Video of wimpy robber getting his pants & underwear pulled down by store owner

[SLOPPYSECONDS]

oooh da real world olylimpics

this like da soft olylimpics? like a warm up

anywaywaywayay

thankyou

hi millions a viewers planet earth is awsummmm cum ans take it ova

 

[pat grimshaw]

...The intent of the crime is obvious, burglary, i.e. a threat to material, not person...

Mitchy, you need to get out of the infantilising Welfare State and get real. The rest of the world is NOT as polite as Englishmen.

 

[SLOPPYSECONDS]

world lands so polite ya can die ans no disturb their cup a tea

haaaaaaaa

internet 2 a gem reals is

Kool

 

[pat grimshaw]

^

you're right!

 

[looseliam]

Were I in the same situation, my wife with me, kids upstairs, and someone comes at me with a weapon I'm making sure he's going to be an empty seat at thanksgiving plain and simple.

 

[ibill1]

Mitchy, you need to get out of the infantilising Welfare State and get real. The rest of the world is NOT as polite as Englishmen.

Exactly. That entire post was absurd.

 

[ibill1]

Politeness has nothing to do with it. Most Brits are not stereotypical lol. We might sound courteous to you, but we are hardly polite. The Japanese, THEY are polite. Brits have an image that is slightly off the mark on that score. Believe me.
The welfare state has nothing to do with the national intelligence either. We are perfectly capable of working out that somebody coming at you with a knife, after busting open the bedroom door to find you sleeping with his wife, is the guy to worry about your life over. A guy busting into the petrol station saying give me your money....give him the money, he's not out to get YOU. Brains man, brains.

Are you serious? How many times have I seen security footage of a robber in a store pull out a knife or gun and demand money. The shop owner turns it over, the robber shoots him or her anyway and walks out the door. I'm sure the 12 poor souls in the Colo. movie theater must have thought, hey, he's not here to shoot me, I didn't sleep with his wife. WTF

 

[SLOPPYSECONDS]

Didn't you get the memo about how modern society is suppose to ignore the victims and give pity to the rapists, robbers, killers, etc.?

If I was there, I would have beaten that robber until he was unconscious. He brought a knife into my store and threaten my life, I'll make sure he is completely incapacitated so there's no chance he can hurt me or my family. If anything, that wife didn't kick hard enough.

But then of course, the bleeding heart criminal sympathizers have to tell us that we can't even defend ourselves.

I consider myself as liberal as anyone can get. But some of what mainstream liberals believe just don't make sense to me at all.

go weed it

anywaywayay

is sure ya figa it out in world as is

thankyou

 

[RonR18]

I often question society's expectations. The robber is a criminal therefore he may be dangerous. He could have done the same thing to her, (or even worse), had he the chance to stab her then he may have done it. So, we are expecting the woman to act level-headed, calm, rational in such situations. We don't expect criminals to act civil, so why should we place the same expectations on the woman.

And, after all, he's the one who started it.

RE: "So, we are expecting the woman to act level-headed, calm, rational in such situations"

Good point...repeatedly kicking a human being in the head who has been subdued to the point he could have been given a prostate exam was indeed an irrational act. Which is why I stated in my opening post that she should have been arrested. As that's the best way to deter other people from impulsively resorting to unnecessary violence under similar circumstances.

RE: "We don't expect criminals to act civil, so why should we place the same expectations on the woman."

Because civilized, law abiding people are supposed to be better than criminals, and they need to be held to a higher standard.

You keep saying he was disarmed, but the woman said she could not see the knife on the floor or anywhere else. She acted completely appropriately. The men were armed robbers. Good for her and her husband and the man who came to their assistance.

RE: "the woman said she could not see the knife on the floor or anywhere else"

That's precisely why she wasn't justified in resorting to that degree of violence. All that matters is that she could see his hands were empty as he braced himself on the floor, and that he didn't pose a threat to her or her husband at the time she was kicking him.

Now if the robber had been a large, strong man, violently thrashing around, THEN she would have been justified in trying to knock him unconscious any way she could. Because it's very unlikely her husband would be able to keep him subdued until the cops arrived, and he'd pose a serious danger to them once he got loose. So basically, every second would count while her husband had him in that vulnerable "butt over the counter" position.

