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

[HeyHeyYouYou]

Ok...let me get this straight. Two low lifes armed with knives enter a convenience store, wave the knives around threateningly, one of them jumps the counter in a hostile manner, and people are actually upset that the wife gave him a few swift kicks?? Really?? Are we to that point where we are more concerned at what happens to the criminal than the fact that at any time, these two innocent store owners could have been cut or stabbed?


Ugh...this sort of "protect the criminal" mentality drives me NUTS. It was a few kicks....if he is as big as of badass as he tried to be robbing the store at knifepoint, I am sure he will be able to handle it just fine. As for brain damage or whatever other ludicrous comments are being made in regards to the results of her kicking---it's pretty simple: if he hadn't robbed the store, he wouldn't have been kicked.

Don't Rob---Don't Get Kicked in the Head.


Sorry....refuse to feel sorry for any knife-wielding criminal, even after they have bee "subdued."

 

[gsdx]

Ugh...this sort of "protect the criminal" mentality drives me NUTS.

And then to insinuate that Canadian police are "sociopaths". There is only one intention behind comments such as those, and it is against JUB's COC..

 

[RonR18]

And then to insinuate that Canadian police are "sociopaths". There is only one intention behind comments such as those, and it is against JustUsBoys's COC..

Huh? Canadian police? I never "insinuated" that. So now you're putting words in my mouth? I used the term "Canadian officials," and I did so for a reason. Which is the fact that politicians are at the top of the food chain in Canada, and they control everything. And it's been my experience that most politicians are sociopaths.

And news flash: You're the only one here who's violating the COC.

 

[bankside]

When someone robs a store with a knife, he doesn't intend to stab the money.

Anyone who produces a knife is expressing the threat to kill, and someone faced with that threat is not responsible to deliver a "measured and rational" response until the adrenalin wears off.

• Criminals are entitled to fair treatment by the government in any criminal or penal proceedings
• Criminals are entitled to whatever compassion the public may grant them
• Criminals are not entitled to a damn thing from the people they are victimising with threats to that person's life. It is not up to the threatened person to give the criminal the benefit of any terrified doubt they may be experiencing.

And the bear spray was brilliant.

BTW on the straw-man of vigilante justice: this example has nothing to do with vigilante justice. Vigilante justice would be to spot the perpetrator on the street after he was released from jail and decide that they'd top it off with a little additional punishment of their own.

Also, here are the rights that apply:
http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/charter/page-1.html#l_I:s_7

No rights were violated in that clip except those of the store operators.

 

[MoufOfKhaos]

So much blood spilling over from the bleeding hearts.

Regardless of the circumstances(speaking of the fact that their kids may have been there and the amount of times they were robbed), i'm defending the woman and spanker here. The men came in with the intent to rob, they got dealt with and embarrassed. Good for the store owners.

The fact that some people are expecting that people in survival mode be CORDIAL to boot is not only maddening, but sickening.

Nice ass though.

 

[SLOPPYSECONDS]

So much blood spilling over from the bleeding hearts.

Regardless of the circumstances(speaking of the fact that their kids may have been there and the amount of times they were robbed), i'm defending the woman and spanker here. The men came in with the intent to rob, they got dealt with and embarrassed. Good for the store owners.

The fact that some people are expecting that people in survival mode be CORDIAL to boot is not only maddening, but sickening.

Nice ass though.

so ya won then
* yep *
so wot goins a do?
* build towers highur *
ooh ans who gonna do ya intiriurs?

titters

 

[RonR18]

When someone robs a store with a knife, he doesn't intend to stab the money.

Anyone who produces a knife is expressing the threat to kill, and someone faced with that threat is not responsible to deliver a "measured and rational" response until the adrenalin wears off.

• Criminals are entitled to fair treatment by the government in any criminal or penal proceedings
• Criminals are entitled to whatever compassion the public may grant them
• Criminals are not entitled to a damn thing from the people they are victimising with threats to that person's life. It is not up to the threatened person to give the criminal the benefit of any terrified doubt they may be experiencing.

And the bear spray was brilliant.

