« Lord Monckton Warns of Obama's Copenhagen Threat | Main | Progressive Leftists Think Real-Life Should Be Like Harry Potter Books »

Same thing happened to a clerk at a 7/11 he was fired for using a gun to stop a robber. EVERYONE SHOULD TAKE THEIR MONEY OUT OF THAT BANK AND TELL THE MANAGER TO GO KISS UP WITH HIS BELOVED DICTATOR BARACK OBAMA

^ Sad thing is that he WAS the manager! Must have been the corporate office that canned him.
Another sad thing is that if his shots hit and either injured or killed the robber, he (bank manager) would be sued by the robber's remaining family members.
It's a screwed up world these days.

As a person who carries, I can tell you -- He SHOULD have been fired. I'm as Conservative as can be, I'm a BIG TIME believer in the 2nd Amendment. But actions like these can get people killed.

Let the robber have the money. He wasn't there to shoot anybody, he was there for the money. Let him have it. Let the FBI worry about it.

Had the bad-guy shot somebody and was about to shoot somebody else? Let him have it, gun him down. But firing a hand gun in a crowded Bank because the robber pissed you off? No way.

Even if the FBI doesn't catch the guy after the robbery, so what? The way the Treasury is printing money today..........

Uncle Rick,
I agree with you, but there is insufficient information.

Did the criminal have a gun? If he had a gun did he brandish it? If he brandished it, did its muzzle point at anybody? If these are true, then by my training a quick double tap to the center of mass will stop the threat. Otherwise let him go, taking note of his features to help with the investigation.

I disagree.

Shoot. Shoot well. Shoot often. Then splatter anyone who threatens others with a weapon. No, "Stick 'em up," or any of that nonsense.

There's a zero recidivism rate amongst dead bad guys.

"Uncle Rick at October 16, 2009 10:54 AM"

1. Castle Docterine.
2. Co-operating with criminals is the same as giving them permission to do ANYTHING they want.
3. It's neither the bank's money, nor the government's money; it's the DEPOSITERS' money.
4. "Just print more"? Why not just print money and GIVE it to anyone who announces he's a criminal?
5. Resistiance of any kind makes it harder on criminals and discourages them, while co-operation makes it easier and encourages them to commit more crimes.
6. Sure, it's risky to defend your life and property, but so is getting robbed and assaulted.
7. Since you think there's too much risk involved, throw away your weapon and HELP the criminals any way you can.

Amen, KHarn & chuckinstpaul.

Criminals fear an armed citizen, not the police...who will finally show up once the thug is long gone.

Proper gun control is hitting your target and keeping them from stealing ever again.

"Hallman said when he saw a would-be robber holding a gun in an employee's face, he challenged the man with his gun. The robber turned, so Hallman said he fired a shot. The robber fired a shot, ran and then fired two more shots."

Justifiable shooting. Unload on the robber's azz.

Nunya gave me the idea:

Gun control - Still having the gun in your hand and a bead on your target after you've emptied the clip.

This will be perfect for my "First Freedom Friday's Armed Citizen" post today.

I think the article stated that the robber held a gun to someone's head. So 'Dead-Eye-Dick' decides to play William Tell with a little Dirty Harry thrown in and endanger someone else's life?

Bank robbers, generally speaking, don't want fireworks. They want money. Let them have the freaking money. It is NOT the depositors money because it is insured by the FDIC, which makes it the Federal Government's money.

Money is fungible. Human life is not.

Did you miss something, Uncle Rick? The robber was pointing a gun in an employee's face!

You are right that most bank robbers just want the money. Most bank robberies also don't involve a gun. Generally, a robbery could happen in front of you and you don't even know it; they give the robber the money because the robber is usually too stupid to realize that all of it is being tracked.

But when the robber starts threatening - and what's more threatening than a gun to the face? - all bets are off. He escalated the situation. He should suffer the consequences.

People who rob banks should be killed on sight.

Uncle Rick is a big, fat pussy just like me.

You vote Democrat, too?

Wanna party, cowboy?

"It is NOT the depositors money because it is insured by the FDIC, which makes it the Federal Government's money.
"Posted by: Uncle Rick at October 16, 2009 12:52 PM"

Bullshit. That wasn't some politico sweating his ass off in the Florida sun for a handfull of greenbacks, that was ME.

To continue my post:
Since you think that whoever insures something, owns it UNCLE RICK, you must think that the company that insures your car and house owns those things too? Do you have LIFE insureance? Does someone own your LIFE?

"Hallman said when he saw a would-be robber holding a gun in an employee's face, he challenged the man with his gun. The robber turned, so Hallman said he fired a shot. The robber fired a shot, ran and then fired two more shots."