RE: "She acted completely appropriately"

I believe she acted out of adrenalin induced anger, based on statements she made in an interview, as she "despises" criminals due to previous robberies. And attempted robbery in Canada doesn't carry the death penalty, or the infliction of permanent brain damage. Why do you think cops aren't allowed to kick criminals in the head after they've been subdued? And why do you think it's alright for crime victims to do it when it's illegal for cops to do it?

you're demanding too much somewhat become unrealistic.

In some third world countries, it's common for crime victims to slowly beat petty thieves to death with tree limbs after they've been subdued (I've seen videos of this as it occurred), and I don't think there's a place for any form of that barbarism in a civilized country.

There, that is far more honest an account. No need to blow things out of proportion. Rarely is life ACTUALLY at risk during a robbery. Just because there is a threat, doesn't mean having to go overboard on the resolution.

Well said.

Attacking a guy who storms into your place with a knife is "overboard"?

Oh my fucking God, you people are hilarious.

I didn't realize an alarm was supposed to go off in the woman's head the second the knife fell and she was supposed to go from defending herself to offering these goons a four-course-meal.

If I ever get reincarnated as a burglar, I hope I stumble onto your houses. The luxury accommodations y'all are offering is incredible.

1. Guy comes onto my property armed with an intent to harm (yes, an intent to harm, because that's what the knife is for).

2. Guy gets his ass beat.

It's pretty simple. I'd say 1-2-3, but it's only 1-2.

RE: "Attacking a guy who storms into your place with a knife is "overboard"?

Of course not. By all means blow them away with a shotgun if you have one, because you have no way of knowing how things will turn out if you attempt a less lethal form of subduing them. That's just common sense. Butt once they've been disarmed and no longer pose a threat to you, then the dynamics of the situation have totally changed, which is where you're unable to see the forest for the trees.

RE: "I didn't realize an alarm was supposed to go off in the woman's head the second the knife fell and she was supposed to go from defending herself to offering these goons a four-course-meal."

There's no indication from the video that she was even aware a weapon had been involved. Meaning it's unknown at what point she entered the room and saw her husband in the altercation.

RE: "1. Guy comes onto my property armed with an intent to harm (yes, an intent to harm, because that's what the knife is for).

2. Guy gets his ass beat."

It sounds like you're one of the guys who doesn't object to a lynch mob mentality...until you're the victim of mistaken identity and it happens to you. What difference does it make if a guy "comes onto your property armed with an intent to harm?" You don't set the penalty for crimes...that's what courts and judges are for.

Once you've subdued a violent criminal and you're aware the cops will be there any second, you become no better than the criminal when you violently assault him. Give him a bare ass spanking to teach him a lesson, butt don't assault him in a manner that can result in permanent brain damage for a crime he could get probation for, that's all I'm saying.

Just how do you propose the victims of these crimes recognize those who are likely to to harm them from those who won't? Do they have tattoos saying "Armed but harmless"?

RE: "Just how do you propose the victims of these crimes recognize those who are likely to to harm them from those who won't?"

That's easy...if they don't have any weapons in their hands, and you've got them standing on their hands bare assed, that's a pretty good indicator they're not in a position to harm you while you're waiting for the police to arrive.



Well, I'm going to take a food/TV break now, and will respond to other comments later, so take your best shots while I'm gone.

 

[SLOPPYSECONDS]

RE: "So, we are expecting the woman to act level-headed, calm, rational in such situations"

Good point...repeatedly kicking a human being in the head who has been subdued to the point he could have been given a prostate exam was indeed an irrational act. Which is why I stated in my opening post that she should have been arrested. As that's the best way to deter other people from impulsively resorting to unnecessary violence under similar circumstances.

RE: "We don't expect criminals to act civil, so why should we place the same expectations on the woman."

Because civilized, law abiding people are supposed to be better than criminals, and they need to be held to a higher standard.



RE: "the woman said she could not see the knife on the floor or anywhere else"

That's precisely why she wasn't justified in resorting to that degree of violence. All that matters is that she could see his hands were empty as he braced himself on the floor, and that he didn't pose a threat to her or her husband at the time she was kicking him.

