WWII Vet Says Nobody Helped After He Was Carjacked - video added

62t

62t

CAGiversary!
Feedback
76 (100%)
A World War II veteran says nobody helped him after he was attacked and carjacked in daylight at a Detroit gas station.

A roughly four-minute surveillance video obtained by the Detroit Free Press shows 86-year-old Aaron Brantley crawling from a fuel pump to the station's door as people walk and drive by him.


Brantley told the newspaper a man knocked him down, took his keys and drove off in his car Wednesday morning. He says at least four people walked by as he crawled, unable to walk because his leg was broken.

Station manager Haissam Jaber says he didn't see the attack but called 911 after a customer alerted him. A customer drove Brantley home, where an ambulance took him to the hospital.
Click to expand...

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/wwii-vet-helped-carjacked-15791758

Link to video - Might be disturbing for some

http://www.freep.com/article/201202...lp-he-says?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|FRONTPAGE
 
Last edited by a moderator:
That's a shame, but this kind of phenomenon is not unheard of. People have passively sat by during murders as well, without attempting to stop or even alert the police and emergency aid.
 
Kind of interesting that this story comes on the heels of the story about how the guy who detained the burgler got arrested.

When law enforcement prosecutes the victims of theft there is a chilling effect. Don't kid yourself - in an overly litigious society like ours, people register a sensationalist story like the one about the guy who got arrested for detaining a burgler and they take away the lesson that you shouldn't get involved. The same thing happens in China.

If I can I will always stop to help someone, but I always know in the back of the mind that just by helping I'm putting myself at risk of being sued or worse. It's a shame, but that's modern America.
 
Sad to see the old timers, especially a veteran of the "good war," still living in Detroit, or at the very least, having to be there for some reason or another. Once they die off, there will be very few good people left there. Detroit is one of the few cities in America that I sincerely believe that statement for.
 
The person who does this type of thing just needs to cease to exist. Sure Dmaul I may be demonizing the criminal because he "simply" stole a car, but it takes a special kind of asshole to do something like this.

Shame on the cowards who just walked on by.

Edit: It is tough to tell from the video who stopped or not, it seems as if the last couple people were helping him. It looked as if someone was calling 911, and was waving someone over, which is curious because its a gas station.
 
[quote name='Lyricsborn']Bystander effect striles again[/QUOTE]

Yeah, that's likely a big part of it. When there are other people around people are less likely to intervene as they assume some one else will, or someone else already called the cops etc.

But it is ridiculous. I can understand not getting involved when there's danger as the first rule of life saving is never to put your own life at risk. But the car jacker was gone and this poor bastard is injured and crawling across a parking lot and people are just walking and driving by without helping which is just pathetic.
 
[quote name='Knoell']The person who does this type of thing just needs to cease to exist. Sure Dmaul I may be demonizing the criminal because he "simply" stole a car, but it takes a special kind of asshole to do something like this.

Shame on the cowards who just walked on by.

Edit: It is tough to tell from the video who stopped or not, it seems as if the last couple people were helping him. It looked as if someone was calling 911, and was waving someone over, which is curious because its a gas station.[/QUOTE]

Don't you get tired of judging people? You want someone to "cease to exist" because they didn't help someone. Yeah, I get it we should help people and its crappy that some people don't but to say those who don't help should "cease to exist"? That's going more than a little too far.

You have no idea what was going through those people's minds and the full circumstances. Perhaps they were scared too that they were risking injury themselves. Maybe they were elderly themselves and couldn't give assistance. If they didn't see him get carjacked how do they know he wasn't some homeless person crawling across the pavement? I mean hell, it's Detroit, if there's any city that's taught people that getting involved could get you hurt/killed it would be somewhere with crime as high as Detroit.
 
[quote name='camoor']Kind of interesting that this story comes on the heels of the story about how the guy who detained the burgler got arrested.

When law enforcement prosecutes the victims of theft there is a chilling effect. Don't kid yourself - in an overly litigious society like ours, people register a sensationalist story like the one about the guy who got arrested for detaining a burgler and they take away the lesson that you shouldn't get involved. The same thing happens in China.

