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

[gsdx]

From my perspective, knowing that, from her own mouth, they have been robbed a number of times, she knew perfectly well that the intent of the crime is to get money, not to harm her or anyone else, and that she took the opportunity to get revenge.

One fault with your logic. Assuming that each robbery was done by a different robber with different MOs, you cannot predict, by the actions of the previous robbers, that the next one won't stick the knife through your heart.

 

[RicanKicks]

Ha. In the name of Human Rights? So really if someone came in gun point, and no...no questions asked. The robber deserved it. Here in the US he would of been shot for attempted robbery possibly armed, and here he just received a beating and a spanking lol how awesome. It serves him right for doing this fact while I don't say he should of been shot, he really did deserved that beating. Human rights? How about the store owners human rights? Their lives were in danger as well! It came down to one or the other as far as I'm concerned.

 

[HunterM]

I have no problem shooting a vicious dog attacking me or my family.

 

[gsdx]

Here in the US he would of been shot for attempted robbery possibly armed, and here he just received a beating and a spanking lol how awesome. It serves him right for doing this fact while I don't say he should of been shot, he really did deserved that beating.

Indeed. And what I find most strange about those defending the robber in this discussion fact that, in the US, a store owner can pull a gun on a robber and it's his constitutional right to do so. But, up here in Canada, it's a criminal offense to spank a robber and give him a few kicks? There's no logic to the argument. There is no logic to defending the robber and making him the victim. The robber made the store owners victims first. If not for his actions, he wouldn't have been sprayed, he wouldn't have been spanked, he wouldn't have been kicked, and he wouldn't have humiliated himself on YouTube by having his sorry ass flashed all over the world.

Everything that happened was his fault. The store owners cannot be held responsible.

 

[gsdx]

A robber wants your goods, NOT your life.

You can't say that. Nobody knows the mind of a robber. Nobody can predict what he is going to do.

Nobody.

 

[bankside]

Yea, cos the whole basis of my viewpoint is about allowing criminals to get away with crime.

It is about, in the first instance, NOT esculating the event, not provoking the robbers. Then in the second instance, it is about not exercising vigilantism. Both were done in that event.



Which is all the more reason to be calm and rational and screw material possessions. A robber wants your goods, NOT your life. Provocation leads to esculation, and that may not always work out in the favour of the defendants. It did for this couple of store owners, but then the robbers didn't look that invested in getting what they were after, otherwise they could have been [STRIKE]a lot more[/STRIKE] violent about it.

That's a very pat answer but the reality is that victims of a crime are entitled to all the latitude they want in dealing with a threatening situation. It's one thing to advise "You know, one way to resolve this is just to hand over the money" but it's not fair to say it's the only legitimate option, and disgraceful to blame them for picking a different option in a panic.

 

[gsdx]

I am NOT defending the robber.

Um... I was agreeing with you. I thought the word 'indeed' made that clear.

I'll shut up now.

 

[SLOPPYSECONDS]

people vote fa robbers so
* rubburs theys a bounce back *
ooh right vote fa rubburs
ans not vote fa rubburs cause it business or sumthang
* econ oms *
ooh anyway no one nose so
% everythang okay %
think it wot they say
@ who a they? @
ooh dunno is no nothin

anyway how da video doins? any new ones taday?

thankyou

 

[bankside]

He chose to defend his property instead, so, as foolish as i think that is, it was his right to choose what to do, and he can't be criticised for using excessive force.

Okay! We're halfway there!

His wife however can. She got involved when two robbers became one, and when that one was semi-restrained. She then had time to calmly line herself up to start kicking him in the head. Deserved or not, that behaviour is appalling.

Her husband hardly had the attacker in "secure custody" by any stretch of the imagination. He had the attacker hanging precariously over the side of the counter, still struggling, falling out of his pants, in a position that was bound to be tiring for the store owner's arms and impossible to maintain.

Rather than let go of the attacker so he could become an active threat again, his wife helped her husband by doing the most sensible thing possible. If she'd had a golf club she would have had two sensible options. If her husband had time to think about it, he might have said "Honey, I think there's still some more pepper spray in the can, which I dropped somewhere back here. I think I can hold him for another thirty seconds before my arms give out, so can you come look for whatever is left in the bottle? That way we can contain him without having to kick…bla bla bla nonsense." Who has time to think that through whilst struggling to keep hold of an attacker. Or was all 80 pounds of her supposed to come round the counter and just hold on to the attacker's belt buckle for a while.

She, and he, did the right thing.

 

[Just_Believe18]

Mmm yeah, spank that ass!

 

[pat grimshaw]

It's OK to take someone else's property

 

[Kabluey]

Husband and wife make a pretty good team
Think it'll discourage a few would-be robbers.

 

[ravenstar]

Ha! I may be late to the party - again - but I loved it. Good on her for kicking the shit out of him. I can't believe anyone on here, when their husband is threatened by thugs with knives, and with their children upstairs would stand back and wring their hands and do nothing.

 

[HunterM]

Husband and wife make a pretty good team

^ Good one! I need to show this video to my team at work so they could see the efficiency of teamwork in action!

 

[LovesAsians]

Her technique needs some refinement. If she knew what she was doing, that guy might actually be as hurt as some of the bleeding hearts on this thread suggest...

