the biggest guy on campus and it was still very hard for me to get him down, let alone pinned. Ultimately the rest of the big guys should up and only then were we able to pin him. So basically it took three or four of the biggest men on campus to pin this guy. Thank God he didn't have a gun and his knife was in his pocket.
I'm not so sure I understand the tackler suing the bank....
Good job tackling, very heroic. Still don't understand the suit really...
Because he was injured!!
vegasche1023 wrote:Yep... and that was the chance he took when HE decided to act - however heroically! How is that the responsibility of the bank?Because he was injured!!
But, in the end, I live and therefore I am. I donít need any other personís permission to live or defend myself. I donít need anyoneís vetting of my intentions or sanity, nor approval for the self defense tool I choose or how I carry it.
I donít NEED to explain myself. I donít NEED any reasons at all.
MamaLiberty wrote:Oh, that one's easy.vegasche1023 wrote:Yep... and that was the chance he took when HE decided to act - however heroically! How is that the responsibility of the bank?Because he was injured!!
The bank has deep pockets, making anything that happens within a 10 mile radius their responsibility.
Thank you for the agreements hidden in sarcasm. I am in no way against the guy acting. I'm against him thinking the bank owes him something for it. Would it be nice of them? yes. Would it be possibly "morally" right? Maybe. Is it their legal obligation? Hell no.
I do believe somewhere in that video I heard something about the guy wearing "protection." So he may of had some type of body armor on.
I think the bank really owes him nothing, except maybe pay for his medical expenses. Would it be nice if they gave him some kind of reward? Well certainly! but they are not under any obligation, morally or otherwise. It was his decision to stop the criminal and he took it as HIS moral responsibility.
I don't think they even owe him medical bills.
That's not to say they can't pay them. They just don't "owe" them.
"Society" never pays for anything. When we allow ourselves to think of the nebulous "society" as being able to pay for things, we forget that what is really happening is that a powerful few are actually forcing other individuals to pay for it.
If a local community makes the policy decision to have the local taxpayers (not "society") pick up the tab for this man's medical bills, that would be great.
"Oh, that one's easy.
The bank has deep pockets, making anything that happens within a 10 mile radius their responsibility."
Well if the bank has a no weapons policy he could argue that being disarmed was the reason he was injured in the first place. Of course since its in CA that argument has less weight than if it had been in a state where the .gov isn't the one disarming people.
I would imagine the litigation has more to do with the fact that the security guard was out standing around by his car 200' feet away and how it placed an unnecessary risk an "theoretically" would have been able to avoid the situation altogether. I'd bet the word negligent is somewhere in that law suit.