If I can I will always stop to help someone, but I always know in the back of the mind that just by helping I'm putting myself at risk of being sued or worse. It's a shame, but that's modern America.[/QUOTE]

This is a pretty big reach. In order for your claim to hold any merit, you have to assume (a) people in Detroit are well aware of a relatively obscure situation in New Hampshire (i.e., people in Detroit are all aware of current events well outside of their area), (b) people in Detroit are well versed in current events (i.e., they read the news at all), and (c) any deterrent effect was because of (a) and (b), and not because people assumed that either someone else would call/help/stop or because they were more intimidated by the threat that already existed at the moment (the car theif).

Claiming that people aren't helping because they're afraid of being arrested is a monumentally stupid thing to claim.

[quote name='Lyricsborn']Bystander effect striles again[/QUOTE]

More like that, yeah.
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']Don't you get tired of judging people? You want someone to "cease to exist" because they didn't help someone. Yeah, I get it we should help people and its crappy that some people don't but to say those who don't help should "cease to exist"? That's going more than a little too far.

You have no idea what was going through those people's minds and the full circumstances. Perhaps they were scared too that they were risking injury themselves. Maybe they were elderly themselves and couldn't give assistance. If they didn't see him get carjacked how do they know he wasn't some homeless person crawling across the pavement? I mean hell, it's Detroit, if there's any city that's taught people that getting involved could get you hurt/killed it would be somewhere with crime as high as Detroit.[/QUOTE]

Yet another baseless attack. Do you even read my posts? Go back and reread it.

Edit: Nevermind you might misinterpret it again like last time. In the first line I am talking about the criminal. The next line I am talking about the bystanders just ignoring the guy. Especially the guy who pulled his car rather close to him and then backed up
 
[quote name='mykevermin']This is a pretty big reach. In order for your claim to hold any merit, you have to assume (a) people in Detroit are well aware of a relatively obscure situation in New Hampshire (i.e., people in Detroit are all aware of current events well outside of their area), (b) people in Detroit are well versed in current events (i.e., they read the news at all), and (c) any deterrent effect was because of (a) and (b), and not because people assumed that either someone else would call/help/stop or because they were more intimidated by the threat that already existed at the moment (the car theif).

Claiming that people aren't helping because they're afraid of being arrested is a monumentally stupid thing to claim.[/QUOTE]

I don't think so.

Personally I am bombarded with stories of friends and acquaintences who were sued trying to do the right thing.

I had a ex-lifeguard friend that was sued for saving a guy in the ocean. The guy was trying to learn how to scuba dive and he started to panic, sink, and drown. My friend rescued him but in the process the guy's scuba gear was ditched. The guy sued my friend for the loss of the scuba gear. It was thrown out by the judge sight unseen, but before that it got alot of press.

Then there's the case of the guy who was robbing a house, fell through a glass roof onto a knife, and sucessfully sued the owner.

There are a million other cases, civil and criminal, that we hear of every day. In America you can get sued for looking at someone crosseyed.

In the video I don't think I can say that I saw people that weren't helping. Instead I saw people that were not actively giving the guy a hand. It's possible all three cars were probably calling the cops or 911 before that one guy got out to help.

Calling and waiting is what we are trained by the government and the courts to do. Just read the last thread, almost everyone said that the guy should have done the ol' call and wait (or moreso in that case, call and pray)
 
The last thread is a very different situation. People should call and wait rather than confronting a criminal unless they are in danger and have to act to defend themselves or others.

Helping an injured person is totally different and people should call for help quickly (as an ambulance was needed) and then do what they can to help. Which in this case would be telling the person to be still until the ambulance arrived etc.
 
[quote name='camoor']Then there's the case of the guy who was robbing a house, fell through a glass roof onto a knife, and sucessfully sued the owner.
[/QUOTE]


Hey, do you perhaps have a source for that glass roof case? The only thing I could find was a couple of quotes from the movie Liar, Liar:


[quote name='Liar, Liar']Greta: Mr. Reede, several years ago a friend of mine had a burglar on her roof. A burglar. He fell through the kitchen skylight, landed on a cutting board, on a butcher's knife, cutting his leg. The burglar sued my friend. He sued my friend and because of guys like you, he won. My friend had to pay the burglar $6,000. Is that justice?