Now if the robber had been a large, strong man, violently thrashing around, THEN she would have been justified in trying to knock him unconscious any way she could. Because it's very unlikely her husband would be able to keep him subdued until the cops arrived, and he'd pose a serious danger to them once he got loose. So basically, every second would count while her husband had him in that vulnerable "butt over the counter" position.

RE: "She acted completely appropriately"

I believe she acted out of adrenalin induced anger, based on statements she made in an interview, as she "despises" criminals due to previous robberies. And attempted robbery in Canada doesn't carry the death penalty, or the infliction of permanent brain damage. Why do you think cops aren't allowed to kick criminals in the head after they've been subdued? And why do you think it's alright for crime victims to do it when it's illegal for cops to do it?



In some third world countries, it's common for crime victims to slowly beat petty thieves to death with tree limbs after they've been subdued (I've seen videos of this as it occurred), and I don't think there's a place for any form of that barbarism in a civilized country.



Well said.



RE: "Attacking a guy who storms into your place with a knife is "overboard"?

Of course not. By all means blow them away with a shotgun if you have one, because you have no way of knowing how things will turn out if you attempt a less lethal form of subduing them. That's just common sense. Butt once they've been disarmed and no longer pose a threat to you, then the dynamics of the situation have totally changed, which is where you're unable to see the forest for the trees.

RE: "I didn't realize an alarm was supposed to go off in the woman's head the second the knife fell and she was supposed to go from defending herself to offering these goons a four-course-meal."

There's no indication from the video that she was even aware a weapon had been involved. Meaning it's unknown at what point she entered the room and saw her husband in the altercation.

RE: "1. Guy comes onto my property armed with an intent to harm (yes, an intent to harm, because that's what the knife is for).

2. Guy gets his ass beat."

It sounds like you're one of the guys who doesn't object to a lynch mob mentality...until you're the victim of mistaken identity and it happens to you. What difference does it make if a guy "comes onto your property armed with an intent to harm?" You don't set the penalty for crimes...that's what courts and judges are for.

Once you've subdued a violent criminal and you're aware the cops will be there any second, you become no better than the criminal when you violently assault him. Give him a bare ass spanking to teach him a lesson, butt don't assault him in a manner that can result in permanent brain damage for a crime he could get probation for, that's all I'm saying.



RE: "Just how do you propose the victims of these crimes recognize those who are likely to to harm them from those who won't?"

That's easy...if they don't have any weapons in their hands, and you've got them standing on their hands bare assed, that's a pretty good indicator they're not in a position to harm you while you're waiting for the police to arrive.



Well, I'm going to take a food/TV break now, and will respond to other comments later, so take your best shots while I'm gone.

jus a little hint

irrational < is default da woteva lands sellins as civilization
* wot irrational? *
here few pics round planet fa eons
* OOH NOOOOOOOOO - wot dat 1 ? *
penguins

anyway ya alls right ans worng ans puddin snot wot lot a doodoo talk type hang ups woteva < but dat is a expects a folk cultures wot default Irrationals
& polite aint it? &
so supa poilte wanna grind ya teeth bit more
& please &

why planet go round sun?
why humans of twat cultures a MAN go round theirs a shoes?

anyway hope great technolgys of MAN figa it out

thannkyou

so

 

[pat grimshaw]

^ Dear Ron, I suspect all those noble thoughts you have expressed in the above 1159 word long post will disappear immediately when you are attacked.

 

[SLOPPYSECONDS]

^ Dear Ron, I suspect all those noble thoughts you have expressed in the above 1159 word long post will disappear immediately when you are attacked.

well lucky fa human race sum mind sets figa but cost cause major creams irrationals
ans world is as is taday wot aint long only few zits a time

so no eat da creams

haaaaaa

ans world cultures race ta make social netwrokins ons inetnert 2 HAAAAAAA
* here bucket ice *
awww too kind

 

[RonR18]

^ Dear Ron, I suspect all those noble thoughts you have expressed in the above 1159 word long post will disappear immediately when you are attacked.

