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

[gsdx]

Quite obviously, as Ron has already pointed out, he DID find the strength to struggle free, the wife gave him that real motivation by repeatedly kicking him in the head when it wasn't necessary. Excessive force is only justified in self defence, and it is incredibly difficult to claim self defence when you are not ACTUALLY being attacked

Did anyone really watch the video besides me? I don't think so. There are many comments about 'repeated kicks to the head'. Since when did (possibly) 2 kicks constitute 'repeatedly'?

From the camera angle, it's difficult to tell, but I will grant that she MAY have landed 1, perhaps 2, kicks with a soft sneaker to the back of the robber's head. It's not clear. The third kick missed. The remaining few kicks landed on the robber's back, shoulder, and side. He was in extremely little danger of being injured other than a few bruises.

For crying out loud, Watch The Video!! Stop accusing the woman of things that she did not do!

You want excessive force? Watch the Rodney King video. Watch videos of people getting beaten by gangs. There's lots of videos out there. Stop trying to defend a criminal and make him the victim. But for his actions, it never would have happened.

 

[gsdx]

gsdx, it is quite obvious from the video, that the woman was going for the head, she lined herself up for it and started that way. The fact that her further kicks missed were down to the robber struggling (in order to stop being kicked in the head most likely).

Fine. The man deserves financial compensation for robbing a store with a knife and the woman belongs in jail. The victim is the criminal.

If this happened in the United States, the woman would be applauded for her actions. I'm out of here. Have a nice day.

 

[skd5674]

Firstly, that is NOT what the knife is for. The intent of the crime is obvious, burglary, i.e. a threat to material, not person. The intent of the knife is simply coercion (and arguably, the criminals own defence). The standard practice in the retail sector here, is not to launch a defence, because that avoids esculation of the event.

You don't need to try and figure out which robber is most likely to harm you sixthson. You only have to recognise that ANY of them can be dangerous, but they ALL have the same motive. So let them get on with it until the danger has passed. It works.

I didn't realize we were talking about walmart here. A family owned store here doesn't abide by policies. They do whatever the fuck they want. If the woman had children upstairs, and people came into her home/store with weapons, you'd better believe she will go on the offensive to protect her family. By the law's standards, cops would be able to shoot on spot, to kill, if necessary, if they saw a life. I'm just confused as to how you think because these people are store owners, they are supposed to let their property get stolen, and maybe a life (because you have no idea what somebody who is desperate with a knife is willing to do--who's to say he wouldn't stab them and try to kill them before he left so there was no evidence), yea... not happening.

 

[ixthrock]

My ex had numerous scars from bulletholes acquired during a New York convenience store robbery. He was in a coma for weeks, he told me. He also told me he'd tried to talk the thief out of robbing him - the sort of hamartia that ended our relationship; he could be so damn maddeningly annoying when he opened his mouth I felt like shooting him myself at times. I'm a little more civil than his robber.

I've been held up, had a pistol in my face at an all-night diner. As I came out of the men's room, I immediately recognised that there were four men in stocking masks in the store, and one of them had my manager on the ground with a pistol against his head. A barrel spun around into my face and a voice said, "be cool, man." I was cool. The police trashed the place fingerprinting and whatnot, and we opened back up in time for the bar rush - a crowd with a history of rudeness to the servers. I quit the next day. The owners had had video cameras installed, and posted signs to that effect, because of the number of times that particular store had been robbed. Police never caught the guys who held us up, and the security cameras were obviously not much of a deterrent.

It's a scary feeling to have a gun in your face. I felt helpless, and later - furious.

Giving up the money (or goods) is not much of a deterrent, either - as has been said, the reason that's recommended is for the victim's safety. But if you've been robbed several times already - I believe I understand how frustrated and angry that couple must have been when they realised it was happening yet again. I will never know for sure, but I can't help believe that the head-kicking expressed not just an enraged desire to punish - but also to deter future would-be robberies. I just hope that the thing their robbers learn is not to come back with guns next time - then the store owners would have participated in what my ex calls "schizmogenesis" - an escalation of conflict.

Yes, I understand the idea that the woman was being excessively cruel, kicking their assailant when he was (arguably) down like that, but he was already in violation of the social contract that prohibits such behaviour. And, yeah, okay, I know that an eye for an eye is what Jesus Would Not Do...

But I get them, I really do. There's no way I'd prosecute them. If I were in their jury; I'd never convict them.

And honestly, I can't say that I'd behave any "better," were I in their situation. - Oh, wait - I was. Nope. I'm no better.