Fletcher: No!... I'd have got him ten.[/QUOTE]
 
[quote name='Knoell']Yet another baseless attack. Do you even read my posts? Go back and reread it.

Edit: Nevermind you might misinterpret it again like last time. In the first line I am talking about the criminal. The next line I am talking about the bystanders just ignoring the guy. Especially the guy who pulled his car rather close to him and then backed up[/QUOTE]

Baseless? Hardly. You sit and judge everyone from a standpoint of moral absolutism. Everyone in this world to you is good or evil and evil must be punished out of existence. Once a criminal always a criminal, no mistakes, no second chances.
 
[quote name='camoor']Personally I am bombarded with stories of friends and acquaintences[/QUOTE]

Ooooh, anecdotal bias. Whoopie dang doo.
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']Baseless? Hardly. You sit and judge everyone from a standpoint of moral absolutism. Everyone in this world to you is good or evil and evil must be punished out of existence. Once a criminal always a criminal, no mistakes, no second chances.[/QUOTE]

Explain how that wasn't baseless? You misread my post, then proceeded to criticize it based on your own mistaken interpretation of it. I call that baseless.

I am sure the criminal who knocked over an 86 year old man (breaking his leg) and stole his car, was simply a victim of X card you want to play, and cannot be expected to meet established moral standards.

More crying about the criminal being the real victim, and little talk about the true victim. This is why this forum is so damn ridiculous.
 
[quote name='Knoell']Explain how that wasn't baseless? You misread my post, then proceeded to criticize it based on your own mistaken interpretation of it. I call that baseless.

I am sure the criminal who knocked over an 86 year old man (breaking his leg) and stole his car, was simply a victim of X card you want to play, and cannot be expected to meet established moral standards.

More crying about the criminal being the real victim, and little talk about the true victim. This is why this forum is so damn ridiculous.[/QUOTE]
So your counter-argument is a strawman? LOLZ

Lemme get this straight: You believe that breaking someone's leg in a car-jacking should be punishable by death?
 
[quote name='ID2006']Hey, do you perhaps have a source for that glass roof case? The only thing I could find was a couple of quotes from the movie Liar, Liar:[/QUOTE]

The story evolved from a case (Bodline vs Enterprise High School) in which a student climbed onto the roof to steal a floodlight, supposedly to light a basketball court. He fell through a skylight that was tarred over and into the gym, and sued the school because he became a quadriplegic. From what I understand, the school only settled because there had been a prior instance in which they knew about the dangers, but ignored them.

But yes, camoor was quoting Liar Liar there. :lol:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='dohdough']So your counter-argument is a strawman? LOLZ

Lemme guess this straight: You believe that breaking someone's leg in a car-jacking should be punishable by death?[/QUOTE]

No I don't think it should officially be punished by death, but I think that a person has such little moral capacity to rip the keys from an 86 year old man and knock him to the ground, should not be trusted to make moral decisions in the future and should cease to exist in society.

If it was me, I would have shot him though yes. Although I don't have a gun.....
 
[quote name='Knoell']No I don't think it should officially be punished by death, but I think that a person has such little moral capacity to rip the keys from an 86 year old man and knock him to the ground, should not be trusted to make moral decisions in the future and should cease to exist in society.

If it was me, I would have shot him though yes. Although I don't have a gun.....[/QUOTE]
What's the difference between officially and unofficially if you think he should "ceast to exist?" As if "cease to exist in society" meant anything other than being put to death by the state or by an individual.:roll: And since you believe that the perpetrator shouldn't be killed by the state, then you believe that as a witness, vigilante action like shooting the perpetrator dead would be an acceptable response?

Btw, your euphemism sucks and is more transparent than glass. I also hope you never get a gun because you clearly don't have the mental faculties to be responsible enough to own one.
 
