Chicago concealed carry gun owner kills robber...

[Iron Head]

Yes..another shooting for Chicago concealed carry permit holders......one day the criminals will get the point that democrats can no longer disarm the victims of crime...the victims can finally shoot back...

AP News - Police: Concealed carry license holder kills armed gunman

CHICAGO (AP) — Chicago police say a customer with a concealed carry license shot and killed an armed man attempting to rob a neighborhood store.

Police spokesman Anthony Guglielmi said a masked man walked into the store and currency exchange about 7 p.m. Saturday on the city's southwest side, displayed a handgun and announced a robbery to an employ

Didn't know that robbery was a capital offense? Interesting.

Ordering the clerk into the back room at gun point changes everything.

I disagree. Had he locked them both in a room, taken the money and gone, no one would have been harmed. To really be in the clear here, you have to wait until the guy starts shooting, at a person.

No you don't perhaps you should actually read the law. usually all that is required is fear for your life. an armed man ordering you into a backroom would make most people fear for their life.

The shooter wasn't ordered to do anything.

You don't know the law on this. You do not understand the policy on this. I doubt that you, Paint, can even wipe your own ass and tie your own shoes.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Then why are there armed guards at all the banks?

To protect the people, not the money. The money they hand over, it's policy...

So armored truck drivers carry guns to protect???

You lost this argument pages ago. Stop while you still have an ounce of integrity left.

They carry guns to protect themselves and very large amounts of easy to grab cash but if they get trapped dollars to donuts the policy is hand it over, not die trying to protect the money.

At least you admit they are there to protect the money.

But let me ask you this, if the people with guns are supposed to give up the money then why aren't more and armored cars being robbed and banks too for that matter?

I mean, if the guns are there to protect the people and you have no intention of hurting the people you just want the money then the armed guards will not have any reason to shoot your stupid ass.

If you cannot see your failed logic, then you are dumber than I originally believed.

The guns are a deterrent, but when push comes to shove they hand over the cash. That is policy because money isn't worth a human life, any human life.

Keep beliein

Then why are there armed guards at all the banks?

To protect the people, not the money. The money they hand over, it's policy...

So armored truck drivers carry guns to protect???

You lost this argument pages ago. Stop while you still have an ounce of integrity left.

They carry guns to protect themselves and very large amounts of easy to grab cash but if they get trapped dollars to donuts the policy is hand it over, not die trying to protect the money.

At least you admit they are there to protect the money.

But let me ask you this, if the people with guns are supposed to give up the money then why aren't more and armored cars being robbed and banks too for that matter?

I mean, if the guns are there to protect the people and you have no intention of hurting the people you just want the money then the armed guards will not have any reason to shoot your stupid ass.

If you cannot see your failed logic, then you are dumber than I originally believed.

The guns are a deterrent, but when push comes to shove they hand over the cash. That is policy because money isn't worth a human life, any human life.

Keep believing that.

 

[jc456]

has nothing to do with anything Frances. nothing, it wouldn't be allowed in as a discussion point anyway. It is what the issue was that day that minute and his consequence for doing it. bye!!!!

It will come out it court, as will the history of the shooter. Should be interesting.

history of the shooter will be inadmissible. sorry. Just like a rape victim can't bring in any past rapes.

Oh. not even close. They will go over him like ants on a ham.

they will look at the conceal guys history, but that's it, the robbers history will be inadmissible as I already stated.

No, his history will be in there too. It's a civil trial, not a criminal one.

I thought you said second degree murder. That isn't civil.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

It will come out it court, as will the history of the shooter. Should be interesting.

history of the shooter will be inadmissible. sorry. Just like a rape victim can't bring in any past rapes.

Oh. not even close. They will go over him like ants on a ham.

they will look at the conceal guys history, but that's it, the robbers history will be inadmissible as I already stated.

No, his history will be in there too. It's a civil trial, not a criminal one.

I thought you said second degree murder. That isn't civil.

That's probably what it should have been but there are no criminal charges at the moment. Try to keep up.

 

[Iron Head]

Pr

Nope, pretty fucking obvious. That's his history...

has nothing to do with anything Frances. nothing, it wouldn't be allowed in as a discussion point anyway. It is what the issue was that day that minute and his consequence for doing it. bye!!!!

It will come out it court, as will the history of the shooter. Should be interesting.

history of the shooter will be inadmissible. sorry. Just like a rape victim can't bring in any past rapes.

Oh. not even close. They will go over him like ants on a ham.

they will look at the conceal guys history, but that's it, the robbers history will be inadmissible as I already stated.

Prior bad acts. The dead punk had felony convictions. That is usually available for impeachment purposes. In other words, if someone starts saying what a nice, decent guy he is, then the prior convictions would be admissible, in a civil or criminal proceeding.

