Security Guard kicks ass and takes name.

Recommended Videos

Stu35

New member
Aug 1, 2011
594
0
0
I'm in the military - we're not allowed to keep shooting when the enemy has dropped his weapon and begun to flee.

So why should some rent-a-cop get to do it?


Just curious...


wulf3n said:
Three armed men burst into an internet cafe with unknown intent and people here have the gall to criticise the security guard doing his job...classy escapist classy.
Meh...

He did do his job, but one could (and in Europe we probably would) argue that to continue shooting people in back as they run away is stepping over the mark somewhat.

However, there are different cultures at work - in the US, use of lethal force to protect property is allowed, wheras in the UK (and, I think, the rest of Western Europe), protection of human life is the only excuse.

Looking at that video, it would take a very good lawyer to try and prove that there was still a threat to human life after the robbers turned and ran - and no, simply being armed is not a credible threat once someone has begun to flee, there has to be evidence that they are retreating to take up another firing position (which, given the circumstances, is highly unlikely).


I'm not going to judge the Security Guard one way or the other. Simply point out that this is one of those occasions that I reckon the cultural differences between the United States and Europe is going to cause friction in this one - we're not so much for shooting people in the back as they run away.
 

jklinders

New member
Sep 21, 2010
945
0
0
Not even half a page before some dipshit turns this into a discussion about gun control. Good job internet, good job. We have gun control here in Canada. We also have gun crime. It's not a legal thing, it's a location and cultural thing. Stop bringing up your nation, culture and gun laws in relation to other nations, cultures and gun laws. They cannot be compared and it only makes you look like an ass to try.

OT

When 3 guys with ski masks run into the building you are assigned to protect and you have a sidearm you damn well draw and use it. Nobody rushes into a building in that manner and dress with innocent purpose and even if unarmed can represent a deadly threat if they get into touching distance. The guard did right both in foresight and hindsight.


 

LetalisK

New member
May 5, 2010
2,769
0
0
Well, it's good to see all the gun control debates bleeding out of the R&P forums. -_-

OT: He should have stopped firing when it became obvious they were fleeing. I don't particularly blame him for continuing to fire though, considering the stress and all.
 

runic knight

New member
Mar 26, 2011
1,118
0
0
SpectacularWebHead said:
Ultratwinkie said:
SpectacularWebHead said:
Ultratwinkie said:
Boudica said:
Luftwaffles said:
Boudica said:
Yet another reminder that the world is still full of barbarians and brainless brutes.
What would you have done?

If you were the security guard in question, trained in your job(guns and all)
I live in a country where security guards aren't trained to murder people and they don't sit around with deadly weapons.

They must be awful security guards then.

Security guards do a lot of things. They drive armored cars full of countless bills, the life blood of countless corporations, banks, and even governments. They are armed for a reason.

Yet whenever anyone tried to take the guns away, they refused to work. They didn't like the idea of being shot and having the car stolen just so politicians can jack off to the idea that guns somehow no longer exist.

Wow. What a wonderful idea that is. /sarcasm
They wouldn't be shot if you actually had some regulations about supplying the general public with deadly weaponry. You're missing the fact that all of america has fucked itself up by allowing all civilians the right to bear arms. Of course you can't take the guns away from security, because every other ************ is allowed a gun with very few questions asked. Take them away from your entire population as largely as you possibly can and we wouldn't have incidents popping up like this.

You just have to look at the murder rates in countries like england and australia, and y'know, countries that actually have a decent system about firearms, and then any logical person can see that giving hand guns and fucking assault rifles to the general public results in a lot more people dying in stupid instances like this one.
Guns being sold have nothing to do with it anymore.

Its all a drug problem. Its always been.

Americans are number one in practically every single drug consumption. Every. Single. Drug.

And what happens? You get cartels, who in turn prop up American gangs and American organized crime. We left this fester for what? 70, 80 years?

Now they are so powerful they don't even gun stores. In fact, they now have the ability to steal weapons from government armories and just smuggle them in. Gangs are even spreading into the US military. In fact, the FBI is scared shitless that promises of money will corrupt America's military just like Mexico's military was.