I'm not sure what you mean...could you please clarify that? As I'm getting ready to post another long response to the remaining comments.

 

[freefall]

Since the whole thread is already wrecked and there is no subtext, oh well...

Now THAT is a-w-e-some.

 

[SLOPPYSECONDS]

Since the whole thread is already wrecked and there is no subtext, oh well...

Now THAT is a-w-e-some.

yea go wit dat ans many threads internet 2

ans it a wreck soons media folkys hands ons everythang ans down da yellow -brick-orpaint concrete- it road-path?-driveway?- it go haaa

thankyou

this was a time share post
& thankyou &

 

[RonR18]

RE: "Attacking a guy who storms into your place with a knife is "overboard"?

Of course not. By all means blow them away with a shotgun if you have one, because you have no way of knowing how things will turn out if you attempt a less lethal form of subduing them. That's just common sense. Butt once they've been disarmed and no longer pose a threat to you, then the dynamics of the situation have totally changed, which is where you're unable to see the forest for the trees.

I wanted to clarify the above...I meant blow them away in the context of what occurred in this particular case, in which the robbers continued making aggressive moves after the owner started reaching for a weapon, with one of them even climbing over the counter. In other words, shoot them only if they advance towards you with knives after you point your gun at them.

Butt if they're just standing there in shock at the sudden turn in events, or retreating, there's no justification to use lethal force if there's a counter between you and them, even if they're still holding knives. However, if a robber has a gun in his hand, that's a whole different story, and you obviously have every moral right to defend yourself by blasting away without an iota of warning. (Although I'm sure that would be illegal in many areas.)

Note: I've given up on expecting most posters to read my responses to other people before posting. As the pattern with a thread like this is always the same...many people read only the opening post and nothing more. Then they make the same points and raise the same issues as previous posters who I've already responded to. So basically, all I can do is rehash the same responses over and over, for each of these people individually. Because the only thing they'll read is a response to their particular post. So don't hold it against me when I repeat myself over and over.

This thread has devolved into stupidity. They entered the business to rob and do harm to accomplish this if need be, hence the knives. They deserved whatever they got, including an ass spanking and kicks in the head and whatever else the victims had at their disposal.

RE: "This thread has devolved into stupidity."

Oh, I see...if someone has an opinion that differs from yours, then they are automatically the "stupid" one, because you're always 100% right.

RE: "They entered the business to rob and do harm to accomplish this if need be, hence the knives."

There's no question about that, and they may even have been planning to murder the owner after he turned over the money, because it happens all the time. Butt that's not the issue here.

RE: "They deserved whatever they got, including an ass spanking and kicks in the head and whatever else the victims had at their disposal"

Butt Canada is not a barbaric third world country in which it's legal for angry crime victims to inflict potentially lethal injuries on disarmed criminals who have been effectively subdued. The country has a system of laws and courts to deal with people who commit crimes, and they don't need vigilantes taking the law into their own hands.

So no, a robber doesn't "deserve" to be kicked in the head after he's been disarmed and subdued. In a civilized country, the punishments administered are supposed to be humane, and handed out by the courts rather than individual crime victims who may place very little value on human life. Or, who may have grown up in countries where it's common for a village of psychopathic idiots to beat a petty thief to death with tree limbs.

All I'm saying is that human beings should be treated at least as humanely as dogs. And since it'd be considered cruel to repeatedly kick a vicious dog in the head after it's been captured and is no longer a threat, the same thing should apply to vicious humans.

And again, the punishment for attempted robbery in Canada is not the death penalty or permanent brain damage.

The fact that the criminals are being pitied baffles me.

They willingly came into someone's establishment threatening their life. I pretty much feel that THAT'S going overboard. The store owners did not know what they were there to do. Who's to say they were truly disarmed? Had another weapon hidden in their hoodies or pants? A gun perhaps? Even if they were disarmed, these are two young men vs. an older man and a woman. Based on pure physical ability, they could easily overpower the owners, bear spray or not. Get some adrenaline and rage in you and the rest is history.

What did you expect of the store owners? Pull out the Bible and read a few verses to the teens? Give them a Preferred Shopper's card and free cigarettes? Give me a break. Complaining about a spanking and kicks to the head? He's lucky he didn't lose his life aka gunshot.

