A ninja moment
(twitter.com)
Comments (53)
sorted by:
Leftists will always tell you not to confront thieves because it’s statistically safer to just let them have whatever they want.
But here’s the thing: safety’s isn’t everything. For example, I also don’t want to live in a society where people are constantly stealing shit.
You're not wrong, and Social Violence as a concept isn't even inherently wrong because some people do, genuinely, just need to be smacked for their own benefit including women and children. Everyone deserves a dopeslap at some point (except for babies because they literally can't function).
We have gone too far in the past, I don't want to live in an honor culture (like in every American ghetto), where you can be shot to death for dis-respect. That's actually where the "Fighting Words" doctrine comes from in regards to freedom of speech: two men were talking shit in a bar in the literal late Old West, they rolled outside, one called the other "yellow", and the other man shot him. The Supreme Court declared that that was justification for the shooting.
Basically: this literally happened, McFly shot him right there, and the courts were like, "welp, shouldn't have been talkin' shit!"
Now, the doctrine has since changed, which is good, because, we don't need to support ghetto culture by allowing people to kill each other over Nigga Moments. Society should be able to find a happy medium, and where we are at now, ain't it.
Additionally, you can also criticize the Leftist understanding of statistics. It's also true that since the vast and sweeping majority of defensive gun uses can be done without firing, you don't need to carry bullets in a gun. But that's retarded. We can't assume that statistics will protect us. Our lives are a case study, not a statistic.
The court should've changed the fighting words doctrine to say that you can duke it out but can't kill or seriously maim each other. Or to put it into legalese, added a proportionality test to it.
I’m gonna make this very blunt: blacks can’t be trusted with such a system. If you’ve ever seen blacks fight, they rarely stop when the other party goes down. The loser usually takes multiple stomps to the head while unconscious, and that shit is often fatal. It’s not like when two dudes face up and one goes down and then it’s over. No, someone ends up in a wheel chair or dead in a large percentage of cases.
That is true for majority of cultures in the world. Only some western whites and some Asian cultures seem capable of such self restraint.
Kicking people to death when they're down and wounded happens everywhere?
I don't think this is true. Show me one example, whether it's Greece or Turkey, or Iran, Egypt, Arabs. And some Asian cultures have enough self control to not be able to stop short of murder? Which Asian culture is that kind of violent?
Muslims behead and torture and kill innocent people in the name of their honor culture and religion, but if two of them get in a fight the fight will end without a death 99.9% of the time, otherwise we'd see this behavior in the west where there are millions of them, but we only ever see one demographic acting like that.
That's "Mutual Combat", and the court didn't really have any say on it. I know Oregon allows for it. Frankly, more states should tolerate it, but a lot don't.
"Like I always say, an armed society is a polite society."
He's always my cup of tea.
I refuse to accept that his recent trend of being slightly more hostile is a bad thing. Sorry, aesthetic beauty doesn't include fat chicks. Your dick getting hard at degeneracy isn't aesthetic beauty. We should all be defending, asserting, and demanding aesthetic beauty.
See that criminal had realisation that crime has consequences and that it was a mistake
Unfortunately he learnt that on the 4th stab, now if he learned that from having an actual moral code from childhood through all education, he wouldn't be lying in a pool of his own blood
Those who abandon moral tradition are fated to learn the reasons why it evolved in the first place.
Perfect quote. Imma keep that.
Honestly, it's why I don't advocate for a legal enforcement of those morals from an "ethical state". Let those moral traditions recover naturally by not intervening in the system in the first place.
Those moral traditions don’t return in multicultural societies. That’s why multiculturalism always results in an authoritarian state - there’s no other way to keep the peace without shared culture and values.
It's exactly the opposite. What you call "multiculturalism" is ethnic balkanization, and that is built intentionally by authoritarian states. Not the other way around.
And yes, those moral traditions will tend to re-emerge in a society that protects the basic tenets of Liberalism based on a Christian moral order. This is mostly because any member of any ethnic group that can't co-exist within a Liberal order will have to leave or be forced to leave, because Liberalism is unwilling to tolerate other systems.
A Liberal framework, begets a liberal population (as in, a liberty-focused population based on local communal and family ties).
Here's an archived article on the incident.
Here's that article not archived so you can watch the longer length video with the before and after.
Transcript and description of the footage, minus the video from OP (so basically from "I'm dead.... I'm dead" onwards):
[Store owner drags body round to the front of the shop nearish to the door]
Stabbed Guy: Please
[Store owner goes out back for a second (I think to grab his phone)]
Owner: Call 911.......... Call 911 (using Siri or something)
Stabbed Guy: Don't let me die, sir.
