Don’t threaten people with realistic looking guns. Pretty good rules to live by. He better not go to court. Also, the people who are protesting this should be ashamed of themselves. I’d love to ask them what kind of moral compass they have if they are so eager to support any black criminal simply due to them being black and the fact they are too lazy to look at the facts of the case. These people are scum
Soft Bigotry of Low Expectations. Most SJW's and Leftist activist really do believe the best a black person can aspire to be is a violent thug little more advanced than an ape. So when they act out and do their thing, you just need to leave them alone, get out of their way, and let them burn themselves out until it is safe to be around them again. They usually believe this sort of stuff because...
They are actually, unironically, as racist as they claim the average person is. Which feeds into the feedback loops that the Left keeps creating of believing the stuff they do because they are best of Humanity (they said so), and if they are that racist and bigoted, imagine how much more the lesser normies must be! And the blacks in their ranks think whites must be a bunch of people who behind closed doors still treat it like it is 1836 and it is the White Man's job to civilize them. After all, the white Leftist say that, and they are the good ones (they said so), so just imagine how much more racist the average normie must be!
Meanwhile, we have a family friend who is a black guy and fairly high ranked in a local security force. And due to his interactions with these sort of blacks, he strongly and unironically believes the old "Black People vs. Nigga's" distinction laid out by Chris Rock back in the 90's.
I don’t think Chris Rock has the guts to repeat that joke today but there is a lot of truth to what he says and I’ve known black people would would agree 100%
They are communists who don’t believe in private property, and so they will aggressively protest the use of any violence to prevent any property crime.
It only seems like communists are defending blacks because most crime is committed by blacks.
if the video shows a dindu beating the head of a wypipo with a baseball bat unprovoked, NPC do not see a criminal assaulting an innocent, they see muh past of slavery and white supremacy. the dindu is the victim.
they no longer see people as humans but only as proxies for concepts.
There was one I saw from a diner where they was wildin out on some white guy who was on the ground getting his ass kicked and the black women in there were 100% fine with it, then the white guy pulled a gun on them and they started the howling and screeching about how he caint do that.
I do. Baldy was fuckin' slow on getting that gun out. Maybe he wanted to be more cautious thinking the other guy had a real firearm and all that, but that was still pretty slow overall.
If you're going to carry, make sure you know what you're doing. Go to the range and practice this shit when possible. You're carrying for a reason, not just for shits and giggles. Might as well hone that skill even if you think it's somewhat insignificant.
Fumbling to his side for 5+ seconds leading up to the shooting is "super quick"? Once it's out he pulls it up quickly, but he was fumbling to get it.
However, on looking at the video again, it does seem like his jacket is what was on the seat next to him, which might have been where his gun was. Poor storage compared to something sensible like an actual holster, but it explains the fumbling on his left for the first 5+ seconds. Even if you give him the bare minimum of time to draw, he could have drawn at the 13 second mark of the video OP posted. It wasn't until the 19th or 20th second until it was drawn and then shot. That's slow and sloppy.
always have a cheap piece to throw down at your assailant's feet. Better yet put gloves on and put the gun in his hand. Shoot a few rounds into your wall. Make sure the serial isn't on record as belonging to you. If you know the right people, you can get a gun with a questionable history.
Obligatory not advocation disclaimer and I "don't condone this behavior". The purpose for this is purely academic.
The restaurant owner and employees are calling the customer a hero.
Just saw an update. Apparently someone else came in and robbed it again overnight while it was closed. Possibly took money from the slot machines at the front by the door.
There has to be a better source than someone who has one of the now countless regressive opposition flags in their profile. It doesn't matter how much they attempt to suck up to the Right, they're grifters until they drop the flag.
I don't so much care that he's gay. I care that he feels the need to identify himself as separate from the Right, but still expecting inclusion in its ranks. He's not special. You don't fly another flag if you're on the same team.
Update: Case is going to a grand jury, and someone else robbed it after closing hours later, not known if it's connected to the first guy. Dead Dindu had a rap sheet (of course). Assault with a deadly weapon, domestic violence, other robberies.
Dead guy's name is Eric Washington. In 2013, he and others were charged with capital murder after a man was killed during an armed robbery, according to prosecutors. The charge was later changed to aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon and Washington was convicted and sentenced to 15 years in prison.