 

[ixthrock]

It'd have to be a very very unique robbery before the criminal thinks to himself that it is worth going to jail for murder, just so he can accomplish petty theft.

You need to watch more episodes of "the first 48."
Seriously, I hate that show; it's so depressing. But my current roommates love it, and it's on several hours a day. One roommate is quite the bigot, and one of the biggest reasons I hate that show is that the MAJORITY of the criminals are black males, reinforcing my roommate's bigotry. The format of the show is fairly standard - police are called to a homicide, and eventually track down a suspect, often through a tight-lipped community. The suspects almost always deny being the trigger man, the homicide often comes down to a disagreement over a few bucks, frequently the suspects cry when they realise they're being booked for murder, and what all that entails - how badly they've fucked up, and over how little.

Again, it's depressing. And all true.

 

[RonR18]

My ex had numerous scars from bulletholes acquired during a New York convenience store robbery. He was in a coma for weeks, he told me. He also told me he'd tried to talk the thief out of robbing him - the sort of hamartia that ended our relationship; he could be so damn maddeningly annoying when he opened his mouth I felt like shooting him myself at times. I'm a little more civil than his robber.

I've been held up, had a pistol in my face at an all-night diner. As I came out of the men's room, I immediately recognised that there were four men in stocking masks in the store, and one of them had my manager on the ground with a pistol against his head. A barrel spun around into my face and a voice said, "be cool, man." I was cool. The police trashed the place fingerprinting and whatnot, and we opened back up in time for the bar rush - a crowd with a history of rudeness to the servers. I quit the next day. The owners had had video cameras installed, and posted signs to that effect, because of the number of times that particular store had been robbed. Police never caught the guys who held us up, and the security cameras were obviously not much of a deterrent.

It's a scary feeling to have a gun in your face. I felt helpless, and later - furious.

Giving up the money (or goods) is not much of a deterrent, either - as has been said, the reason that's recommended is for the victim's safety. But if you've been robbed several times already - I believe I understand how frustrated and angry that couple must have been when they realised it was happening yet again. I will never know for sure, but I can't help believe that the head-kicking expressed not just an enraged desire to punish - but also to deter future would-be robberies. I just hope that the thing their robbers learn is not to come back with guns next time - then the store owners would have participated in what my ex calls "schizmogenesis" - an escalation of conflict.

Yes, I understand the idea that the woman was being excessively cruel, kicking their assailant when he was (arguably) down like that, but he was already in violation of the social contract that prohibits such behaviour. And, yeah, okay, I know that an eye for an eye is what Jesus Would Not Do...

But I get them, I really do. There's no way I'd prosecute them. If I were in their jury; I'd never convict them.

And honestly, I can't say that I'd behave any "better," were I in their situation. - Oh, wait - I was. Nope. I'm no better.

The robbers managed to get the register open at one point and the owner shut it. So the guy with the knife knew he could get the money if he went behind the counter. And when he jumped over the counter with the knife in his hand, I knew at that point he was willing to stab the owner if he interfered again.

And to me, anyone who would stab a human being in order to forcibly steal his money is a pathetic, extremely despicable person who is no better (or smarter) than a vicious dog. And most people, myself included, think it's cruel to torture a vicious dog by repeatedly kicking it in the head while it's restrained. Which is why I think a crazed, vicious robber shouldn't be treated any less humanely once he's been disarmed and restrained.

 

[gsdx]

Which is why I think a crazed, vicious robber shouldn't be treated any less humanely once he's been disarmed and restrained.

Why is everybody ignoring this? Talk about beating a man when he's down. This is far beyond a few kicks with soft-soled shoes, and these cops walked.

 

[ixthrock]

...it's cruel to torture a vicious dog by repeatedly kicking it in the head while it's restrained. Which is why I think a crazed, vicious robber shouldn't be treated any less humanely once he's been disarmed and restrained.

...It's also cruel to torture people by holding a knife to them and demanding their money when they are merely trying to run a business and not even doing anything they should need to be forcibly restrained over.

We aren't castigating the robber for displaying inhumane behavior towards the shopkeepers. Why? Oh, right, because he's also "crazed." I'm likely to become a little crazed, too, should you threaten me with a knife. Consider this fair warning.

 

[RonR18]

Why is everybody ignoring this? Talk about beating a man when he's down. This is far beyond a few kicks with soft-soled shoes, and these cops walked.

RE: "Why is everybody ignoring this?"

Ummmmm, because it's extremely old news that's totally off topic to this thread, and incidents of blatant police brutality in the U.S. are a dime a dozen.

