PDA

View Full Version : Video: Looters spreading to neighboring towns, looters using guns to enter stores




orenbus
08-18-2014, 05:03 PM
Looters spreading to neighboring towns, compelling video of looters using guns to enter stores:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4UaIywvhvQU

Natural Citizen
08-18-2014, 05:18 PM
Well...I'd have to consider Rand Paul's position on this kind of thing. What he said was that "If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and fifty dollars in cash, I don’t care if a drone kills him or a policeman kills him…"

Anyone disagree?

tod evans
08-18-2014, 05:20 PM
Well...I'd have to consider Rand Paul's position on this kind of thing. What he said was that "If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and fifty dollars in cash, I don’t care if a drone kills him or a policeman kills him…"

Anyone disagree?

I'm not going to kill someone over 50 bucks...

But I wouldn't hesitate over trespassing.

specsaregood
08-18-2014, 05:38 PM
Well...I'd have to consider Rand Paul's position on this kind of thing. What he said was that "If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and fifty dollars in cash, I don’t care if a drone kills him or a policeman kills him…"

Anyone disagree?
You make yourself look uniformed when you keep repeating that quote as if it means something. You do realize Randal clarified what he meant by it yes? Although it was already obvious to those of us not constantly looking at every little statement in order to nitpick and turn into some meme.
Here you go incase you missed it:
http://www.paul.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=779


"My comments last night left the mistaken impression that my position on drones had changed.

"Let me be clear: it has not. Armed drones should not be used in normal crime situations. They may only be considered in extraordinary, lethal situations where there is an ongoing, imminent threat. I described that scenario previously during my Senate filibuster.

"Additionally, surveillance drones should only be used with warrants and specific targets.

"Fighting terrorism and capturing terrorists must be done while preserving our constitutional protections. This was demonstrated last week in Boston. As we all seek to prevent future tragedies, we must continue to bear this in mind."

He didn't mean that somebody shouldn't be allowed to surrender, he didn't mean that $50 is reason to kill somebody the amount is irrelevant. His point was the difference between an active threat and a potential threat. Yes a person that just robbed a store and is holding a gun is an active threat, if they proceed and fail to surrender then the police or whomever is in the right to kill them. I imagine he meant something like coming out of the liquor store and getting involved in a firefight. Somebody that might be planning to rob a liquor store in the future should not be killed just for the possibility.

Legend1104
08-18-2014, 05:50 PM
Thus is the true nature of man.

"Man must be disciplined, for he is by nature raw and wild."
Immanuel Kant

Legend1104
08-18-2014, 05:51 PM
This is the true purpose of the law summed up. It is meant to protect innocent men from the wild nature of man.

tangent4ronpaul
08-18-2014, 05:52 PM
Well...I'd have to consider Rand Paul's position on this kind of thing. What he said was that "If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and fifty dollars in cash, I don’t care if a drone kills him or a policeman kills him…"

Anyone disagree?

Breaking: Little league coach shot dead by police officer after cashing check at liquor store. The "perp" was walking back home from a ball game and had a bat in his possession... More at 11.

-t

Natural Citizen
08-18-2014, 06:19 PM
You make yourself look uniformed when you keep repeating that quote as if it means something. You do realize Randal clarified what he meant by it yes? Although it was already obvious to those of us not constantly looking at every little statement in order to nitpick and turn into some meme.
Here you go incase you missed it:
http://www.paul.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=779

He didn't mean that somebody shouldn't be allowed to surrender, he didn't mean that $50 is reason to kill somebody the amount is irrelevant. His point was the difference between an active threat and a potential threat. Yes a person that just robbed a store and is holding a gun is an active threat, if they proceed and fail to surrender then the police or whomever is in the right to kill them. I imagine he meant something like coming out of the liquor store and getting involved in a firefight. Somebody that might be planning to rob a liquor store in the future should not be killed just for the possibility.

Well...hm. Firstly, specsaregood, I don't do memes. In fact, I've explained my disdain for them and why I feel the way that I do about them many, many times in my history of participation in discussion here. And if I wanted to nitpick I'd choose something along the lines of his foreign policy.