 

[jc456]

history of the shooter will be inadmissible. sorry. Just like a rape victim can't bring in any past rapes.

Oh. not even close. They will go over him like ants on a ham.

they will look at the conceal guys history, but that's it, the robbers history will be inadmissible as I already stated.

No, his history will be in there too. It's a civil trial, not a criminal one.

I thought you said second degree murder. That isn't civil.

That's probably what it should have been but there are no criminal charges at the moment. Try to keep up.

dude you are the one posting second degree murder on here, not me. You really are a douche.

 

[jc456]

Pr

has nothing to do with anything Frances. nothing, it wouldn't be allowed in as a discussion point anyway. It is what the issue was that day that minute and his consequence for doing it. bye!!!!

It will come out it court, as will the history of the shooter. Should be interesting.

history of the shooter will be inadmissible. sorry. Just like a rape victim can't bring in any past rapes.

Oh. not even close. They will go over him like ants on a ham.

they will look at the conceal guys history, but that's it, the robbers history will be inadmissible as I already stated.

Prior bad acts. The dead punk had felony convictions. That is usually available for impeachment purposes. In other words, if someone starts saying what a nice, decent guy he is, then the prior convictions would be admissible, in a civil or criminal proceeding.

I believe there would have to be a precedence set to allow it.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Oh. not even close. They will go over him like ants on a ham.

they will look at the conceal guys history, but that's it, the robbers history will be inadmissible as I already stated.

No, his history will be in there too. It's a civil trial, not a criminal one.

I thought you said second degree murder. That isn't civil.

That's probably what it should have been but there are no criminal charges at the moment. Try to keep up.

dude you are the one posting second degree murder on here, not me. You really are a douche.

When you don't bother to read the thread you are the douche...

 

[PaintMyHouse]

To protect the people, not the money. The money they hand over, it's policy...

So armored truck drivers carry guns to protect???

You lost this argument pages ago. Stop while you still have an ounce of integrity left.

They carry guns to protect themselves and very large amounts of easy to grab cash but if they get trapped dollars to donuts the policy is hand it over, not die trying to protect the money.

At least you admit they are there to protect the money.

But let me ask you this, if the people with guns are supposed to give up the money then why aren't more and armored cars being robbed and banks too for that matter?

I mean, if the guns are there to protect the people and you have no intention of hurting the people you just want the money then the armed guards will not have any reason to shoot your stupid ass.

If you cannot see your failed logic, then you are dumber than I originally believed.

The guns are a deterrent, but when push comes to shove they hand over the cash. That is policy because money isn't worth a human life, any human life.

Keep beliein

To protect the people, not the money. The money they hand over, it's policy...

So armored truck drivers carry guns to protect???

You lost this argument pages ago. Stop while you still have an ounce of integrity left.

They carry guns to protect themselves and very large amounts of easy to grab cash but if they get trapped dollars to donuts the policy is hand it over, not die trying to protect the money.

At least you admit they are there to protect the money.

But let me ask you this, if the people with guns are supposed to give up the money then why aren't more and armored cars being robbed and banks too for that matter?

I mean, if the guns are there to protect the people and you have no intention of hurting the people you just want the money then the armed guards will not have any reason to shoot your stupid ass.

If you cannot see your failed logic, then you are dumber than I originally believed.

The guns are a deterrent, but when push comes to shove they hand over the cash. That is policy because money isn't worth a human life, any human life.

Keep believing that.

I don't have to believe it, it's a well-known policy. Life before money, hand it over.

Like this:

 

[jc456]

So armored truck drivers carry guns to protect???

You lost this argument pages ago. Stop while you still have an ounce of integrity left.

They carry guns to protect themselves and very large amounts of easy to grab cash but if they get trapped dollars to donuts the policy is hand it over, not die trying to protect the money.

At least you admit they are there to protect the money.

But let me ask you this, if the people with guns are supposed to give up the money then why aren't more and armored cars being robbed and banks too for that matter?

I mean, if the guns are there to protect the people and you have no intention of hurting the people you just want the money then the armed guards will not have any reason to shoot your stupid ass.

If you cannot see your failed logic, then you are dumber than I originally believed.

The guns are a deterrent, but when push comes to shove they hand over the cash. That is policy because money isn't worth a human life, any human life.

Keep beliein

So armored truck drivers carry guns to protect???

You lost this argument pages ago. Stop while you still have an ounce of integrity left.

They carry guns to protect themselves and very large amounts of easy to grab cash but if they get trapped dollars to donuts the policy is hand it over, not die trying to protect the money.