[quote name='dohdough']What's the difference between officially and unofficially if you think he should "ceast to exist?" As if "cease to exist in society" meant anything other than being put to death by the state or by an individual.:roll: And since you believe that the perpetrator shouldn't be killed by the state, then you believe that as a witness, vigilante action like shooting the perpetrator dead would be an acceptable response?

Btw, your euphemism sucks and is more transparent than glass. I also hope you never get a gun because you clearly don't have the mental faculties to be responsible enough to own one.[/QUOTE]

Here is a thought.

When the state has a criminal in custody, they have control.
When a criminal is in the process of comitting a crime, the criminal has control unless someone takes it from them.

But you know, a criminal in public is no different than a criminal in custody, keep thinking that way. I hope you never need a gun my friend.
 
[quote name='Knoell']Here is a thought.

When the state has a criminal in custody, they have control.
When a criminal is in the process of comitting a crime, the criminal has control unless someone takes it from them.

But you know, a criminal in public is no different than a criminal in custody, keep thinking that way. I hope you never need a gun my friend.[/QUOTE]
I have another thought: How about you address my points before you throw out more strawmen?
 
@ID2006 I got some details wrong but you get the point.

"In other words, a burglar fell through a skylight, and blamed the skylight’s owners for his injuries; because the law permits such suits, and because the law does not compensate defendants for successful defenses, Bodine had the ability to extort hundreds of thousands of dollars from taxpayers for injuries suffered in the course of his own criminal behavior. "

http://overlawyered.com/2006/09/the-burglar-and-the-skylight-another-debunking-that-isnt/
 
[quote name='dohdough']I have another thought: How about you address my points before you throw out more strawmen?[/QUOTE]

You have no points because you are rehashing everything I say, but put your own twist on it.

Yes I say that if an innocent bystander sees this old man getting robbed, the innocent bystander should be able to react in whatever manner that they have at their disposal. Be it a gun, their fists, etc....

We should be striking fear into the hearts of criminals rather than into people who try to help.
 
[quote name='Knoell']We should be striking fear into the hearts of criminals[/QUOTE]

:rofl:

Are you writing copy for the boxes of straight-to-video action movies, or discussing public policy?

:rofl:
 
[quote name='Knoell']The story evolved from a case (Bodline vs Enterprise High School) in which a student climbed onto the roof to steal a floodlight, supposedly to light a basketball court. He fell through a skylight that was tarred over and into the gym, and sued the school because he became a quadriplegic. From what I understand, the school only settled because there had been a prior instance in which they knew about the dangers, but ignored them.

But yes, camoor was quoting Liar Liar there. :lol:[/QUOTE]

FWIW I actually wasn't quoting Liar Liar, I heard it from a friend.

Also - while I'm addressing you, I agree with nothing you say. You have a Batman complex. You see the world in simplistic terms of good and evil. You tried dragging me into it - saying you agree with me in the other thread but you don't understand my point of view at all and I certainly don't share yours.

Do me a favor and make your own damn arguements. The last thing I need is for my posts to be associated with yours.
 
[quote name='Knoell']You have no points because you are rehashing everything I say, but put your own twist on it.[/quote]
What twist? You mean like Chubby Checker? If I'm so off the mark, how about you explain what "cease to exist in society" meant?

Yes I say that if an innocent bystander sees this old man getting robbed, the innocent bystander should be able to react in whatever manner that they have at their disposal. Be it a gun, their fists, etc....
Click to expand...
First, it sounds like you have never fired a gun. Second, most people that have handguns can't shoot for shit. Third, should the perpetrator be allowed to be beaten to death?

We should be striking fear into the hearts of criminals rather than into people who try to help.
Click to expand...
This method hasn't worked since...well, ever...even when Batman said it.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']:rofl:

Are you writing copy for the boxes of straight-to-video action movies, or discussing public policy?

:rofl:[/QUOTE]

Because laws aren't ever written to make someone think twice about the consequences of committing a crime. No, not at all. So civilians who can protect themselves wouldn't make someone think twice either, no not at all. :roll:

[quote name='camoor']FWIW I actually wasn't quoting Liar Liar, I heard it from a friend.