It's unclear exactly when he was released, but the most recent time he was arrested was Dec. 16, when authorities said he pushed his girlfriend to the ground and scratched her. Washington was charged with misdemeanor family violence and was released on a personal recognizance bond.
Counterpoint, I think he still did the correct thing.
The dindu in question wasn't ever going to learn from this, and just commit more crime. He solved the problem in a permanent manner before anyone else worthwhile got hurt.
The problem is, the good guy closes to the bad guy while he is prostrate on the ground, and plugs him 3 times at close range when there is no apparent deadly threat present. Then, he shoots him again when he leans over to pick up the toy gun.
That, my friends, is how you go to jail despite being initially 100% justified in using deadly physical force.
This isn't an argument against double-tapping. This is an argument that the law is broken and must be fixed.
I'm a firm believer in the idea that, if someone threatens you, your family, loved ones, etc. with a deadly weapon, your only correct, moral, and ethical recourse is to destroy them. A person who has chosen to threaten you with a weapon has chosen to risk destroying you or your loved ones, whether by accident or intent. Shooting a hostile once is no guarantee he won't fire a few shots back at you, potentially hitting you, your loved ones, or innocent bystanders.
But if you hit center mass, and double tap to make sure the assailant is dead, you prevent not only immediate retaliation, but future malfeasance by the initial hostile.
It rustles my jimmies something fierce that people can't understand the simple logic of "you must wager your own life if you are to threaten to take someone else's". A criminal committing criminal acts with a weapon is not a misguided innocent needing to be coddled and "rehabilitated". This is not a man breaking a window and stealing a loaf of bread to feed his starving sister. This is a man who, to the best knowledge of everyone around him, is waving a magic white man fire stick around and can kill anyone he points it at.
Yes, I agree. That time is generally defined as the point in which the aggressor can be declared clinically dead.
I will honestly never understand the apologia for violent criminals brandishing deadly weapons who try be be what's going around and instead get what's coming around. It's not like we're discussing clubbing baby seals, kicking puppies, or gunning down unarmed civilians. We discussing someone correctly ending what, at the time, your best evidence indicated was a real and present threat.
You can argue "oh, the jogger boy got his reparations, he was on his way out to go to church and get out of the hood. He wuz a gud boi, he dindu nuffin" all day, but the civilians who are, to the best of their knowledge, being robbed at gunpoint, have no reason to assume the man crazy and/or desperate enough to become a bandit won't suddenly decide a rape or murder is on the table as well.
Jogger boy over there could very well turn around and fire a few shots; you have no indicators the aggressor, and I hate to belabor this but it bears repeating, who is a literal armed bandit is a man of sound mind and upstanding moral character, and many indicators that this is a violent, aggressive man acting unpredictably.
Putting two rounds center mass and another two in the head to make sure he stays down is perfectly moral. I would even argue it's an ethical requirement, if you follow the ideology that those with power have a responsibility to use it to protect those without power.
What's your opinion of killing military aged males in sandy countries bevause they may have used weapons in the past?
Way to not so much move the fucking goalposts as to attach them to a rocket and launch them at Mars.
I dunno, what's the bloody context? Are the sand joggers robbing a store I'm in? Did I just pass them on the street? Are we currently in sand jogger country and they're potential hostiles eyeing up my guard post suspiciously?
Because if this question is, essentially, "would you also say to double tap if it was an allahu ackbar instead of a dindu robbing the store with what turned out to be a toy gun?", I'd say "absolutely, ammunition does not discriminate, it only penetrates".
If a person is an aggressor with a deadly weapon, making sure the target is permanently stopped is the goal. You can own a firearm and not brandish it in a robbery. You can go for a walk about town with your firearm without automagically becoming a bandit, forced to assault and rob nearby people.
But when you make the choice to walk into a place, brandish a deadly weapon (which even in the most soyboi cuck legal frameworks is still understood to be an implicit threat of grievous injury and/or death), and rob people, you've made the choice to gamble your life. And you have zero recourse to complain if your gamble fails and someone takes your life.
Because the bandit is not a victim. The bandit is a violent criminal, who was quite likely to offend again, and potentially hurt or kill someone during the next robbery.