Organized crime is getting so lucrative they can actually built sophisticated smuggling tunnels with lights, air conditioning, the works. They are past the point of even being effected by anything sort of military action and complete drug reform anymore.

"Gun being sold to civilians" no longer has any bearing on anything. Its all a drug problem, the access to guns don't have anything to do it. No law will help.

This is what happens when you let a problem fester too long. Of course you would know this if you did actual research.

If you don't know something, take the time to research it.
And you honestly think that the gangs would have gotten so much sway without their weaponry? We don't have this problem anywhere else in the western world because we control who can get their hands on the fucking guns. This little divergence is bullshit, It a takes away from what the original point is, and B) is wrong. Your problems may come from gangs and drugs, but you fail to realise that these people having no armaments would take away a fucking huge amount of their power. Your idiotic constitution that allows all US citizen the right to bear arms is the reason that you are in the shit with gangs now. Nearly every country in the world has some form of organized crime, and most of them are kept under control because the best weapon the even the high ups can get their hands on are pistols. You made it so easy for them. They can import drugs to america and cause all of these problem simply because they can kill people so easily. I swear to god, your blindness to the simple fact that if your mobsters and gang leaders had the access to the weapons that British or australian criminals do, you wouldn't have dug yourself into the hole you're currently in.

If you THINK you know something, be sure you state all of the facts as opposed to leaving out what is staring you in your gung ho gawping face.
You sir, are you an idiot? I know I know, I like to give fair posts and try to be civil, but come on! Did you even read that post? When he is talking about how the issues is that the drug corruption has seeped into the military across the border, and that it is a fear that it will happen over here, suddenly, it doesn't matter what gun laws are. The military HAS GUNS. Hell, a lot of cartels that cause issues across the border get their weaponry from Mexico, so american gun laws along that stretch mean jack shit anyways. And I am sure since they are smuggling one illegal thing, guns smuggled as well is not that hard to see. Not like they aren't already smuggling certain illegal guns anyways. Just saying.
 

LetalisK

New member
May 5, 2010
2,769
0
0
Stu35 said:
I'm in the military - we're not allowed to keep shooting when the enemy has dropped his weapon and begun to flee.

So why should some rent-a-cop get to do it?


Just curious...
He's probably not allowed. However, considering he's a rent-a-cop, he'll be given a little leeway. He's not going to be as trained as a soldier or cop, so the "reasonable person" standard drops significantly.
 

prophecy2514

New member
Nov 7, 2011
328
0
0
....sigh. looks like this topic is heading for the tired old superserious gun control debate. On topic - well done mr security guard, you did above and beyond what was needed. bravo. and now I must leave. Cheerio!

 

The Funslinger

Corporate Splooge
Sep 12, 2010
6,150
0
0
Alexnader said:
It's always amazing how bad people are at aiming in combat situations. That guard just starts unloading at those guys yet only one of them is hit and is still able to crawl away. What's the acceptable accuracy for policemen in close quarter combat? 30%? I've heard that figure bandied about.

So it's a testament to both the fragility and determination of the human body as well as the negative effects of stress.
I guess he forgot the face of his father. [http://darktower.wikia.com/wiki/Gunslinger#Teachings]

Still, he did his job, which is fair enough.
 

SpectacularWebHead

New member
Jun 11, 2012
1,175
0
0
runic knight said:
SpectacularWebHead said:
Ultratwinkie said:
SpectacularWebHead said:
Ultratwinkie said:
Boudica said:
Luftwaffles said:
Boudica said:
Yet another reminder that the world is still full of barbarians and brainless brutes.
What would you have done?

If you were the security guard in question, trained in your job(guns and all)
I live in a country where security guards aren't trained to murder people and they don't sit around with deadly weapons.

They must be awful security guards then.

Security guards do a lot of things. They drive armored cars full of countless bills, the life blood of countless corporations, banks, and even governments. They are armed for a reason.

Yet whenever anyone tried to take the guns away, they refused to work. They didn't like the idea of being shot and having the car stolen just so politicians can jack off to the idea that guns somehow no longer exist.