As pointed out above, this manager absolutely did the right thing. The perp had a gun to a hostage's head. The manager drew the perp's attention, and direct aim, away from the hostage. That's the time to fire. The hostage's chances of remaining alive improved dramatically when the manager too action. Hostage's were left unharmed, the bad guy got hit, and arrested. A happy ending. Except for the Democrats who are left with one less voter on the street.

Whether we like it or not KHarn, our currency is the property of the United States Government. You simply have the right to hold it on a temporary basis.

You do NOT have the right to reproduce it, alter it or even destroy it. In fact, there was a case not long ago where a house caught fire and some guy had a bunch of money in a non fireproof safe. The Treasury Department came in and determined that there was about $10,000 in the safe (even though it was almost totally burnt to hell) and wrote him a check for it. No problem.

When your Bank gets robbed, make sure the Bank doesn't debit your account a proportionate amount to cover the loss.

But I am just a rabid statist who pretends to be a conservative and thinks that my lame affectation will deceive the intelligent posters here who actually ARE conservatives.

But I am just a rabid statist who pretends to be a conservative and thinks that my lame affectation will deceive the intelligent posters here who actually ARE conservatives.

UR:
Can somebody do something about this troll?

Never mind. It really is me. I just want to try and win you folks over with some populist statements because I think you're dumb enough to fall for it.

"Uncle Rick at October 17, 2009 6:46 AM"

Dumbass, I said NOTHING about printing my own currency! The people of this country have the GOD-GIVEN RIGHT to protect their lives property and the lives and property of OTHERS. Too many people confuse being "civilized" with alowing brutes to run wild. Unfortunatly, that's why there has not been an uprising against the government in America for a long time.

I also vote to ban the jackass who keeps using other's names.

I said NOTHING about printing my own currency! The people of this country have the GOD-GIVEN RIGHT to protect their lives property.

I agree with that much. But 'escalating' the situation just creates an avenue for the Bank robber to make good on his threat of violence.

Any Cop, any FBI Agent, will tell you that they want the robber OUT of the building -- Right freaking NOW. The sooner he leaves, with or without the money, the better. Give him what he wants.

What I was saying is that -- It isn't YOUR money. Well, unless the bad guy is shaking down people before they make a deposit or after they make a withdrawal. In which case, I believe you do have the moral right to defend yourself and your property.

But they usually don't take the time for that. They're mostly smash and grab, get in get out. Quick. They know that a teller may have hit a silent alarm. They know that a Bank Manager in his or her office, seeing what's going on may have hit a silent alarm. They know they're on borrowed time.

Give the robber his money, let him leave and nobody gets hurt. Because the Bank is insured by the FDIC, all the Federal Government does is hand over the stolen money back to the Bank. No big deal. Nobody loses anything. Not a single dime. Except the Government and all they're doing is printing money these days anyway.

The only reason this is important to me is if someday, someone here is in a similar situation and tries to do something stupid and gets somebody else hurt.

If you're in your home, you have the right to do what you you think is right if you're being robbed. If someone breaks into my house, all I need is a two-second warning and I'll have .45 ACP in my hands. At which time, I'll do whatever I need to do to protect my family, myself and my property.

Outside your house, the rules change a little bit depending on what State you live in.

But people need to use their heads. The Bank robbers had no real intention of shooting anyone. Why would they? They weren't there to shoot somebody, they were there to steal the Government's money. Big whoopie-doopie. Let 'em have it. Whatever that Bank robber takes is a gnat on an elephant's ass compared to what Bawney Fwank and his thieving freaking dems are stealing in Congress every day.

Posted by: Uncle Rick at October 17, 2009 12:08 PM- "...they were there to steal the Government's money."

It isn't about the money. It ceased being about money when the perp put a gun to the head of a hostage.

Posted by: Uncle Rick at October 17, 2009 12:08 PM- "...The Bank robbers had no real intention of shooting anyone. Why would they?"

He had a gun to the head of a hostage. If that doesn't indicate intent, what does? He didn't intend to kill the hostage? The intention was to merely "scare" the staff? You can do that by simply brandishing a weapon- by displaying it. If the perp is prepared to "scare" the staff, in such a manner, he is prepared to follow through on the threat of execution. Killing the hostage is much "scarier". Such a Robber will pull the trigger if he thinks you aren't responding to demands fast enough. If someone coughs, or looks at him funny. Or, just for the hell of it. Once the perp moved from armed hold-up, to execution threat, the rules changed.

In war, enemy combatants may be lawfully killed by the US military simply for holding a weapon. It's in our Rules of Engagement. That does not go even as far as pointing said weapon at another person, much less actually firing it. Both of which this robber is guilty of.

If the guy and shot and killed this sleazebag, I'd say the latter got what he deserved. This story is an outrage.