Hardly. You're writing novels to justify NOT reassessing the threat posed by an individual after you've filled him with holes and disarmed him. Reread your first paragraph in your reply to me, please.
How smoothbrained of a motherfucker do you have to be to consider eight sentences to be "novels"?
Go back to eating crayons. Taking the time to double tap an armed agressor is the only correct option. Leave him on the ground, and you have to take the risk that he's wounded but not incapacitated, and will try to escape or attack. Neither are acceptable outcomes.
Why are you so fixated on protecting literal armed bandits?
The problem is, the good guy closes to the bad guy while he is prostrate on the ground, and plugs him 3 times at close range when there is no apparent deadly threat present. Then, he shoots him again when he leans over to pick up the toy gun.
Personally, I've only got a problem with the last shot. Shooting him when he was on the ground was - again, in my opinion - fine, since I view it as all part of the same instance. You've got adrenaline pumping, time is moving weird, you're closing on someone who is still armed. Maybe those shots weren't perfect, but I think they're easily justifiable.
That last one...oof. Looks bad, and it's a much harder argument to make for that one, considering he's been disarmed, and you're so close; you could easily control him at that point without a gun at all...he's been shot seven times, is lying on the floor, and you can be on top of him in an instant.
That said, he's probably/hopefully still legally fine. You can make some of the same arguments about adrenaline and heat of the moment, and the last shot will hopefully get lumped in with the others as justified. But, yeah, pretty sketch on that last one, gotta say.
fleeing from a shoot that seems justifiable is kinda sketchy.
Yes, but...
There's no such thing as a sure-fire justifiable homicide (unless you're a cop).
He shot him in the back; his life was not directly being threatened; White supremacist; why would he have hollowpoints if he didn't plan on killing that day; etc.
-All arguemnts the prosecutor has against this guy: and that' assumeing that he's a perfect citizen
If you shoot someone, expect the state to try everything in their power to fuck you. When some random dindu guns down an old lady in the street, it's expected, but when you gun down that dindu, you protected and served that old lady; you're encroaching on their racket and making them look bad. It becomes personal. In the eyes of the public you're a hero; in the eyes of the cop though, you're a vigilante who's going to spark a wave of vigilantism and perceived police ineptitude.
I don't even carry when I'm by myself anyone, and I'm an instructor. I know that with my background, training, and political views, a 1st year law student could put me away even if the bad guy was raping my wife with a gun to my child's head.
If you carry a firearm, any agent of the criminal jewstus system is your enemy. Period.
Or he knows that police are not the good guys. And look at that, in a clear cut case of defence against an assailant the police are looking for this guy. Police are not friends of the public, they're lapdogs of the state.
But in what society outside of Africa is it ok to simply walk away?
In a society that openly hates white people, and especially white people who defend themselves. In a society where every truth and fact has been abandoned to make way for poisonous virtue signalling. In a society where a large amount of police are hostile to the people they are supposed to be protecting.
Not saying walking away was the right call, but I 100% understand it. This man knows he did the right thing. Why do you think he needs the permission of an increasingly illegitimate state to do it?
In a sane world, his leaving the scene after the fact would have little to no bearing on the correctness of his actions. As it is, we can only hope he gets reasonable cops, or a reasonable judge and jury.
You never know when the guy you just shot might have equally violent friends come check why he hasn't come back with the goods yet. Sitting around the scene is an inherently risky proposition.
You can debate whether or not he should then immediately present himself to the police, but leaving the scene is pretty justifiable even for someone who has done nothing wrong.
Don’t threaten people with realistic looking guns. Pretty good rules to live by. He better not go to court. Also, the people who are protesting this should be ashamed of themselves. I’d love to ask them what kind of moral compass they have if they are so eager to support any black criminal simply due to them being black and the fact they are too lazy to look at the facts of the case. These people are scum
Two things from what I have found:
Soft Bigotry of Low Expectations. Most SJW's and Leftist activist really do believe the best a black person can aspire to be is a violent thug little more advanced than an ape. So when they act out and do their thing, you just need to leave them alone, get out of their way, and let them burn themselves out until it is safe to be around them again. They usually believe this sort of stuff because...