When you're a robber entering someone's home/business, anything goes the moment you step inside their house/store.

RE: "The fact that the criminals are being pitied baffles me."

So who exactly is "pitying" them? Are you even aware of how debilitating brain injuries can be from kicks to the head? If you are, and you still don't see anything wrong with criminals being violently kicked in the head after they've been disarmed and subdued, why don't you move to a third world country where it's common for village idiots to stone thieves to death? Oh, butt wait...you wouldn't like it there if someone got pissed off at you and decided to frame you for theft.

Because all they'd have to do is claim you tried to sneak away with something that belonged to them. Then, after all the bloodthirsty psychopaths gathered around and started smashing your body with big rocks, you'd be wishing you lived in a civilized country, where a court of law is used to administer humane punishments when people are framed for crimes.

RE: "They willingly came into someone's establishment threatening their life."

That's not in dispute, nor is it the issue.

RE: "Who's to say they were truly disarmed?"

"They?" Didn't you watch all the video? One of them ran away immediately after being bear sprayed, which left the owner with just one robber to deal with.

RE: "Had another weapon hidden in their hoodies or pants? A gun perhaps?"

So what if he did? What good would it do him? The owner was holding him in an awkward position to where the robber was bracing himself on the floor with his hands. And since he wasn't even able to cover his bare ass, how do you think he could reach for another weapon?

RE: "Even if they were disarmed, these are two young men vs. an older man and a woman. Based on pure physical ability, they could easily overpower the owners, bear spray or not."

OMG! Watch the video, dude! Again, the owner ran one of them off immediately with the bear spray! And the way he was manhandling/overpowering the remaining robber, it was extremely obvious that he was stronger than him and could easily have kept him pinned until the police arrived. So there was ZERO need for the woman to kick him in the head over and over. Hell, the owner was so confident he had him subdued, he even took one of his hands off him to repeatedly hit him in the butt, etc. with his fist. And what exactly was the purpose of that, other than doing it out of anger...which was the same reason his wife was kicking him in the head.

RE: "What did you expect of the store owners?"

I expect them to let the court system administer the punishment, and not physically assault someone with potentially lethal kicks to the head after he's been effectively disarmed and subdued.

RE: "Give me a break."

No, give ME a break and watch the video so you'll know what you're talking about.

RE: "Complaining about a spanking"

OMG! You didn't even read the opening post of this thread...or the poll options! Unbelievable!

RE: "and kicks to the head?"

Are you even aware of how debilitating brain injuries can be from kicks to the head? If you are, and you still don't see anything wrong with criminals being violently kicked in the head after they've been disarmed and subdued, why don't you move to a third world country where it's common for village idiots to stone thieves to death? Oh, butt wait...you wouldn't like it there if someone got pissed off at you and decided to frame you for theft.

Because all they'd have to do is claim you tried to sneak away with something that belonged to them. Then, after all the bloodthirsty psychopaths gathered around and started smashing your body with big rocks, you'd be wishing you lived in a civilized country, where a court of law is used to administer humane punishments when people are framed for crimes.

RE: "He's lucky he didn't lose his life aka gunshot."

That's very true, because he deserved to be shot the second he jumped over the counter with that knife in his hand.

RE: "When you're a robber entering someone's home/business, anything goes the moment you step inside their house/store."

That's very true...up to the point the robber has been disarmed and subdued. Then it becomes murder if you kill him, and you'd be no better than him.

Exactly my feeling when I see this thread. She should be arrested and charged?

The guy committed a crime and people are having pity for him here? Wow. I have no words to describe that. He got what he deserved. There have been videos of far worse anyways, and the people don't get charged. I'm not sure about Canadian law though.

RE: "Exactly my feeling when I see this thread."

Other than some barbaric third world countries, I'm not aware of any country that would allow you to legally murder a robber who has been disarmed and subdued.

RE: "She should be arrested and charged?"