Wow. What a wonderful idea that is. /sarcasm
They wouldn't be shot if you actually had some regulations about supplying the general public with deadly weaponry. You're missing the fact that all of america has fucked itself up by allowing all civilians the right to bear arms. Of course you can't take the guns away from security, because every other ************ is allowed a gun with very few questions asked. Take them away from your entire population as largely as you possibly can and we wouldn't have incidents popping up like this.

You just have to look at the murder rates in countries like england and australia, and y'know, countries that actually have a decent system about firearms, and then any logical person can see that giving hand guns and fucking assault rifles to the general public results in a lot more people dying in stupid instances like this one.
Guns being sold have nothing to do with it anymore.

Its all a drug problem. Its always been.

Americans are number one in practically every single drug consumption. Every. Single. Drug.

And what happens? You get cartels, who in turn prop up American gangs and American organized crime. We left this fester for what? 70, 80 years?

Now they are so powerful they don't even gun stores. In fact, they now have the ability to steal weapons from government armories and just smuggle them in. Gangs are even spreading into the US military. In fact, the FBI is scared shitless that promises of money will corrupt America's military just like Mexico's military was.

Organized crime is getting so lucrative they can actually built sophisticated smuggling tunnels with lights, air conditioning, the works. They are past the point of even being effected by anything sort of military action and complete drug reform anymore.

"Gun being sold to civilians" no longer has any bearing on anything. Its all a drug problem, the access to guns don't have anything to do it. No law will help.

This is what happens when you let a problem fester too long. Of course you would know this if you did actual research.

If you don't know something, take the time to research it.
And you honestly think that the gangs would have gotten so much sway without their weaponry? We don't have this problem anywhere else in the western world because we control who can get their hands on the fucking guns. This little divergence is bullshit, It a takes away from what the original point is, and B) is wrong. Your problems may come from gangs and drugs, but you fail to realise that these people having no armaments would take away a fucking huge amount of their power. Your idiotic constitution that allows all US citizen the right to bear arms is the reason that you are in the shit with gangs now. Nearly every country in the world has some form of organized crime, and most of them are kept under control because the best weapon the even the high ups can get their hands on are pistols. You made it so easy for them. They can import drugs to america and cause all of these problem simply because they can kill people so easily. I swear to god, your blindness to the simple fact that if your mobsters and gang leaders had the access to the weapons that British or australian criminals do, you wouldn't have dug yourself into the hole you're currently in.

If you THINK you know something, be sure you state all of the facts as opposed to leaving out what is staring you in your gung ho gawping face.
You sir, are you an idiot? I know I know, I like to give fair posts and try to be civil, but come on! Did you even read that post? When he is talking about how the issues is that the drug corruption has seeped into the military across the border, and that it is a fear that it will happen over here, suddenly, it doesn't matter what gun laws are. The military HAS GUNS. Hell, a lot of cartels that cause issues across the border get their weaponry from Mexico, so american gun laws along that stretch mean jack shit anyways. And I am sure since they are smuggling one illegal thing, guns smuggled as well is not that hard to see. Just saying.
If what you're saying is accurate, this problem of intense corruption would not be exclusive to america, now would it? ALL militaries have guns, yet not ALL organised crime syndicates have infiltrated ALL the militaries in the world. It's down to corruption and the easy access to guns that you people have so wonderfully elected to bestow. What you're both saying is; The fact organised crime can get weapons very easily in the USA has no bearing on the fact they are now corrupting your military and government and making millions each year selling drugs? And you think I'M an idiot? Think about what you're saying. This level of corruption is exclusive to america. What do ALL and I mean ALL American Mobsters have? Guns and Drugs. Now, lets look at england. There is a low level of organised crime corrupting into major governmental departments, despite the fact we have the most inept government in the entire world. What do all English mobsters have? Drugs. Very few have access to guns. And we have very little corruption. I think there's a pretty obvious corruption as to why you guys are in the shit and we aren't, dearie.
 

wulf3n

New member
Mar 12, 2012
1,394
0
0
Stu35 said:
I'm in the military - we're not allowed to keep shooting when the enemy has dropped his weapon and begun to flee.

So why should some rent-a-cop get to do it?
I saw something on TV ages ago that was kind of interesting. It was pointing out that in the military it's more valuable to wound than to kill, as a wounded soldier disrupts 2 a dead soldier disrupts one, whereas in the police force neutralising the target as quickly as possible as to minimise potential harm to surrounding civilians.