Also - while I'm addressing you, I agree with nothing you say. You have a Batman complex. You see the world in simplistic terms of good and evil. You tried dragging me into it - saying you agree with me in the other thread but you don't understand my point of view at all and I certainly don't share yours.

Do me a favor and make your own damn arguements. The last thing I need is for my posts to be associated with yours.[/QUOTE]

You were quoting Liar Liar, don't get your panties in a bunch, it is a common misinterpretation of the actual case.

Also if you don't mind, what do you disagree with? Besides picking up one liners from your buddies here and pretending that you know what they are talking about?

[quote name='dohdough']What twist? You mean like Chubby Checker? If I'm so off the mark, how about you explain what "cease to exist in society" meant?

First, it sounds like you have never fired a gun. Second, most people that have handguns can't shoot for shit. Third, should the perpetrator be allowed to be beaten to death?

This method hasn't worked since...well, ever...even when Batman said it.[/QUOTE]

I have fired plenty of guns, not sure why this matters but OK. Second, Noone said you don't need training in the safety and use of firearms. Third is that when you are beating someone to death, you then have control of the situation and can restrain yourself.

I actually think you guys have the batman complex. Why? Because you believe that only a world in which batman exists can crime be stopped by a civilian. Defending your life, property, and innocents when the authorities are not present is something to be proud of, not some mythical comic book character. It is sad to think that there are people out there who not only think that stopping a crime is some vigiliante fantasy, but that you shouldn't involve yourself beyong calling the police.

But I can already tell, you guys are the people on the phone calling the police rather than stopping the poor 86 year old man from being robbed.

Good for you guys.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Knoell']Because laws aren't ever written to make someone think twice about the consequences of committing a crime. No, not at all. So civilians who can protect themselves wouldn't make someone think twice either, no not at all. :roll:[/QUOTE]

There's a word for that: deterrence.

You don't have to write dimestore pulp to convey the same message. Read your "strike fear in the hearts of blah blah" sentence in the Christian Bale Batman voice. If you don't laugh - if you, having done that, want to come back here and double down on your post, and not acknowledge that it was pretty stupid - then you show why nobody here takes you even remotely seriously.

Your "give no quarter" approach to debate isn't charming and doesn't make many people take you seriously. Vociferously defending stupid territory is Quixotic. I will challenge your intelligence and lack of humility/concession as significant character flaws, but I will never challenge how tenaciously you defend the really, really stupid things you believe in.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']There's a word for that: deterrence.

You don't have to write dimestore pulp to convey the same message. Read your "strike fear in the hearts of blah blah" sentence in the Christian Bale Batman voice. If you don't laugh - if you, having done that, want to come back here and double down on your post, and not acknowledge that it was pretty stupid - then you show why nobody here takes you even remotely seriously.

Your "give no quarter" approach to debate isn't charming and doesn't make many people take you seriously. Vociferously defending stupid territory is Quixotic. I will challenge your intelligence and lack of humility/concession as significant character flaws, but I will never challenge how tenaciously you defend the really, really stupid things you believe in.[/QUOTE]

What the hell are you going on about? Why don't you read the "criminal's deserve second chances" in the sketchy defense attorney voice.

If fighting back when you or even a stranger close to you is being wronged is really stupid then you are more screwed up than I originally believed.

:rofl:"Your beliefs are stupid because I don't share them and disagree" :rofl:

Regardless if you insist on the Batman scenario I appreciate you relating people who would actively assist people who need help to a superhero, and in turn I will relate you to the guy that hides under his desk and calls the police while someone gets the crap beat out of him because you don't want to infringe on the criminals rights.
 
[quote name='Knoell']You were quoting Liar Liar, don't get your panties in a bunch, it is a common misinterpretation of the actual case.

Also if you don't mind, what do you disagree with? Besides picking up one liners from your buddies here and pretending that you know what they are talking about?[/QUOTE]

Because you are a terrible debater. Sorry if that's harsh but in all fairness, you asked.

You think that just because you say something that it goes from opinion to apriori truth.