RE: "Talk about beating a man when he's down."

I'll be the first to admit that kicking a man when he's down is very widespread in the U.S. And if your next question is, "Well why fuck with my beloved Canada...why not post a video of a guy getting kicked in the head in the U.S." My answer to that is, "Because that wasn't my interest in this Canadian incident."

The only reason I posted the video was because the victim pulled the robber's pants and underwear down, and his bare ass was recorded by the surveillance camera. And despite looking high and low, I was unable to find any other video that's similar to this one in any way.

RE: "This is far beyond a few kicks with soft-soled shoes, and these cops walked."

Butt they walked at the expense of 53 deaths in the Los Angeles riots. And you left out the part where the walk was just temporary for 2 of the cops. As they were convicted on civil rights violations and sent to federal prison...so RK definitely got some justice.

...It's also cruel to torture people by holding a knife to them and demanding their money when they are merely trying to run a business and not even doing anything they should need to be forcibly restrained over.

We aren't castigating the robber for displaying inhumane behavior towards the shopkeepers. Why? Oh, right, because he's also "crazed." I'm likely to become a little crazed, too, should you threaten me with a knife. Consider this fair warning.

RE: "It's also cruel to torture people by holding a knife to them and demanding their money when they are merely trying to run a business and not even doing anything they should need to be forcibly restrained over."

That goes without saying, and I'm certainly not disputing that. But the victims are supposed to be better than the vicious robber, and not resort to his level of cruelty. He would have stabbed the owner to death, so does that make it alright for the victims to murder him?

RE: "We aren't castigating the robber for displaying inhumane behavior towards the shopkeepers."

"We?" I hope you aren't including me in that, as I think he should have been killed the second he jumped the counter with the knife in his hand. Butt once he's no longer a threat, that's when you have to let the criminal justice system decide on his punishment, and treat him at least as humanely as a vicious dog would be treated.

 

[gsdx]

Ummmmm, because it's extremely old news that's totally off topic to this thread, and incidents of blatant police brutality in the U.S. are a dime a dozen.

You will never get it. But then, trolls never do. Don't bother responding. I won't see it.

 

[RonR18]

You will never get it. But then, trolls never do. Don't bother responding. I won't see it.

RE: "You will never get it."

Yet another typical gsdx megalomaniac putdown...never any specifics, as though you have a God complex and think you don't need to back up your bullshit with facts.

And what in the hell is your problem with me? You're the most hateful person I've ever had the misfortune of coming across on this site, and you've attacked me repeatedly in this thread, throwing childish tantrums just because our opinions differ. You seriously need to see a psychiatrist, because you've clearly lost it.

As well, you are the one who "will never get it." You'll never get the fact that you aren't the know-it-all you think you are, nor do you have the credibility you think you have. You throw out bullshit statements based on your faulty memory without even bothering to do 2 seconds of fact check research. Your Rodney King post is the latest glaring example.

You claimed the cops who brutalized him "walked," as though that's supposed to make it alright for store owners to kick robbers in the head after they've been disarmed and restrained. Butt you destroy your credibility by leaving out the part where 53 people died in riots because of the jury verdict, and that 2 of the cops were later convicted on federal charges and sent to prison.

Then in typical gsdx fashion, you conveniently leave that part out of my quote, and throw out a nonsensical putdown, hoping to confuse the issue in an attempt to make me look like the stupid one. People would have a lot more respect for you if you simply acted like a man, instead of a verbally abusive spoiled brat who throws tantrums when someone disagrees with him.

RE: "Don't bother responding. I won't see it."

That's about your speed...too much of a coward to take what you dish out, so you run away like a little girl with your head between your legs.

 

[RonR18]

Yes. I don't believe in this moral high ground bullshit. I'd rather kill him when I have the chance than allow him the chance to hurt someone else.

I am constantly reminded of the case a couple years ago where this guy was found not guilty of murder for reason of insanity. After serving his time in an institution, the first thing he did when he got out was kidnapped and killed a woman, her daughter, and her friend. I'm sure some of you guys remember this case from a couple years ago.

So, you can stick to your moral high ground bullshit if you want. I have 9 nephews and nieces, and I would feel a hell of a lot better with these mother fuckers either behind bars, paralyzed, or killed outright. I own a business, and trust me if anyone mother fucker ever try to rob me if I have a chance I'll make sure they won't hurt anyone else.

In your haste to disagree with me, I think you misunderstood me. When I said, "He would have stabbed the owner to death, so does that make it alright for the victims to murder him?" I meant murder him AFTER he was restrained and no longer a threat.