Stu35 said:
Meh...

He did do his job, but one could (and in Europe we probably would) argue that to continue shooting people in back as they run away is stepping over the mark somewhat.

However, there are different cultures at work - in the US, use of lethal force to protect property is allowed, wheras in the UK (and, I think, the rest of Western Europe), protection of human life is the only excuse.

Looking at that video, it would take a very good lawyer to try and prove that there was still a threat to human life after the robbers turned and ran - and no, simply being armed is not a credible threat once someone has begun to flee, there has to be evidence that they are retreating to take up another firing position (which, given the circumstances, is highly unlikely).


I'm not going to judge the Security Guard one way or the other. Simply point out that this is one of those occasions that I reckon the cultural differences between the United States and Europe is going to cause friction in this one - we're not so much for shooting people in the back as they run away.
I don't know much about security guard training, but from what I know of police training when you shoot someone you keep shooting until they stop moving. Until then they still pose a threat. Admittedly the reasons to allow for shooting are usually stricter, but in this case it was pretty obvious they weren't rushing in to ask to use the bathroom.
 

The Human Torch

New member
Sep 12, 2010
750
0
0
username sucks said:
What? Hes being complemented for this? In the video you can clearly see that they turn to run as soon as he pulls the gun, but he still keeps shooting them as they are running. He did react quickly, but he also definitly overreacted here. If they are already running, why whould he shoot them? I would complement him if he stopped shooting as soon as he noticed that they were running, but he keeps shooting even at the guy who is crawling out the door.
Captcha: Lets be serious now
Let me know how rational you are thinking when 3 armed men, with hoods covering their faces rush into your store/cafe/whatever and you are (literally) caught in the moment.
I had the pleasure of being dragged along at gunpoint in the morning when me and my co-workers were opening the supermarket I worked at at the time. I didn't have a gun to draw on them, but on the way (whilst being pushed forward by the muggers) from the kantina where I was putting on my workclothes to the office where the safe is located, I was activating every silent alarm I could get my hands on.

In hindsight it may have been a dumb thing to do, because if the muggers actually did their homework and knew where all the silent alarms were and how to activate them, they would have put a stop to me before I even got the chance. Maybe even with a bullet.

But those are snap-decisions you make in the heat of the moment.

You have the benefit of hindsight and even misplaced sympathy for the robbers. These guys took a chance by trying to rob a place, and actions have consequences. They got more than they could handle, I applaud the security guard for his swift and decisive action which probably saved lives and kept whatever customers were in the building at the time from a traumatic experience. I had to get fucking therapy to get over my ordeal, because having a gun pushed against the back of your skull is not something that you just shrug off.

This whole event took less than 5 seconds, you had the entire length of the video, plus maybe a few extra minutes to write a post about that. You can't compare these situations. You can't judge what the security guard should have done. It does not work that way.

Put some more thought into your replies before you shoot your mouth off.
 

The Human Torch

New member
Sep 12, 2010
750
0
0
Signa said:
If it was anything like that other attempted internet cafe robbery, then this guy did the right thing, no question about it.

Seeing the video shows some guys being stopped before they could actually cause harm, which is admittedly a little off-putting. It's harder to 100% justify shooting someone when their only crime up to that point was acting rowdy with a strange sense of apparel. Do I have any doubt that they were up to no good? None at all.
Are you fucking kidding me? Please read your own post again and get back to me on how many things are wrong with that statement. In the meantime I will be busy banging my head against my desk.
 

jklinders

New member
Sep 21, 2010
945
0
0
The Human Torch said:
username sucks said:
What? Hes being complemented for this? In the video you can clearly see that they turn to run as soon as he pulls the gun, but he still keeps shooting them as they are running. He did react quickly, but he also definitly overreacted here. If they are already running, why whould he shoot them? I would complement him if he stopped shooting as soon as he noticed that they were running, but he keeps shooting even at the guy who is crawling out the door.
Captcha: Lets be serious now
Let me know how rational you are thinking when 3 armed men, with hoods covering their faces rush into your store/cafe/whatever and you are (literally) caught in the moment.
I had the pleasure of being dragged along at gunpoint in the morning when me and my co-workers were opening the supermarket I worked at at the time. I didn't have a gun to draw on them, but on the way (whilst being pushed forward by the muggers) from the kantina where I was putting on my workclothes to the office where the safe is located, I was activating every silent alarm I could get my hands on.