Are you even aware of how debilitating brain injuries can be from kicks to the head? If you are, and you still don't see anything wrong with criminals being violently kicked in the head after they've been disarmed and subdued, why don't you move to a third world country where it's common for village idiots to stone thieves to death? Oh, butt wait...you wouldn't like it there if someone got pissed off at you and decided to frame you for theft.

Because all they'd have to do is claim you tried to sneak away with something that belonged to them. Then, after all the bloodthirsty psychopaths gathered around and started smashing your body with big rocks, you'd be wishing you lived in a civilized country, where a court of law is used to administer humane punishments when people are framed for crimes.

RE: "The guy committed a crime and people are having pity for him here?"

So...you believe the punishment for attempted robbery should be to let the victim administer vigilante justice, and violently kick a subdued robber in the head over and over, without any regard for whether it will cause permanent brain damage? Wow. I have no words to describe that.

RE: "He got what he deserved."

Butt Canada is not a barbaric third world country in which it's legal for angry crime victims to inflict potentially lethal injuries on disarmed criminals who have been effectively subdued. The country has a system of laws and courts to deal with people who commit crimes.

So no, a robber doesn't "deserve" to be repeatedly kicked in the head after he's been disarmed and subdued. In a civilized country, the punishments administered are supposed to be humane, and handed out by the courts rather than individual crime victims who may place very little value on human life. Or who may have grown up in countries where it's common for a village of psychopathic idiots to beat a petty thief to death with tree limbs.

All I'm saying is that human beings should be treated at least as humanely as dogs. And since it'd be considered cruel to repeatedly kick a vicious dog in the head after it's been captured and is no longer a threat, the same thing should apply to vicious humans.

And again, the punishment for attempted robbery in Canada is not the death penalty or permanent brain damage.

Didn't you get the memo about how modern society is suppose to ignore the victims and give pity to the rapists, robbers, killers, etc.?

If I was there, I would have beaten that robber until he was unconscious. He brought a knife into my store and threaten my life, I'll make sure he is completely incapacitated so there's no chance he can hurt me or my family. If anything, that wife didn't kick hard enough.

But then of course, the bleeding heart criminal sympathizers have to tell us that we can't even defend ourselves.

I consider myself as liberal as anyone can get. But some of what mainstream liberals believe just don't make sense to me at all.

RE: "Didn't you get the memo about how modern society is suppose to ignore the victims and give pity to the rapists, robbers, killers, etc.?"

Huh? Wow, where are you getting that from?? You must have this thread confused with some other thread. Or, are you deliberately trying to misrepresent the facts in an attempt to bolster your position? If so, that almost never works, and only serves to undermine your credibility.

RE: "If I was there, I would have beaten that robber until he was unconscious."

The robber was clearly a vicious criminal, butt if you beat a physically weak wimp like him unconscious after you have him disarmed and subdued, that would make you no better than him. And you're either a moral, honorable, law abiding person or you aren't...there's no gray area just because you're the victim of a crime.

RE: "I'll make sure he is completely incapacitated so there's no chance he can hurt me or my family"

Butt who's going to protect your family while you're in prison? Because when you use excessive force to "incapacitate" a weak wimp you've already disarmed and subdued, you could easily kill him. And then you could be convicted of manslaughter and sent to a prison that's full of vicious criminals who will rob you every time you have anything of value.

RE: "If anything, that wife didn't kick hard enough."

Wow, here we go again. Did you read ANY part of this thread before posting, other than the opening post? What in the world is the point of kicking a wimpy robber in the head after he's been disarmed and subdued by a bigger, stronger man, other than to physically hurt him for revenge? And what would that guy have done if one of his wife's kicks killed the disarmed, subdued robber?

Does he have $200,000+ to retain a competent criminal defense attorney to defend her against a manslaughter charge? As well, do they have $150,000+ tucked away in a piggy bank to pay a civil attorney to defend themselves against a wrongful death lawsuit filed by the relatives of the robber? As there's any number of powerful law firms who would jump at the chance to take a case like that on a contingent fee basis, meaning that it wouldn't cost the robber's relatives a penny to fund the lawsuit. And if they lose, do they have $5 million cash laying around they can use to pay the judgment?

