PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: President in Exile YOLT on April 24, 2017, 01:11:26 PM
-
"The images cannot be shared publicly, she said, because the suspects appear to be minors."
We know why...
http://www.sfchronicle.com/crime/article/BART-takeover-robbery-50-to-60-teens-swarm-11094745.php
-
By tonight the loopy leftist hoard will have figured out a way to blame Donald Trump.
-
It's a good thing none of the passengers of had guns. Otherwise, some of those "juveniles" may have got what's coming to them.
-
An unarmed populace is a populace of potential victims. Maybe a few of them will change their minds about legally carried firearms? Nah.
-
But they're CHILDREN. Can you imagine the outcry if someone had used a firearm against them? We are supposed to just let them get away with robbery. They are ENTITLED as a matter of fact, to be SAFE while they commit their crimes. That's today's PC world.
-
It's a good thing none of the passengers of had guns. Otherwise, some of those "juveniles" may have got what's coming to them.
Where's Bernie Goetz when you need him?
-
Even in states where carry is allowed, protection of property is not a permitted reason to shoot someone. You really couldn't shoot unless their violence rose to the level of threathening serious bodily injury and I haven't heard that level of injury yet.
BTW, I read last night where someone said that BART couldn't hire enough security officers because Trump is withholding money due to the sanctuary status. Complete lie, but they have figured out how to lie and make it Trump's fault.
-
Even in states where carry is allowed, protection of property is not a permitted reason to shoot someone. You really couldn't shoot unless their violence rose to the level of threathening serious bodily injury and I haven't heard that level of injury yet.
BTW, I read last night where someone said that BART couldn't hire enough security officers because Trump is withholding money due to the sanctuary status. Complete lie, but they have figured out how to lie and make it Trump's fault.
All true. Personal property is not a reason to use deadly force. Also, if there is no threat of death, or serious bodily harm, deadly force can also not be used. However, in many states, all bets are off if an intruder breaks into your home. In states with a Castle Doctrine if an intruder is IN your home, it is assumed he is there to do you harm.
I use to live in the Bay Area, and took BART a lot. It was my primary way to get around, and I always felt safe on BART. This is a bit scary.
-
Untrue. In Texas it is legal to shoot someone for robbery, burglary, and other thefts of personal property. You may shoot them in the back as they're running off with your hubcaps.
I love Texas.
-
All true. Personal property is not a reason to use deadly force. Also, if there is no threat of death, or serious bodily harm, deadly force can also not be used. However, in many states, all bets are off if an intruder breaks into your home. In states with a Castle Doctrine if an intruder is IN your home, it is assumed he is there to do you harm.
I use to live in the Bay Area, and took BART a lot. It was my primary way to get around, and I always felt safe on BART. This is a bit scary.
I'd like to find the rule book that criminals follow so that I know which robberies will lead to violence, and which ones won't. Do they need to be brandishing weapons? When they're holding up their pants do they have a gun in their waist band, or are they holding up their jockeys? If 3 teenagers invade my personal space and are grabbing for my wallet and punching me and threatening to cut me, is that sufficient to constitute a threat? If they beat someone else on the train bloody, is THAT sufficient to constitute fear of death or bodily harm?
I refuse to be a victim. I will not be a Reginald Denny. (Question: did Denny know that the ghetto thugs were going to slam pieces of concrete onto his skull when he was being pulled out of his truck?)
Note to self: get USCCA insurance.
-
I'd like to find the rule book that criminals follow so that I know which robberies will lead to violence, and which ones won't. Do they need to be brandishing weapons? When they're holding up their pants do they have a gun in their waist band, or are they holding up their jockeys? If 3 teenagers invade my personal space and are grabbing for my wallet and punching me and threatening to cut me, is that sufficient to constitute a threat? If they beat someone else on the train bloody, is THAT sufficient to constitute fear of death or bodily harm?
I refuse to be a victim. I will not be a Reginald Denny. (Question: did Denny know that the ghetto thugs were going to slam pieces of concrete onto his skull when he was being pulled out of his truck?)
Note to self: get USCCA insurance.
All good points Stan. Check out this video.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/04/24/video-three-suspected-attackers-beat-rob-man-broad-daylight-philadelphia/