In hindsight it may have been a dumb thing to do, because if the muggers actually did their homework and knew where all the silent alarms were and how to activate them, they would have put a stop to me before I even got the chance. Maybe even with a bullet.

But those are snap-decisions you make in the heat of the moment.

You have the benefit of hindsight and even misplaced sympathy for the robbers. These guys took a chance by trying to rob a place, and actions have consequences. They got more than they could handle, I applaud the security guard for his swift and decisive action which probably saved lives and kept whatever customers were in the building at the time from a traumatic experience. I had to get fucking therapy to get over my ordeal, because having a gun pushed against the back of your skull is not something that you just shrug off.

This whole event took less than 5 seconds, you had the entire length of the video, plus maybe a few extra minutes to write a post about that. You can't compare these situations. You can't judge what the security guard should have done. It does not work that way.

Put some more thought into your replies before you shoot your mouth off.
I'm sorry about your experience but I applaud the level headedness of your post.

Hindsight is always 20/20. In the heat of the moment you do not have that luxury. Too many armchair philosophers forget that.
 

Enizer

New member
Mar 20, 2009
75
0
0
well, watching the video, i'm pretty sure that showing perfect judgement while threatened is a lot easyer to say then to actually do

either this is a cultural thing, and the guy was trained to do exactly what he did, or maybe he was in a bit of a shock from sitting at a desk for HOURS and then suddenly getting attacked

personally though, i have seen many videos of USA police doing EXACTLY what he did, so i'm betting he's an ex-cop doing precisely what he was trained to do
 

Supertegwyn

New member
Oct 7, 2010
1,057
0
0
SpectacularWebHead said:
Your link doesn't work anymore, It's switched to a breaking new story and I have no idea what you guys are talking about.

I'm guessing we're all very impressed by a guy for shooting another guy.
The link still works, the breaking news IS the security guard.
 

runic knight

New member
Mar 26, 2011
1,118
0
0
SpectacularWebHead said:
runic knight said:
SpectacularWebHead said:
Ultratwinkie said:
SpectacularWebHead said:
Ultratwinkie said:
Boudica said:
Luftwaffles said:
Boudica said:
Yet another reminder that the world is still full of barbarians and brainless brutes.
What would you have done?

If you were the security guard in question, trained in your job(guns and all)
I live in a country where security guards aren't trained to murder people and they don't sit around with deadly weapons.

They must be awful security guards then.

Security guards do a lot of things. They drive armored cars full of countless bills, the life blood of countless corporations, banks, and even governments. They are armed for a reason.

Yet whenever anyone tried to take the guns away, they refused to work. They didn't like the idea of being shot and having the car stolen just so politicians can jack off to the idea that guns somehow no longer exist.

Wow. What a wonderful idea that is. /sarcasm
They wouldn't be shot if you actually had some regulations about supplying the general public with deadly weaponry. You're missing the fact that all of america has fucked itself up by allowing all civilians the right to bear arms. Of course you can't take the guns away from security, because every other ************ is allowed a gun with very few questions asked. Take them away from your entire population as largely as you possibly can and we wouldn't have incidents popping up like this.

You just have to look at the murder rates in countries like england and australia, and y'know, countries that actually have a decent system about firearms, and then any logical person can see that giving hand guns and fucking assault rifles to the general public results in a lot more people dying in stupid instances like this one.
Guns being sold have nothing to do with it anymore.

Its all a drug problem. Its always been.

Americans are number one in practically every single drug consumption. Every. Single. Drug.

And what happens? You get cartels, who in turn prop up American gangs and American organized crime. We left this fester for what? 70, 80 years?

Now they are so powerful they don't even gun stores. In fact, they now have the ability to steal weapons from government armories and just smuggle them in. Gangs are even spreading into the US military. In fact, the FBI is scared shitless that promises of money will corrupt America's military just like Mexico's military was.