They are actually, unironically, as racist as they claim the average person is. Which feeds into the feedback loops that the Left keeps creating of believing the stuff they do because they are best of Humanity (they said so), and if they are that racist and bigoted, imagine how much more the lesser normies must be! And the blacks in their ranks think whites must be a bunch of people who behind closed doors still treat it like it is 1836 and it is the White Man's job to civilize them. After all, the white Leftist say that, and they are the good ones (they said so), so just imagine how much more racist the average normie must be!
You are absolutely right. I wish you weren’t but you are. And the media will promote their garbage.
Meanwhile, we have a family friend who is a black guy and fairly high ranked in a local security force. And due to his interactions with these sort of blacks, he strongly and unironically believes the old "Black People vs. Nigga's" distinction laid out by Chris Rock back in the 90's.
I don’t think Chris Rock has the guts to repeat that joke today but there is a lot of truth to what he says and I’ve known black people would would agree 100%
He didn't have the guts to twist in on Will Smith after being hit. A real comedian would have rode him like the men that fuck Will's wife.
Unsurprising.
There's a distinction between black people and niggers as much as there is with white people and rednecks.
Hey now, apes are a K2 civilization compared to the thugs coddled by the system.
It only seems like communists are defending blacks because most crime is committed by blacks.
if the video shows a dindu beating the head of a wypipo with a baseball bat unprovoked, NPC do not see a criminal assaulting an innocent, they see muh past of slavery and white supremacy. the dindu is the victim.
they no longer see people as humans but only as proxies for concepts.
There was one I saw from a diner where they was wildin out on some white guy who was on the ground getting his ass kicked and the black women in there were 100% fine with it, then the white guy pulled a gun on them and they started the howling and screeching about how he caint do that.
Those npcs have been thoroughly brainwashed
He threatened him with a good time and got more than he bargained for.
Exactlly
I see nothing wrong with this video.
I do. They cut out the part one is the most curious to see.
The actual shots and a bit of aftermath? https://nitter.pussthecat.org/phillycrimeupd/status/1611812502249115649
Yeah. Seeing it, he really went too far with the extra shots once he was down.
I do. Baldy was fuckin' slow on getting that gun out. Maybe he wanted to be more cautious thinking the other guy had a real firearm and all that, but that was still pretty slow overall.
If you're going to carry, make sure you know what you're doing. Go to the range and practice this shit when possible. You're carrying for a reason, not just for shits and giggles. Might as well hone that skill even if you think it's somewhat insignificant.
Fumbling to his side for 5+ seconds leading up to the shooting is "super quick"? Once it's out he pulls it up quickly, but he was fumbling to get it.
However, on looking at the video again, it does seem like his jacket is what was on the seat next to him, which might have been where his gun was. Poor storage compared to something sensible like an actual holster, but it explains the fumbling on his left for the first 5+ seconds. Even if you give him the bare minimum of time to draw, he could have drawn at the 13 second mark of the video OP posted. It wasn't until the 19th or 20th second until it was drawn and then shot. That's slow and sloppy.
Read another comment somewhere saying he might have been appendix carrying.
'Would you like the police armorer to drop off some replacement ammo for you sir?'
Houston is the same district where Alex Jones got that fraudulent judge?
The robbery victim knows there will be no justice if he sticks around.
This is the fault of activist Houston judges.
Fire them all
Hopefully no one reports him. The police are not on your side.
always have a cheap piece to throw down at your assailant's feet. Better yet put gloves on and put the gun in his hand. Shoot a few rounds into your wall. Make sure the serial isn't on record as belonging to you. If you know the right people, you can get a gun with a questionable history.
Obligatory not advocation disclaimer and I "don't condone this behavior". The purpose for this is purely academic.
All it needs is Danny Davito saying "So anyway I started blastin."
Just saw an update. Apparently someone else came in and robbed it again overnight while it was closed. Possibly took money from the slot machines at the front by the door.
I know it's Houston, but even if it's a blue hellhole, it's still Texas. Play stupid games...
I lived in Houston for years, largely because I was born there. It is indeed a blue hellhole.
There has to be a better source than someone who has one of the now countless regressive opposition flags in their profile. It doesn't matter how much they attempt to suck up to the Right, they're grifters until they drop the flag.