BTW on the straw-man of vigilante justice: this example has nothing to do with vigilante justice. Vigilante justice would be to spot the perpetrator on the street after he was released from jail and decide that they'd top it off with a little additional punishment of their own.

Also, here are the rights that apply:
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

No rights were violated in that clip except those of the store operators.

RE: "No rights were violated in that clip except those of the store operators"

RE: "Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms"

LOL, it looks like you missed #12 on that list: "Everyone has the right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment." And the last I heard, being repeatedly kicked in the head while someone is restraining you qualifies as cruel and unusual treatment.

 

[RonR18]

So much blood spilling over from the bleeding hearts.

Regardless of the circumstances(speaking of the fact that their kids may have been there and the amount of times they were robbed), i'm defending the woman and spanker here. The men came in with the intent to rob, they got dealt with and embarrassed. Good for the store owners.

The fact that some people are expecting that people in survival mode be CORDIAL to boot is not only maddening, but sickening.

Nice ass though.

RE: "The fact that some people are expecting that people in survival mode be CORDIAL to boot is not only maddening, but sickening."

No, the only thing "sickening" is the fact that some people think it's okay to treat a vicious human less humanely than a vicious dog. If it's not acceptable to kick a vicious dog in the head multiple times out of anger while it's being held down, why is it acceptable to kick a vicious human in the head multiple times out of anger while he's being held down? Not a single person has been able to answer this question. Why is that? Perhaps no one is seeing the question? Maybe if I use a large red font someone may see it and respond to it? Ya think? Let's see if it works:

If it's not acceptable to kick a vicious dog in the head multiple times out of anger while it's being held down, why is it acceptable to kick a vicious human in the head multiple times out of anger while he's being held down?

 

[Mark-Knight]

I have a question... assuming this robber, as weak as he looks, manages to recuperate from the bear spray before the woman comes, how does anybody know he won't just pull out some kind of freak ninja moves? Or that we won't manage to escape, run out, and come back driving a car straight into the building? Or better yet, hijack a jet airliner and ram it into the store owner's ass???

 

[gsdx]

LOL, it looks like you missed #12 on that list: "Everyone has the right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment." And the last I heard, being repeatedly kicked in the head while someone is restraining you qualifies as cruel and unusual treatment.

LOL, and holding citizens hostage at knife point is NOT cruel and unusual treatment? You are just humiliating yourself with your stupidity.

 

[LovesAsians]

Do you know what happens to vicious dogs? They get put down.

 

[SLOPPYSECONDS]

RE: "The fact that some people are expecting that people in survival mode be CORDIAL to boot is not only maddening, but sickening."

No, the only thing "sickening" is the fact that some people think it's okay to treat a vicious human less humanely than a vicious dog. If it's not acceptable to kick a vicious dog in the head multiple times out of anger while it's being held down, why is it acceptable to kick a vicious human in the head multiple times out of anger while he's being held down? Not a single person has been able to answer this question. Why is that? Perhaps no one is seeing the question? Maybe if I use a large red font someone may see it and respond to it? Ya think? Let's see if it works:

hey dude or citurzen or public or woteva ya fancy

ya can answer so a thang it all there fa eons ons live internet 1 da planet were it alls happeins
now ons pay perview
or start internet 2 site get lt money ans watch in space

haaaaa

anyway

thankyou

 

[RonR18]

[/COLOR]

I don't think anyone has successfully established that there is any condemnation for anyone kicking a vicious creature, human or otherwise.

The vicious adjective speaks for itself. A vicious creature attacks, and reactions are what they are.

I'm not seeing anyone saying that kicking a vicious dog is unacceptable: it is a vicious dog.

Is is commendable? Perhaps not, but by like virtue, it is also not condemnable. A frightened person reacts, period.

Kick away. As long as the kicker was the attacked, be it man or beast. No quarter.

Wow, I'm on a roll here, I finally got at least a semi-response to my question, so I'll see if my luck holds out with the large red font, and my clarification will be noticed and read as well:

I was referring to a restrained dog...here's an actual scenario for you:

1) A vicious stray dog comes along and bites a man on the leg while he's mowing his yard.

2) Animal control comes out and use those sticks with rope lassos to render it immobile. One guy has it around the neck from the front, and another guy has the lasso around it's body from the rear, and they're about to put it in a cage on their truck.