You think that posting a chart proves your point. You don't understand that different methods of data interpretation have varying degress of validity. You probably don't even understand that last sentence.

Also - well take for example last thread about the homeowner, you thought that because the prosecutor dropped the case it proved that you were right. No, it just means that one prosecutor decided to drop the case. That alone did not negate the arguements that others were making.
 
[quote name='Knoell']What the hell are you going on about? Why don't you read the "criminal's deserve second chances" in the sketchy defense attorney voice.

If fighting back when you or even a stranger close to you is being wronged is really stupid then you are more screwed up than I originally believed.

:rofl:"Your beliefs are stupid because I don't share them and disagree" :rofl:

Regardless if you insist on the Batman scenario I appreciate you relating people who would actively assist people who need help to a superhero, and in turn I will relate you to the guy that hides under his desk and calls the police while someone gets the crap beat out of him because you don't want to infringe on the criminals rights.[/QUOTE]

Well, first and foremost, don't assume I believe in "criminals." Because I don't.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']:rofl:

Are you writing copy for the boxes of straight-to-video action movies, or discussing public policy?

:rofl:[/QUOTE]
No, don't you know? Knoell is Batman.
 
Oh and for the record, if someone is on your property and they get hurt, they can and should be able to sue you. There is no difference between someone walking up to your door and tripping, breaking an ankle, and a theif braking an ankle on the way out the door after robbing your ass. Either way you've left a hazard on your property for someone to hurt themselves on. Why they were there in the first place is iirelevent.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']
You don't have to write dimestore pulp to convey the same message. Read your "strike fear in the hearts of blah blah" sentence in the Christian Bale Batman voice. If you don't laugh[/QUOTE]

To be fair, almost everything is funny in the Christian Bale Batman voice...
 
[quote name='4thHorseman']To be fair, almost everything is funny in the Christian Bale Batman voice...[/QUOTE]

I prefer the "Jos. A Bank commercial narrator voice" myself. But they are, admittedly, quite similar.
 
[quote name='Clak']Oh and for the record, if someone is on your property and they get hurt, they can and should be able to sue you. There is no difference between someone walking up to your door and tripping, breaking an ankle, and a theif braking an ankle on the way out the door after robbing your ass. Either way you've left a hazard on your property for someone to hurt themselves on. Why they were there in the first place is iirelevent.[/QUOTE]

Are you serious?
 
As a heart attack, that's why cases like that occur where someone breaks into a home and sues when they get hurt leaving. Doesn't matter if it's your neighbor walking out the door and hurting himself or a thief, you left the hole, object, whatever there on your property for someone to get hurt on. Why the person was there is irrelevant as it could have been anyone who got hurt.
 
[quote name='Clak']Oh and for the record, if someone is on your property and they get hurt, they can and should be able to sue you. There is no difference between someone walking up to your door and tripping, breaking an ankle, and a theif braking an ankle on the way out the door after robbing your ass. Either way you've left a hazard on your property for someone to hurt themselves on. Why they were there in the first place is iirelevent.[/QUOTE]

It depends on what you're talking about - if it's booby traps then you have a point.

But if they slip and fall on a wet floor or a trike left in the living room by little Johnny, then they can sue but any semi-decent judge in the country would throw it out and make the thief pay court fees. I'm not a lawyer, but I believe you're talking about civil court and in civil court the burden of proof is much higher.
 
[quote name='Clak']Oh and for the record, if someone is on your property and they get hurt, they can and should be able to sue you. There is no difference between someone walking up to your door and tripping, breaking an ankle, and a theif braking an ankle on the way out the door after robbing your ass. Either way you've left a hazard on your property for someone to hurt themselves on. Why they were there in the first place is iirelevent.[/QUOTE]

I gotta disagree with this, outside of the property, I can maybe see, but inside of the property I did not give you consent to be in the area, so you are there at your own risk. If that were the law, why aren't tons of people running around in construction zones trying to create lawsuits?
 
I agree with Clak, but for the naysayers, there's a difference between initiating a lawsuit and winning a law suit. Not to mention that in California, the urban myth about being able to sue someone you robbed no longer existed after 1985. It was because of that case with the kid falling through the roof that a new law was enacted to prohibit it.
 