Phone: Calling Emergency Services
Stabbed Guy: I'm sorry. This wasn't my idea.
Owner, calmly but dismissively: Shut up.
Stabbed Guy: Please don't let me die.
Owner: [proceeds to talk to the emergency services]
The article quotes him as saying he just wanted the police and ambulance to arrive on time, but this guy had no respect for this piece of shit, and fucking good on him. The only thing I would say is that this is a good reason to have a firearm and to learn how to use it. Which is what is seems like he'll be doing. From the article:
So not only do we have a case of a store owner defending his shop, but he also realises he got lucky and will therefore be looking to better defend his shop (most likely with a gun). The only thing that didn't work out was the other guy got away.
The owner also had a small AMA over at reddit. Sadly he deleted everything now, because he was advised that it might not look good for him in a potential court case.
But thankfully archives exist ;)
Question: "Are you worried they might come back at a later time as retaliation? Might be a good time to arm yourself."
Answer: "that's why i got a gun"
BASED
Welcome to stupid games and stupid prizes, now bizarrely self-narrated for the visually impaired.
Yes, yes you are.
More based individuals behind shop counters, please.
Literally this in real life: https://youtu.be/cXVZVCoaxM4
ROFLMAO
The number of people crying on twitter about a dead criminal make me despair for humanity.
We used to hang people for stealing a horse worth $25.
that was $25 in real money, not monopoly money.
They’re trying to invert morality because they are communists who don’t believe in private property, and de facto destruction of our private property rights is one of the most effective strategies for circumventing the constitution.
He had a knife and a winning attitude
Watching a criminal bail on their partner will almost never not be funny.
Is it weird that I don't see any blood splatter or spray?
Seriously, not a drop.
Badass of the employee, though. Comments say he got a proper gun later.
I wonder. Once mortal combat begins it's incompetent to stop before absolute certainty of victory. High adrenaline and fear can also explain some extra zealotry.
I've heard it said that if you're going to fight back in defensive scenarios, you may as well kill them, because if you don't, they'll sue.
Or pull a gun in their last moments of life to take you with them.
Yes, but that's not a legal argument. In fact, saying that in court as justification is a fucking terrible idea.
It may be additional rationale, but I'd imagine the best bet is to just stick to the explanation of adrenaline and self defense. Don't say you wanted to kill anyone; you wanted to defend yourself, and were (correctly) worried they were still a threat to you.
EDIT: Oh and, most importantly, don't say ANYTHING AT ALL without your lawyer present. Don't be like Alec Baldwin.
You can't really go wrong that way.
Cops are trained to shoot center mass (at the vital organs) and to keep shooting until the threat is stopped. The fact that this is one of the best ways to kill someone is incidental to stopping the threat.
Every single self defense trial where a prosecutor tries to argue that the defendent should have been able to calibrate his use of force to the exact moment that they believe (after the fact) that it was no longer needed should have the local police's use of force procedures thrown right back in their face.
I disagree. This is a clear strong armed robbery (a forcible felony). He also specifically said he was afraid that when the robbery began the guy would draw a gun. So it's okay articulation.
It's not great situation, and his ass is likely still going to trial, but I think if you put this in front of a (non political) jury, he'd probably get completely acquitted. As we've seen from NYC, even when shit is legally suspect, the fact that there is popular support for the store-owner can be enough to get him off.
Black Lives Matter figured this out years ago. That's why they advocate for so many explicit criminals. Pressure alone can get prosecutors to back down.
His jury trial will hinge entirely on how many Asians, Hispanics, and non-leftist whites are on the jury. Every black and leftist white juror will vote guilty no matter what. That’s where we’re at in America now. That’s what “racial justice” looks like.
You don't understand how many black people are okay with ghetto trash getting shot.
'He's a masked man robbing a store, from his clothes I believed he was armed and I wasn't going to wait for him to point a gun directly at my face. At that point it's too late. You don't risk your life to give someone else the benefit of doubt'.
He kept stabbing him because the guy didn't go down. It was a little box knife or something like that. Once he went down he stopped. Note how it's "the right to self-defence" and not "the right to stab a maximum of 2 times"?
Hmm yeah, it's not a box cutter but a small fold out knife.
There's no such thing as a "warning stab". You keep going until they're no longer a threat; even if they're dying, they can still take you with them or do serious harm in their final moments.