3) The man's wife comes out, and out of anger, rushes up to the dog and repeatedly kicks it in the head while it's restrained.

So the question is, do you think it's acceptable for the woman to repeatedly kick the helpless dog in the head just to vent her anger? Or do you agree with the vast majority of people that there's no place for that kind of cruelty to animals in a civilized society?

If you do agree that a vicious dog should be treated humanely after it's no longer a threat, then why don't you think a vicious human should be treated humanely after he's no longer a threat? In other words, how can you justify someone kicking a human in the head over and over while he's restrained, when you wouldn't do that to a dog?

 

[gsdx]

No rights should protect criminals in the act of committing a crime.

 

[bankside]

RE: "No rights were violated in that clip except those of the store operators"

RE: "Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms"

LOL, it looks like you missed #12 on that list: "Everyone has the right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment." And the last I heard, being repeatedly kicked in the head while someone is restraining you qualifies as cruel and unusual treatment.

No, what's missing is in your understanding of human rights. Humans have a right to expect their governments will react in a measured professional fashion. Criminals have no rights to expect their startled and terrified victims to react in a measured professional fashion. By definition a shopkeeper is not trained in techniques for restraining or disarming criminals. We can't confuse private shopkeepers with tactical squad members. This is a no-brainer.

 

[bankside]

ridiculous amount of big red text

What you're missing is that the dog in your scenario is restrained by a professional dog catcher. At that point, yes, the animal is controlled and it would be pointless and cruel to kick it.

If a robber is restrained by the police, they too have the situation under control, they have applied appropriate techniques to reliably confine the suspect and attenuate any risk of danger, techniques in which they are trained and experienced. No police officer would allow the victims to finish filling out a police report, then go over to the rear of the squad car with the detained, hand-cuffed suspect, open the door and being punching him in the face.

It isn't hard to distinguish between a captive suspect in police custody, and someone who is being grasped by his loose trousers, perhaps fleetingly, by a terrified victim of an attempted armed robbery. The woman who was called to this scene, mindful of the continuing danger to her children should the robber happen to catch his second wind, would have been well within her rights to kick him into unconsciousness, and still count herself as part of a just and civilized society.

She can't know whether he is or is not a continuing danger, because she isn't trained to recognize it. You can't know either. And while he is at a momentary disadvantage, by no means are they out of danger until the police arrive. Given the fright caused directly by the robber/attempted murderer, she is under no obligation at all to make a rational assessment of the risk level, but had she done so, it would have been rational to put him beyond any ability to regain the advantage.

 

[Scealle]

Wow robbed 6 times I feel bad for them. Seems like stores like these always had at least few histories of robbery or theft.

 

[MoufOfKhaos]

RE: "The fact that some people are expecting that people in survival mode be CORDIAL to boot is not only maddening, but sickening."

No, the only thing "sickening" is the fact that some people think it's okay to treat a vicious human less humanely than a vicious dog. If it's not acceptable to kick a vicious dog in the head multiple times out of anger while it's being held down, why is it acceptable to kick a vicious human in the head multiple times out of anger while he's being held down? Not a single person has been able to answer this question.

The answer is, if the dog came at me with the intent to rob, maim, or kill, and my anger boiled over, you get what you created; a cornered "animal" responding off of emotion. That clear enough Marco?

Maybe if I put it in large red font you'd understand how little I care about a criminal getting what he deserved; he's not the victim, therefore I am holding my righteous indignation for other tasks. Mercy is for those that need it, not for those that ask Darwin to stand clear.

 

[HeyHeyYouYou]

Don't want to get kicked in the head multiple times be an angry store owner?


DON'T TRY TO ROB THEIR STORE AT KNIFE POINT.



..Seems pretty simple.




Feel bad for the little cowardly criminal twats all you want------they deserved to be kicked a couple or more times.

 

[pat grimshaw]

... they are trying to get to the money, which is what they want....

Was nothing learnt at the London Riots? Anarchy is OK?

"Your Property is My Property" 'Property is Theft'; therefore it's OK if I steal it

I can't believe any of the great Socialists would excuse this kind of behaviour