My point is: It doesn’t.
And I really, truly hope someone doesn’t decide to hurt you one day just for the heck of it.
I must have missed where the details of the chasing down were hashed out. What defines “chasing down” to you? As far as I can tell, he didn’t chase down shit, as the kid got away. He was as effective as the old man next door to me yelling at my kids to stay off of his lawn.
I was simply responding to the contradiction in the quote. Ersland went for his Taurus to “go after” the other robber, yet was a disabled war veteran who was physically unable to flee.
And you used the term “chasing down” to widen the contradiction as though he ran a 4.4/40 yard dash to get the guy. Yeah, I got it.
While he didn’t chase anyone down he did leave the store to pursue the other robber. Clearly the idea that he couldn’t flee because he’s disabled is bullshit.
okay. How is that relevant to the discussion?
In this case the robbers had a gun and so did the intended victim.
My apologies for using a tiny bit of hyperbole in making my point. I also suggested that his ability to chase the guy down was due to magical powers. Maybe you could explain to me how magic doesn’t actually work.
hyperbole is fine on occasion. Was it also hyperbole when you inaccurately described the video a few posts back?
Why do so many people care that a criminal, someone caught on tape threatening another person’s life and livelihood, is dead?
“He didn’t have to shoot my baby like that.” Well, you should have taught your ‘baby,’ a sixteen year old, about right and wrong. You should have taught him NOT TO ROB PEOPLE.
Agree, and for the record, I never stated he was unable to flee, only that his reactions to close quarter threats would be restricted. It was the term “chasing down” that got me.
Like I said, I knew quite well what you were doing. Your hyperbole fell a little flat for me.
How on Earth did you get that from my posts?
We don’t care that the criminal is dead. We care that Ersland executed him. We care about vigilantism being wrong. These aren’t mutually exclusive propositions.
I get it. Another posted had mentioned his being unable to flee.
No need for PM’s…how many matchsticks do you want to stake? I’m a little disappointed that someone would consider making a profit on an event like this, tbh! :dubious:
It’ll only need him to drop his guard once.
Except when they aren’t and don’t.( Ever hear of criminals who rob drug-dealers? What about bank-robbers, are they cowards?). Generalise much?
Or to shoot robbers cold-bloodedly.
[QUOTE]
As disappointed as someone suggesting a bet with odds over such an event? Sheesh!
Because he should have been sent to prison, not shot in cold blood.
As we know, children always learn what their parents try to teach them.
The guy was down, he was no longer a threat. The shop keeper was no longer in danger, and did not HAVE to shoot him some more.
I don’t give a shit that the guy is dead. He could have died with the first shot to the head and I would have supported the shopkeeper’s legal defense fund with my hard earned money. The problem is him emptying 5 shots at point blank range into the wounded (possibly unconscious) and prone criminal. This is an execution and I did not see a jury of his peers sentence this man to death. Rule of Law and all that. The guy was not afraid for his life, he turned his back on the robber several times without concern. After exercising his right of self defense, he decided that it was not enough and executed the criminal. Not OK…