I don't so much care that he's gay. I care that he feels the need to identify himself as separate from the Right, but still expecting inclusion in its ranks. He's not special. You don't fly another flag if you're on the same team.
fafo
Update: Case is going to a grand jury, and someone else robbed it after closing hours later, not known if it's connected to the first guy. Dead Dindu had a rap sheet (of course). Assault with a deadly weapon, domestic violence, other robberies.
https://web.archive.org/web/20230112021637/https://www.khou.com/article/news/crime/taqueria-burglary-houston/285-0b9c6953-c12b-4003-bd8b-fec0cf7d3d23
Counterpoint, I think he still did the correct thing.
The dindu in question wasn't ever going to learn from this, and just commit more crime. He solved the problem in a permanent manner before anyone else worthwhile got hurt.
This isn't an argument against double-tapping. This is an argument that the law is broken and must be fixed.
I'm a firm believer in the idea that, if someone threatens you, your family, loved ones, etc. with a deadly weapon, your only correct, moral, and ethical recourse is to destroy them. A person who has chosen to threaten you with a weapon has chosen to risk destroying you or your loved ones, whether by accident or intent. Shooting a hostile once is no guarantee he won't fire a few shots back at you, potentially hitting you, your loved ones, or innocent bystanders.
But if you hit center mass, and double tap to make sure the assailant is dead, you prevent not only immediate retaliation, but future malfeasance by the initial hostile.
It rustles my jimmies something fierce that people can't understand the simple logic of "you must wager your own life if you are to threaten to take someone else's". A criminal committing criminal acts with a weapon is not a misguided innocent needing to be coddled and "rehabilitated". This is not a man breaking a window and stealing a loaf of bread to feed his starving sister. This is a man who, to the best knowledge of everyone around him, is waving a magic white man fire stick around and can kill anyone he points it at.
There is a point when the threat has passed.
Yes, I agree. That time is generally defined as the point in which the aggressor can be declared clinically dead.
I will honestly never understand the apologia for violent criminals brandishing deadly weapons who try be be what's going around and instead get what's coming around. It's not like we're discussing clubbing baby seals, kicking puppies, or gunning down unarmed civilians. We discussing someone correctly ending what, at the time, your best evidence indicated was a real and present threat.
You can argue "oh, the jogger boy got his reparations, he was on his way out to go to church and get out of the hood. He wuz a gud boi, he dindu nuffin" all day, but the civilians who are, to the best of their knowledge, being robbed at gunpoint, have no reason to assume the man crazy and/or desperate enough to become a bandit won't suddenly decide a rape or murder is on the table as well.
Jogger boy over there could very well turn around and fire a few shots; you have no indicators the aggressor, and I hate to belabor this but it bears repeating, who is a literal armed bandit is a man of sound mind and upstanding moral character, and many indicators that this is a violent, aggressive man acting unpredictably.
Putting two rounds center mass and another two in the head to make sure he stays down is perfectly moral. I would even argue it's an ethical requirement, if you follow the ideology that those with power have a responsibility to use it to protect those without power.
What's your opinion of killing military aged males in sandy countries bevause they may have used weapons in the past?
When someone is already dead is not the point at which you stop.
Way to not so much move the fucking goalposts as to attach them to a rocket and launch them at Mars.
I dunno, what's the bloody context? Are the sand joggers robbing a store I'm in? Did I just pass them on the street? Are we currently in sand jogger country and they're potential hostiles eyeing up my guard post suspiciously?
Because if this question is, essentially, "would you also say to double tap if it was an allahu ackbar instead of a dindu robbing the store with what turned out to be a toy gun?", I'd say "absolutely, ammunition does not discriminate, it only penetrates".
If a person is an aggressor with a deadly weapon, making sure the target is permanently stopped is the goal. You can own a firearm and not brandish it in a robbery. You can go for a walk about town with your firearm without automagically becoming a bandit, forced to assault and rob nearby people.
But when you make the choice to walk into a place, brandish a deadly weapon (which even in the most soyboi cuck legal frameworks is still understood to be an implicit threat of grievous injury and/or death), and rob people, you've made the choice to gamble your life. And you have zero recourse to complain if your gamble fails and someone takes your life.
Because the bandit is not a victim. The bandit is a violent criminal, who was quite likely to offend again, and potentially hurt or kill someone during the next robbery.
Hardly. You're writing novels to justify NOT reassessing the threat posed by an individual after you've filled him with holes and disarmed him. Reread your first paragraph in your reply to me, please.