The other significant thing to note is that when she's kicking him, the threat has not been neutralized. The robber is still struggling with her husband. She was absolutely correct to continue kicking him until he is completely subdued and is no longer resisting. Good for her.

 

[RonR18]

I'm sorry, but given the outcome, I'm pretty sure they handled themselves (and their business, which provides for them and their children) well enough.



I'm gonna need a few of the posters in this thread to put down the crack pipe and re-read this until it sinks in. On what planet is a guy who lost one knife (but may have another) and is still struggling "neutralized"? We have no way of knowing if he would've eventually found the strength to break free had the wife not helped. And any proof of him not carrying an extra weapon only came later when the police searched him, not during the time of the struggle.

I can't with this discussion.

You guys go ahead and get the fresh baked cookies prepared to reward the robber who is so "neutralized" it takes three people to stop him. Yea, have fun with that.

RE: "I'm gonna need a few of the posters in this thread to put down the crack pipe and re-read this until it sinks in."

LOL, it's amazing how different people can watch the same short video and reach such diametrically opposite conclusions. The robber had effectively given up to the point of being prepared to submit to a prostate exam. And the only reason he started struggling was because that woman kept kicking him in the head, and he didn't want to be kicked to death or get permanent brain damage.

So put down your crack pipe long enough to tell me whether YOU would struggle to get away when someone is repeatedly kicking you in the head even though you had given up and weren't resisting.

RE: "I'm sorry, but given the outcome, I'm pretty sure they handled themselves (and their business, which provides for them and their children) well enough."

Right, I'm sure they'll be real proud of themselves for kicking a man when he's down/not resisting...up until they get nailed with a lawsuit from a contingent fee attorney for using excessive, unnecessary "force" that accomplished nothing. Then see how they provide for their kids when they're having to give an attorney a $10,000 a month cash retainer to fight the lawsuit. And after they've been milked for $200,000 and have nothing else to pay the attorney with, he'll drop the case and leave them on their own. Then they'll lose by default and get a huge judgment against them.

RE: "On what planet is a guy who lost one knife (but may have another) and is still struggling "neutralized"?

Simple...the owner owned his ass, period. Meaning he was stronger than him, and had him overpowered. And again, if the woman hadn't been kicking him in the head over and over, he wouldn't have been struggling. Watch the videos again if you can't remember what happened! There's no charge to watch them.

And what good would it do him if he had another knife, he couldn't get to it!

RE: "We have no way of knowing if he would've eventually found the strength to break free had the wife not helped."

Give me a break! He did "break" free! And it was because of the wife's so called "help," as well as the owner beating on him instead of holding him down. Just watch the video again!

 

[gsdx]

Right, I'm sure they'll be real proud of themselves for kicking a man when he's down/not resisting...up until they get nailed with a lawsuit from a contingent fee attorney for using excessive, unnecessary "force" that accomplished nothing. Then see how they provide for their kids when they're having to give an attorney a $10,000 a month cash retainer to fight the lawsuit. And after they've been milked for $200,000 and have nothing else to pay the attorney with, he'll drop the case and leave them on their own. Then they'll lose by default and get a huge judgment against them.

You clearly know absolutely nothing about Canada. So why don't you just STFU?

(I can't believe I've reduced myself to your level! Don't worry. I won't be doing that again.)

 

[RonR18]

Her technique needs some refinement. If she knew what she was doing, that guy might actually be as hurt as some of the bleeding hearts on this thread suggest...

The other significant thing to note is that when she's kicking him, the threat has not been neutralized. The robber is still struggling with her husband. She was absolutely correct to continue kicking him until he is completely subdued and is no longer resisting. Good for her.

RE: "Her technique needs some refinement. If she knew what she was doing, that guy might actually be as hurt as some of the bleeding hearts on this thread suggest."

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[/QUOTE]

RE: "The other significant thing to note is that when she's kicking him, the threat has not been neutralized. The robber is still struggling with her husband."

I suggest you watch the video again, as the robber had given up and did not even struggle when the owner hit him on the ass the first 2 times. He didn't start resisting until the woman started kicking him in the head.

RE: "She was absolutely correct to continue kicking him until he is completely subdued and is no longer resisting"

Her kicking him accomplished nothing other than forcing him to try to escape, which resulted in the owner pummeling him, which enabled the robber to get lose and get on his feet. All the owner had to do was hold on to his legs with both hands and he would never have gotten lose. Butt, apparently, assaulting him was more of a priority.

 

[RonR18]

You clearly know absolutely nothing about Canada. So why don't you just STFU?

(I can't believe I've reduced myself to your level! Don't worry. I won't be doing that again.)

RE: "You clearly know absolutely nothing about Canada. So why don't you just STFU?"

That's a typical gsdx megalomaniac response -- all mouth with no facts to back up your response. As though people are just supposed to take your word for everything.

RE: "I can't believe I've reduced myself to your level!"

You're clearly delusional, as I've never lowered myself to behaving in the low class manner you have in this thread. You're like a rotten, spoiled little brat having a tantrum every time someone says something you don't agree with. Grow the fuck up! You aren't an ambassador for Canada, and you don't control what I post. If you don't like what I say, stop acting like a troll on steroids and just put me on ignore.

 

[Sexpun de Come]

Unarmed? I'm pretty sure he had a knife at the beginning.