But anyhow. Would you consider what is happening there in Ferguson (and now in neighboring communities) a "normal crime situation"? I wouldn't. In fact, I'd surmise that it certainly is an extraordinary situation. Do you not agree with this? We have the national guard there now as well as video and ground reports of people breaking into property by way of gun fire as well as citizens being shot by random gun fire. So can it not be assumed to be both an active threat as well as a potential threat?

phill4paul
08-18-2014, 06:42 PM
Well...I'd have to consider Rand Paul's position on this kind of thing. What he said was that "If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and fifty dollars in cash, I don’t care if a drone kills him or a policeman kills him…"

Anyone disagree?

I'd have to believe that someone coming out of a store with a weapon and $50 in cash is a well prepared business owner on his way to make a bank deposit. So I wouldn't want either a drone or a cop to shoot him.

NorthCarolinaLiberty
08-18-2014, 06:46 PM
This is the true purpose of the law summed up. It is meant to protect innocent men from the wild nature of man.

Except when you're talking about laws that are more about order and have nothing to do with law. Code is much more about order than law.

phill4paul
08-18-2014, 06:47 PM
Breaking: Little league coach shot dead by police officer after cashing check at liquor store. The "perp" was walking back home from a ball game and had a bat in his possession... More at 11.

-t

He was probably smoking pot and charged the police. This isn't a hill we should stand on......../s

Natural Citizen
08-18-2014, 06:47 PM
I'd have to believe that someone coming out of a store with a weapon and $50 in cash is a well prepared business owner on his way to make a bank deposit. So I wouldn't want either a drone or a cop to shoot him.


My thought was more along the lines of the police themselves with regard to their established and accepted model for judgment when met with these kinds of situations. After all, the entire globe is a so called "battle field" now. Right? I hear our elected ones remind us of this all of the time. Although ground reports have actually mentioned the use of drones there, this wasn't the premise for my thought on it. Of course, I couldn't just censor that part out of junior's quote because I'd be "nitpicking" as some in the hurry up and just try to get elected and the changing of the course of history be damned like to say.

TaftFan
08-18-2014, 06:48 PM
Business owners should just publicly flog them if they catch them.

DamianTV
08-18-2014, 06:53 PM
Well...I'd have to consider Rand Paul's position on this kind of thing. What he said was that "If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and fifty dollars in cash, I don’t care if a drone kills him or a policeman kills him…"

Anyone disagree?

First off, having a Gun is not a crime. It isnt even evidence of a crime, or is it intent to commit a crime. Having $50 bucks in cash is also not a crime. It depends on the circumstances as opposed to percieved threats. A guy Open Carrying can walk in and buy something and might get $50 in change. A guy running out of a liquor store waving a gun around and some cash wadded up in his hand is a better indication of a robbery.

In either case, unless the person with the gun is an immediate threat, like pointing a gun at someone showing intent and willingness to pull the trigger, minimum necessary force should be used, and death can be avoided in both situations. The Criminal still has a Right to a Fair Trial so that people in the first situation are not convicted of actual actions percieved in the second situation.

John Adams once said:

“It is more important that innocence be protected than it is that guilt be punished, for guilt and crimes are so frequent in this world that they cannot all be punished.

But if innocence itself is brought to the bar and condemned, perhaps to die, then the citizen will say, ‘whether I do good or whether I do evil is immaterial, for innocence itself is no protection,’ and if such an idea as that were to take hold in the mind of the citizen that would be the end of security whatsoever.”