Organized crime is getting so lucrative they can actually built sophisticated smuggling tunnels with lights, air conditioning, the works. They are past the point of even being effected by anything sort of military action and complete drug reform anymore.

"Gun being sold to civilians" no longer has any bearing on anything. Its all a drug problem, the access to guns don't have anything to do it. No law will help.

This is what happens when you let a problem fester too long. Of course you would know this if you did actual research.

If you don't know something, take the time to research it.
And you honestly think that the gangs would have gotten so much sway without their weaponry? We don't have this problem anywhere else in the western world because we control who can get their hands on the fucking guns. This little divergence is bullshit, It a takes away from what the original point is, and B) is wrong. Your problems may come from gangs and drugs, but you fail to realise that these people having no armaments would take away a fucking huge amount of their power. Your idiotic constitution that allows all US citizen the right to bear arms is the reason that you are in the shit with gangs now. Nearly every country in the world has some form of organized crime, and most of them are kept under control because the best weapon the even the high ups can get their hands on are pistols. You made it so easy for them. They can import drugs to america and cause all of these problem simply because they can kill people so easily. I swear to god, your blindness to the simple fact that if your mobsters and gang leaders had the access to the weapons that British or australian criminals do, you wouldn't have dug yourself into the hole you're currently in.

If you THINK you know something, be sure you state all of the facts as opposed to leaving out what is staring you in your gung ho gawping face.
You sir, are you an idiot? I know I know, I like to give fair posts and try to be civil, but come on! Did you even read that post? When he is talking about how the issues is that the drug corruption has seeped into the military across the border, and that it is a fear that it will happen over here, suddenly, it doesn't matter what gun laws are. The military HAS GUNS. Hell, a lot of cartels that cause issues across the border get their weaponry from Mexico, so american gun laws along that stretch mean jack shit anyways. And I am sure since they are smuggling one illegal thing, guns smuggled as well is not that hard to see. Just saying.
If what you're saying is accurate, this problem of intense corruption would not be exclusive to america, now would it? ALL militaries have guns, yet not ALL organised crime syndicates have infiltrated ALL the militaries in the world. It's down to corruption and the easy access to guns that you people have so wonderfully elected to bestow. What you're both saying is; The fact organised crime can get weapons very easily in the USA has no bearing on the fact they are now corrupting your military and government and making millions each year selling drugs? And you think I'M an idiot? Think about what you're saying. This level of corruption is exclusive to america. What do ALL and I mean ALL American Mobsters have? Guns and Drugs. Now, lets look at england. There is a low level of organised crime corrupting into major governmental departments, despite the fact we have the most inept government in the entire world. What do all English mobsters have? Drugs. Very few have access to guns. And we have very little corruption. I think there's a pretty obvious corruption as to why you guys are in the shit and we aren't, dearie.
At the moment, it is extensive in mexico but the fear is it will spread to america or canada even. Now why this is a big issue geographically has to relate to, well, geography. Or, more importantly, economics and geography. See, america is the biggest consumer of drugs. This added to drug laws means big profits for the illegal trade. This means the people who sell the shit want to be close so travel expense is less. Also crossing the ground boarder is easier then the sea or air from a distance. Thus why south of the border became the drug runner's choice. And why the funds were used the corrupt the mexican military. And now that it has grown so much, why the fear of it corrupting the american one too.

the drug problem leads to the gun problem in organized crime. Prohibition demonstrated this as the funds from the illegal trade was funneled into weapons to protect the trade and corrupting police. fast forward to the present. the drug trade gives the funds to buy weapons still. gives the funds to corrupt military now. And much like how corrupted cop can give you guns, corrupted military can give the assault rifles and illegal firearms used now.

The issue with your comparison is one of scale of operation. US is the biggest user of all drugs, and one of the most restrictive to their use. This requires a huge underworld to keep up supply to the demand. It is larger in sheer numbers of users if you look at the numbers in population, you see the US is pretty big there too. That means lots of people all around, lots of users and lots of competition between sellers.

Also, most street sellers don't use guns. Hell, most sellers don't look like the street thug asshats they are thought to be. It is the bigger operations and harder cities that have the most guns and the reason is one of competition.
 