The point being that when people use more force than is necessary to defend themselves in this extremely litigious society, it can open a Pandora's box of "unpleasant" repercussions for them that they could have to deal with for the rest of their lives. So like mitch says, it's best to just give armed robbers the money and let the criminal justice system handle it from there.

RE: "But then of course, the bleeding heart criminal sympathizers have to tell us that we can't even defend ourselves."

If you're referring to me, did you read any of my posts in this thread other than the opening one? My position is that lethal force would have been more than justified the second the robber jumped over the counter with the knife. So how is that being a "bleeding heart criminal sympathizer?"

Were I in the same situation, my wife with me, kids upstairs, and someone comes at me with a weapon I'm making sure he's going to be an empty seat at thanksgiving plain and simple.

Haha, and your seat would be empty as well, because civilized countries have prison beds reserved for people who murder disarmed, subdued robbers.

 

[gsdx]

Haha, and your seat would be empty as well, because civilized countries have prison beds reserved for people who murder disarmed, subdued robbers.

Right. We get it. Canada is uncivilised because we protect ourselves and our property and families without a gun stuffed down the back of our pants.

What about all of the asshole robbers in the US who get away with murdering shop keepers and don't get to enjoy one of those prison beds because the shop keeper pulled a baseball bat out from under the counter and the robbers felt threatened?

You'd best stay out of Canada. Some shop keeper might throw a box of Twinkies at you if they catch you shoplifting.

 

[gsdx]

Here's a thought: Rodney King.

Now, there's civilised justice for you.

Get serious. It's not like the woman was wearing steel-toed work boots. The thief was probably more em-bare-assed than bruised.

 

[RonR18]

Right. We get it. Canada is uncivilised because we protect ourselves and our property and families without a gun stuffed down the back of our pants.

What about all of the asshole robbers in the US who get away with murdering shop keepers and don't get to enjoy one of those prison beds because the shop keeper pulled a baseball bat out from under the counter and the robbers felt threatened?

You'd best stay out of Canada. Some shop keeper might throw a box of Twinkies at you if they catch you shoplifting.

RE: "Right. We get it."

"We?" So you're speaking for everyone now?

RE: "Canada is uncivilised because we protect ourselves and our property and families without a gun stuffed down the back of our pants."

I have no idea why you're so intent on trying to make this a U.S. vs Canada thread...it's not. I've never implied Canada is uncivilized, and anyone who would conclude that is clearly missing some screws. Read my post #19 on the first page. And the issue is about a disarmed, subdued robber being kicked in the head repeatedly without any justification, which is something you don't get.

RE: "What about all of the asshole robbers in the US who get away with murdering shop keepers and don't get to enjoy one of those prison beds because the shop keeper pulled a baseball bat out from under the counter and the robbers felt threatened?"

I have no idea what you're talking about or what you mean, and that nonsensical statement makes it pretty clear that you're PWD (posting while drunk). So please clarify what you mean after you sober up.

RE: "You'd best stay out of Canada. Some shop keeper might throw a box of Twinkies at you if they catch you shoplifting

Haha, unlike you, I work for a living, and I'm the last person in the world who would ever shoplift. And equating repeated kicks to the head with having a box of Twinkies thrown at you is about your speed. You'd best stay out of this thread until you sober up, or I might just give you a bare ass spanking.

Here's a thought: Rodney King.

Now, there's civilised justice for you.

Get serious. It's not like the woman was wearing steel-toed work boots. The thief was probably more em-bare-assed than bruised.

I see you don't know much about head injuries. One hard, well placed kick to the temple by a woman her size is all it takes to kill someone. And from the video, it appears she was kicking him in the side of the head.

"Your skull is composed of six major bones, three of which are joined at the temple. This makes the temple extremely vulnerable. A forceful blow can cave in this junction of the skull causing death. The temporal artery supplying blood to the brain is also located in this area, so a blow to the temple also has the possibility of rupturing this artery causing sudden blindness and/or death."

Source: Cause of Death

 

[pat grimshaw]

Dear Ron and Mitch, you talk about rationality and you're conducting a theoretical debate.

I have been bashed without warning or provocation. And I can tell you I gave NO thought for all the calm, theoretical sophistry in which you're indulging.