What is on trial here (Trial by Media) is the Right to Bear Arms. The 2nd Amendment was not passed so thugs could hold up liquor stores. It was passed so the people could resist an oppressive government. The 4th Amendment was not added to protect all criminals from any form of prosecution, it was added because if you dig deep enough, someone will find some evidence of some act that can be used to condemn the average man to life in prison. Three felonies per day. The 4th also covers seizure of property without due process of Law. And a persons life, even if they have commited a crime, is still their property, thus, it is not to be taken from them without that due process. Accusations of Guilt are now treated as if they are Convictions by a Court, not that the Courts have a shred of decency in them what so ever. Innocent until proven Guilty has been replaced with any who want Rights are now Criminals. Everyone else should gladly give up every Right they have for only Criminals are the ones that need Rights as a means of excusing and justifying their intolerable behaviors.

pcosmar
08-18-2014, 06:57 PM
And none of these police departments can provide security or catch some of the armed looters.
I have seen several in the looting photos.

but they can stop any peaceful protesters.

I have to wonder who is running these gangs,, and if it is not police themselves. (or folks within the dept/government)

JK/SEA
08-18-2014, 06:59 PM
if i were a store owner, and that scenario happened, i'd give him some food stamps and a belt, and tell him to pull up his boots and get a job, then i would shoot him in the head and say allah akbar...go Packers, while i snorted another line of coke.

Natural Citizen
08-18-2014, 07:08 PM
First off, having a Gun is not a crime. It isnt even evidence of a crime, or is it intent to commit a crime. Having $50 bucks in cash is also not a crime. It depends on the circumstances as opposed to percieved threats. A guy Open Carrying can walk in and buy something and might get $50 in change. A guy running out of a liquor store waving a gun around and some cash wadded up in his hand is a better indication of a robbery.

In either case, unless the person with the gun is an immediate threat, like pointing a gun at someone showing intent and willingness to pull the trigger, minimum necessary force should be used, and death can be avoided in both situations. The Criminal still has a Right to a Fair Trial so that people in the first situation are not convicted of actual actions percieved in the second situation.

John Adams once said:

“It is more important that innocence be protected than it is that guilt be punished, for guilt and crimes are so frequent in this world that they cannot all be punished.

But if innocence itself is brought to the bar and condemned, perhaps to die, then the citizen will say, ‘whether I do good or whether I do evil is immaterial, for innocence itself is no protection,’ and if such an idea as that were to take hold in the mind of the citizen that would be the end of security whatsoever.”

What is on trial here (Trial by Media) is the Right to Bear Arms. The 2nd Amendment was not passed so thugs could hold up liquor stores. It was passed so the people could resist an oppressive government. The 4th Amendment was not added to protect all criminals from any form of prosecution, it was added because if you dig deep enough, someone will find some evidence of some act that can be used to condemn the average man to life in prison. Three felonies per day. The 4th also covers seizure of property without due process of Law. And a persons life, even if they have commited a crime, is still their property, thus, it is not to be taken from them without that due process. Accusations of Guilt are now treated as if they are Convictions by a Court, not that the Courts have a shred of decency in them what so ever. Innocent until proven Guilty has been replaced with any who want Rights are now Criminals. Everyone else should gladly give up every Right they have for only Criminals are the ones that need Rights as a means of excusing and justifying their intolerable behaviors.

Well, sure. I understand and agree with all of that. But we have the national guard there now. Military occupation. How soon do you think we'll be hearing msm refer to these people (both protestors and looters) as terrorists in order to justify occupation? And then you get what we've got going on over there in Ukraine.

Brian4Liberty
08-18-2014, 07:08 PM
Looters spreading to neighboring towns, compelling video of looters using guns to enter stores:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4UaIywvhvQU

The amount of helplessness displayed by these people is astounding. Who will help them? Who will defend them? Big Brother, Big Mommy and Big Daddy have been compassionately extorting protection money from them for so long they are helpless.

brushfire
08-18-2014, 07:18 PM
Someone told me that handgun ownership is the equivalent of taking a step back on the evolutionary social ladder.

I wonder what he considers armed looting? What rung does that fall on?

I also wonder if he's willing to offer his reasoning and logic abilities to the shop owners, who are the targets of these looters.

Dont get me wrong, everyone's entitled to their opinion, but why does the sh!t have to be going on in their own yard before people realize it can happen to them?

tangent4ronpaul
08-18-2014, 07:30 PM
Business owners should just publicly flog them if they catch them.

Stocks with a basket of rotting veggies in front of them are more effective...

-t