SpectacularWebHead

New member
Jun 11, 2012
1,175
0
0
Supertegwyn said:
SpectacularWebHead said:
Your link doesn't work anymore, It's switched to a breaking new story and I have no idea what you guys are talking about.

I'm guessing we're all very impressed by a guy for shooting another guy.
The link still works, the breaking news IS the security guard.
Oh, it comes up with some thing about the 1972 olympics for me, is that right?
 

The Human Torch

New member
Sep 12, 2010
750
0
0
jklinders said:
I'm sorry about your experience but I applaud the level headedness of your post.

Hindsight is always 20/20. In the heat of the moment you do not have that luxury. Too many armchair philosophers forget that.
I am happy to see that other people get this. It's just far too easy to make posts from your comfortable deskchair and describe how you would have handled the situation.

After my experience in the supermarket, I re-ran the entire event in my head hundreds of times, things I could have done different, things I should have done different, things I wish I've done different. Heck, one version had me kung-fu kicking the crap out of the robbers, but regrettably it doesn't work that way.

I had the entire police force present there telling me how good a job I did by alerting them, as far as they are concerned, it was text-book perfect. This counts for something, because as a manager I was responsible for the lives of the employees in my supermarket at the time and I was happy to find out that I did was the best thing I could have done. Even if at the time, I didn't put any thought into it at all. You just go with the moment.

The police are saying that this security guard reacted swiftly, decisively and stopped people from getting hurt (with the obvious exception of that one robber, but he made his own bed). That counts for a lot.

This is probably because of my own personal experiences, but robbers get zero sympathy from me. You wanna throw down with a security guard? Great, just be ready when you bump into one that is not a pushover.
 

SpectacularWebHead

New member
Jun 11, 2012
1,175
0
0
runic knight said:
SpectacularWebHead said:
runic knight said:
SpectacularWebHead said:
Ultratwinkie said:
SpectacularWebHead said:
Ultratwinkie said:
Boudica said:
Luftwaffles said:
Boudica said:
Yet another reminder that the world is still full of barbarians and brainless brutes.
What would you have done?

If you were the security guard in question, trained in your job(guns and all)
I live in a country where security guards aren't trained to murder people and they don't sit around with deadly weapons.

They must be awful security guards then.

Security guards do a lot of things. They drive armored cars full of countless bills, the life blood of countless corporations, banks, and even governments. They are armed for a reason.

Yet whenever anyone tried to take the guns away, they refused to work. They didn't like the idea of being shot and having the car stolen just so politicians can jack off to the idea that guns somehow no longer exist.

Wow. What a wonderful idea that is. /sarcasm
They wouldn't be shot if you actually had some regulations about supplying the general public with deadly weaponry. You're missing the fact that all of america has fucked itself up by allowing all civilians the right to bear arms. Of course you can't take the guns away from security, because every other ************ is allowed a gun with very few questions asked. Take them away from your entire population as largely as you possibly can and we wouldn't have incidents popping up like this.

You just have to look at the murder rates in countries like england and australia, and y'know, countries that actually have a decent system about firearms, and then any logical person can see that giving hand guns and fucking assault rifles to the general public results in a lot more people dying in stupid instances like this one.
Guns being sold have nothing to do with it anymore.

Its all a drug problem. Its always been.

Americans are number one in practically every single drug consumption. Every. Single. Drug.

And what happens? You get cartels, who in turn prop up American gangs and American organized crime. We left this fester for what? 70, 80 years?

Now they are so powerful they don't even gun stores. In fact, they now have the ability to steal weapons from government armories and just smuggle them in. Gangs are even spreading into the US military. In fact, the FBI is scared shitless that promises of money will corrupt America's military just like Mexico's military was.

Organized crime is getting so lucrative they can actually built sophisticated smuggling tunnels with lights, air conditioning, the works. They are past the point of even being effected by anything sort of military action and complete drug reform anymore.

"Gun being sold to civilians" no longer has any bearing on anything. Its all a drug problem, the access to guns don't have anything to do it. No law will help.

This is what happens when you let a problem fester too long. Of course you would know this if you did actual research.