[quote name='soulvengeance']I gotta disagree with this, outside of the property, I can maybe see, but inside of the property I did not give you consent to be in the area, so you are there at your own risk. If that were the law, why aren't tons of people running around in construction zones trying to create lawsuits?[/QUOTE]
This one's easy. That's because there are clear construction signs that act as a warning. Add a police detail during the day and you're good to go.

[quote name='Knoell']I have fired plenty of guns, not sure why this matters but OK. Second, Noone said you don't need training in the safety and use of firearms. Third is that when you are beating someone to death, you then have control of the situation and can restrain yourself.[/QUOTE]
If point one and two are true, then you should know how much training and practice it takes to be proficient at 25 yards because anything less than that, an assailant can bridge the distance before you can unholster, draw, aim, and fire. And to draw it back to this incident, only a moron with a deathwish would shoot a gun in the direction of a gas station, which makes your bravado about using any means necessary even more preposterous. Which also makes me wonder why you brought it up to begin with when you then say someone should exercise some restraint! SO does that mean that people shouldn't be going vigilante on others?

I actually think you guys have the batman complex. Why? Because you believe that only a world in which batman exists can crime be stopped by a civilian. Defending your life, property, and innocents when the authorities are not present is something to be proud of, not some mythical comic book character. It is sad to think that there are people out there who not only think that stopping a crime is some vigiliante fantasy, but that you shouldn't involve yourself beyong calling the police.
Click to expand...
WTF are you talking about here? Even John Wayne wasn't John fucking Wayne. Maybe you should stop involving yourself into these discussions until you get over your hero complex.

I'm also waiting for your definition of "cease to exist in society."

But I can already tell, you guys are the people on the phone calling the police rather than stopping the poor 86 year old man from being robbed.

Good for you guys.
Click to expand...
A vast majority of the population isn't heavily trained in hand-to-hand combat muchless trained to disarm an armed subject. If you get shot or stabbed, you're not going to be helping anybody, muchless yourself.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='camoor']Because you are a terrible debater. Sorry if that's harsh but in all fairness, you asked.

You think that just because you say something that it goes from opinion to apriori truth.

You think that posting a chart proves your point. You don't understand that different methods of data interpretation have varying degress of validity. You probably don't even understand that last sentence.

Also - well take for example last thread about the homeowner, you thought that because the prosecutor dropped the case it proved that you were right. No, it just means that one prosecutor decided to drop the case. That alone did not negate the arguements that others were making.[/QUOTE]

This just proves you have no understanding of anything that goes on here. You just say random crap that sometimes is related but usually isn't.

As for the last thread and me thinking I am right wasn't the case. I was pointing out that they were making it as if it was so "outrageous and idiotic" for people to be arguing that charges should be dropped. Then when charges are dropped they say "meh, discretion". It was solid evidence of how people gang up and enforce their opinion as fact on this forum.

You still haven't listed anything that you disagree with me about, let alone "not agreeing with anything I say".

Sad face I am a poor debater :cry:

As for the last page of utter ridiculousness, I won't even bother responding.
 
[quote name='dohdough']This one's easy. That's because there are clear construction signs that act as a warning. Add a police detail during the day and you're good to go.


If point one and two are true, then you should know how much training and practice it takes to be proficient at 25 yards because anything less than that, an assailant can bridge the distance before you can unholster, draw, aim, and fire. And to draw it back to this incident, only a moron with a deathwish would shoot a gun in the direction of a gas station, which makes your bravado about using any means necessary even more preposterous. Which also makes me wonder why you brought it up to begin with when you then say someone should exercise some restraint! SO does that mean that people shouldn't be going vigilante on others?


WTF are you talking about here? Even John Wayne wasn't John fucking Wayne. Maybe you should stop involving yourself into these discussions until you get over your hero complex.

I'm also waiting for your definition of "cease to exist in society."