How smoothbrained of a motherfucker do you have to be to consider eight sentences to be "novels"?
Go back to eating crayons. Taking the time to double tap an armed agressor is the only correct option. Leave him on the ground, and you have to take the risk that he's wounded but not incapacitated, and will try to escape or attack. Neither are acceptable outcomes.
Why are you so fixated on protecting literal armed bandits?
So basically you aren't even allowed to execute this scum. Good thing he left the scene then.
Linkety dink? This video is making the rounds in various stages of edited versions.
Most of the comments are supportive, but you have a few of your usual jackasses in the comments arguing with people and screaming "murder."
Personally, I've only got a problem with the last shot. Shooting him when he was on the ground was - again, in my opinion - fine, since I view it as all part of the same instance. You've got adrenaline pumping, time is moving weird, you're closing on someone who is still armed. Maybe those shots weren't perfect, but I think they're easily justifiable.
That last one...oof. Looks bad, and it's a much harder argument to make for that one, considering he's been disarmed, and you're so close; you could easily control him at that point without a gun at all...he's been shot seven times, is lying on the floor, and you can be on top of him in an instant.
That said, he's probably/hopefully still legally fine. You can make some of the same arguments about adrenaline and heat of the moment, and the last shot will hopefully get lumped in with the others as justified. But, yeah, pretty sketch on that last one, gotta say.
There is no reason to do anything but immediately hightail it to your lawyer.
There is no requirement to stay OR to talk to the police, and I wouldn't do either.
Yes, but...
There's no such thing as a sure-fire justifiable homicide (unless you're a cop).
-All arguemnts the prosecutor has against this guy: and that' assumeing that he's a perfect citizen
If you shoot someone, expect the state to try everything in their power to fuck you. When some random dindu guns down an old lady in the street, it's expected, but when you gun down that dindu, you protected and served that old lady; you're encroaching on their racket and making them look bad. It becomes personal. In the eyes of the public you're a hero; in the eyes of the cop though, you're a vigilante who's going to spark a wave of vigilantism and perceived police ineptitude.
I don't even carry when I'm by myself anyone, and I'm an instructor. I know that with my background, training, and political views, a 1st year law student could put me away even if the bad guy was raping my wife with a gun to my child's head.
If you carry a firearm, any agent of the criminal jewstus system is your enemy. Period.
All true. This is why it is critically important that we serve on juries and nullify whenever appropriate.
lol, just how lame are you?
You know, just this once, I got a good goyim chuckle on that one.
It's retarded, but I kind of miss that old /b/ retardation. Reminds me of my youth. Get off my lawn, you darned kids. Where's my apple sauce?
No less lame than you are for focusing on that one (irrelevant, flippant) part of the comment.
Sniff. That huwt my feewings.
I do hope it was flippant.
The execution shot at the end has a high probability of getting him sent to prison.
They say there are no charges against him but that's probably just to get him to come forward.
Oh yeah I just actually read the HPD Tweet. That is hugely a trap.
Or he knows that police are not the good guys. And look at that, in a clear cut case of defence against an assailant the police are looking for this guy. Police are not friends of the public, they're lapdogs of the state.
In a society that openly hates white people, and especially white people who defend themselves. In a society where every truth and fact has been abandoned to make way for poisonous virtue signalling. In a society where a large amount of police are hostile to the people they are supposed to be protecting.
Not saying walking away was the right call, but I 100% understand it. This man knows he did the right thing. Why do you think he needs the permission of an increasingly illegitimate state to do it?
In a sane world, his leaving the scene after the fact would have little to no bearing on the correctness of his actions. As it is, we can only hope he gets reasonable cops, or a reasonable judge and jury.
Uh oh, we got a Thin Blue Liner here.
If it's a perfectly justified example of defence, then the innocent are not to be terrorised by armed thugs.
You never know when the guy you just shot might have equally violent friends come check why he hasn't come back with the goods yet. Sitting around the scene is an inherently risky proposition.
You can debate whether or not he should then immediately present himself to the police, but leaving the scene is pretty justifiable even for someone who has done nothing wrong.
Good point on the friends, hadn't even thought of that.
Not immediately, that's for sure. If he is going to go to the police, he needs to get a lawyer first.