If you don't know something, take the time to research it.
And you honestly think that the gangs would have gotten so much sway without their weaponry? We don't have this problem anywhere else in the western world because we control who can get their hands on the fucking guns. This little divergence is bullshit, It a takes away from what the original point is, and B) is wrong. Your problems may come from gangs and drugs, but you fail to realise that these people having no armaments would take away a fucking huge amount of their power. Your idiotic constitution that allows all US citizen the right to bear arms is the reason that you are in the shit with gangs now. Nearly every country in the world has some form of organized crime, and most of them are kept under control because the best weapon the even the high ups can get their hands on are pistols. You made it so easy for them. They can import drugs to america and cause all of these problem simply because they can kill people so easily. I swear to god, your blindness to the simple fact that if your mobsters and gang leaders had the access to the weapons that British or australian criminals do, you wouldn't have dug yourself into the hole you're currently in.

If you THINK you know something, be sure you state all of the facts as opposed to leaving out what is staring you in your gung ho gawping face.
You sir, are you an idiot? I know I know, I like to give fair posts and try to be civil, but come on! Did you even read that post? When he is talking about how the issues is that the drug corruption has seeped into the military across the border, and that it is a fear that it will happen over here, suddenly, it doesn't matter what gun laws are. The military HAS GUNS. Hell, a lot of cartels that cause issues across the border get their weaponry from Mexico, so american gun laws along that stretch mean jack shit anyways. And I am sure since they are smuggling one illegal thing, guns smuggled as well is not that hard to see. Just saying.
If what you're saying is accurate, this problem of intense corruption would not be exclusive to america, now would it? ALL militaries have guns, yet not ALL organised crime syndicates have infiltrated ALL the militaries in the world. It's down to corruption and the easy access to guns that you people have so wonderfully elected to bestow. What you're both saying is; The fact organised crime can get weapons very easily in the USA has no bearing on the fact they are now corrupting your military and government and making millions each year selling drugs? And you think I'M an idiot? Think about what you're saying. This level of corruption is exclusive to america. What do ALL and I mean ALL American Mobsters have? Guns and Drugs. Now, lets look at england. There is a low level of organised crime corrupting into major governmental departments, despite the fact we have the most inept government in the entire world. What do all English mobsters have? Drugs. Very few have access to guns. And we have very little corruption. I think there's a pretty obvious corruption as to why you guys are in the shit and we aren't, dearie.
At the moment, it is extensive in mexico but the fear is it will spread to america or canada even. Now why this is a big issue geographically has to relate to, well, geography. Or, more importantly, economics and geography. See, america is the biggest consumer of drugs. This added to drug laws means big profits for the illegal trade. This means the people who sell the shit want to be close so travel expense is less. Also crossing the ground boarder is easier then the sea or air from a distance. Thus why south of the border became the drug runner's choice. And why the funds were used the corrupt the mexican military. And now that it has grown so much, why the fear of it corrupting the american one too.

the drug problem leads to the gun problem in organized crime. Prohibition demonstrated this as the funds from the illegal trade was funneled into weapons to protect the trade and corrupting police. fast forward to the present. the drug trade gives the funds to buy weapons still. gives the funds to corrupt military now. And much like how corrupted cop can give you guns, corrupted military can give the assault rifles and illegal firearms used now.

The issue with your comparison is one of scale of operation. US is the biggest user of all drugs, and one of the most restrictive to their use. This requires a huge underworld to keep up supply to the demand. It is larger in sheer numbers of users if you look at the numbers in population, you see the US is pretty big there too. That means lots of people all around, lots of users and lots of competition between sellers.

Also, most street sellers don't use guns. Hell, most sellers don't look like the street thug asshats they are thought to be. It is the bigger operations and harder cities that have the most guns and the reason is one of competition.
The drug problem does not lead to the gun problem. The gun problem makes crime far easier, and thus leads to the drug problem and all the things you have said. Considering the last time american gun laws were valid was when america had recently become independant and you needed guns just to survive, a change is in order. Otherwise we get cases such as the one the topic was about, where a man murders another and gets given accolades for this crime. Johnny gunslinger back there bought up this whole drug trade irrelevancy to justify why he thought murder was OK in this circumstance, diverging entirely from any sense of relevance to the original topic.