A vast majority of the population isn't heavily trained in hand-to-hand combat muchless trained to disarm an armed subject. If you get shot or stabbed, you're not going to be helping anybody, muchless yourself.[/QUOTE]

Here is the twist if you were wondering.

1. For the second time, noone said you do not need training in the use of firearms. Who is saying different?

2. What I said was, that if someone is the victim of a crime, the victim, or bystander should use whatever tools they have at their disposal to gain control of the situation. You brought up beating someone to death, and I said that at somepoint in that scenario you have control of the situation and can show restraint. Like you just said though, if you are aiming a gun at someone, they can close the gap very quickly so shooting them may be necessary. Obviously if the perpetrator puts his hands up, and remains where he is, you need not shoot him.

3. "A vast majority of the population may not be trained in hand to hand combat, and it will do little to help if they get hurt."

Sure that can be your official position to dispose of vigiliantism, however I guess you would just be holding your phone with 911 watching this http://www.experienceproject.com/stories/Saw-Something-Tragic-On-The-News-Today/1984756 happen instead of assisting the innocent person being assaulted. FYI this isn't from Batman, it happened not too far from me.

"OMG he has a knive! everyone for themselves!"

In the end you just threw out a bunch of strawman arguments. Great job.
 
Knoell I remember talking to someone who was suppose to have hand to hand training and he said if a person knows how to actually use a knife he would just run.
That's of course if you're not packing.
As for Clak, are you kidding me?! Knock that shit out. If someone is robbing you, they don't deserve a fucking dime. Now, if they happen to be a solicitor that's another story.
 
[quote name='Knoell']Here is the twist if you were wondering.

1. For the second time, noone said you do not need training in the use of firearms. Who is saying different?[/quote]
Practicing at the local range and taking tactical shooting classes are two fucking different things especially when you're not making a distinction. Add stressers to the equation and you're exponentially more likely to hit something that isn't your target.

2. What I said was, that if someone is the victim of a crime, the victim, or bystander should use whatever tools they have at their disposal to gain control of the situation. You brought up beating someone to death, and I said that at somepoint in that scenario you have control of the situation and can show restraint. Like you just said though, if you are aiming a gun at someone, they can close the gap very quickly so shooting them may be necessary. Obviously if the perpetrator puts his hands up, and remains where he is, you need not shoot him.
Click to expand...
Holy fuck balls. You literally didn't understand a single thing I said or have any knowledge of gun safety or theory.

The entire argument is predicated on the fact that you said that the thief should be able to be killed for breaking someone's leg in the process of stealing the victim's car. Are you schizophrenic or something?

3. "A vast majority of the population may not be trained in hand to hand combat, and it will do little to help if they get hurt."

Sure that can be your official position to dispose of vigiliantism, however I guess you would just be holding your phone with 911 watching this http://www.experienceproject.com/stories/Saw-Something-Tragic-On-The-News-Today/1984756 happen instead of assisting the innocent person being assaulted. FYI this isn't from Batman, it happened not too far from me.
Click to expand...
You are barking up the wrong motherfucking tree with me on this one dick cheese. One of my friends was stabbed to death trying to stop a fight. You have no fucking clue how these things can turn out. One or all three of those kids could've been killed and if those two friends weren't able to coordinate something, things would've ended up much more differently. Even in your scenario, two people were wounded.

"OMG he has a knive! everyone for themselves!"
Click to expand...
No one even came close to saying this. Which leads to...

In the end you just threw out a bunch of strawman arguments. Great job.
Click to expand...
You need to learn what a fucking strawman is. If you're going to make the claim that someone is doing it, back that shit up like a fucking man that you pretend to be instead of a petulant child.
 
Deja Vu? You are the one who doesn't know what a strawman is, as you constantly use it beyond its definition. Here you go:

A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.[1][2]

I don't have a lot of time to argue your other ridiculous points right now, but in the morning I will.

But one thing is your third point, that something can go wrong when assisting a bystander. Damn right something can go wrong, that does not mean you should not help. I guess in your mind those two kids should have done the same as the other kid, and videotaped the guy stabbing the girl while on the phone with 911? God damn, you have the most skewed morals I have ever seen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top