At least you admit they are there to protect the money.

But let me ask you this, if the people with guns are supposed to give up the money then why aren't more and armored cars being robbed and banks too for that matter?

I mean, if the guns are there to protect the people and you have no intention of hurting the people you just want the money then the armed guards will not have any reason to shoot your stupid ass.

If you cannot see your failed logic, then you are dumber than I originally believed.

The guns are a deterrent, but when push comes to shove they hand over the cash. That is policy because money isn't worth a human life, any human life.

Keep believing that.

I don't have to believe it, it's a well-known policy. Life before money, hand it over.

Like this:

and what happens when someone doesn't follow those policies? Please let me know, the criminal gets off with murder? I mean this is truly brilliant.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

They carry guns to protect themselves and very large amounts of easy to grab cash but if they get trapped dollars to donuts the policy is hand it over, not die trying to protect the money.

At least you admit they are there to protect the money.

But let me ask you this, if the people with guns are supposed to give up the money then why aren't more and armored cars being robbed and banks too for that matter?

I mean, if the guns are there to protect the people and you have no intention of hurting the people you just want the money then the armed guards will not have any reason to shoot your stupid ass.

If you cannot see your failed logic, then you are dumber than I originally believed.

The guns are a deterrent, but when push comes to shove they hand over the cash. That is policy because money isn't worth a human life, any human life.

Keep beliein

They carry guns to protect themselves and very large amounts of easy to grab cash but if they get trapped dollars to donuts the policy is hand it over, not die trying to protect the money.

At least you admit they are there to protect the money.

But let me ask you this, if the people with guns are supposed to give up the money then why aren't more and armored cars being robbed and banks too for that matter?

I mean, if the guns are there to protect the people and you have no intention of hurting the people you just want the money then the armed guards will not have any reason to shoot your stupid ass.

If you cannot see your failed logic, then you are dumber than I originally believed.

The guns are a deterrent, but when push comes to shove they hand over the cash. That is policy because money isn't worth a human life, any human life.

Keep believing that.

I don't have to believe it, it's a well-known policy. Life before money, hand it over.

Like this:

and what happens when someone doesn't follow those policies? Please let me know, the criminal gets off with murder? I mean this is truly brilliant.

They get fired...

 

[jc456]

they will look at the conceal guys history, but that's it, the robbers history will be inadmissible as I already stated.

No, his history will be in there too. It's a civil trial, not a criminal one.

I thought you said second degree murder. That isn't civil.

That's probably what it should have been but there are no criminal charges at the moment. Try to keep up.

dude you are the one posting second degree murder on here, not me. You really are a douche.

When you don't bother to read the thread you are the douche...

Yes..another shooting for Chicago concealed carry permit holders......one day the criminals will get the point that democrats can no longer disarm the victims of crime...the victims can finally shoot back...

AP News - Police: Concealed carry license holder kills armed gunman

CHICAGO (AP) — Chicago police say a customer with a concealed carry license shot and killed an armed man attempting to rob a neighborhood store.

Police spokesman Anthony Guglielmi said a masked man walked into the store and currency exchange about 7 p.m. Saturday on the city's southwest side, displayed a handgun and announced a robbery to an employ

Didn't know that robbery was a capital offense? Interesting.

Ordering the clerk into the back room at gun point changes everything.

I disagree. Had he locked them both in a room, taken the money and gone, no one would have been harmed. To really be in the clear here, you have to wait until the guy starts shooting, at a person.

Dumbest thing I've read all day. So we should wait and let the criminal get the first shot? You're an idiot.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

If he wanted to be protected from a second-degree murder charge, yeppers.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk[/QUOTE]
If he wanted to be protected from a second-degree murder charge, yeppers

yep I can read just fine douchebag.

 

[jc456]

At least you admit they are there to protect the money.

But let me ask you this, if the people with guns are supposed to give up the money then why aren't more and armored cars being robbed and banks too for that matter?

I mean, if the guns are there to protect the people and you have no intention of hurting the people you just want the money then the armed guards will not have any reason to shoot your stupid ass.

If you cannot see your failed logic, then you are dumber than I originally believed.

The guns are a deterrent, but when push comes to shove they hand over the cash. That is policy because money isn't worth a human life, any human life.

Keep beliein

At least you admit they are there to protect the money.

But let me ask you this, if the people with guns are supposed to give up the money then why aren't more and armored cars being robbed and banks too for that matter?

I mean, if the guns are there to protect the people and you have no intention of hurting the people you just want the money then the armed guards will not have any reason to shoot your stupid ass.

If you cannot see your failed logic, then you are dumber than I originally believed.

The guns are a deterrent, but when push comes to shove they hand over the cash. That is policy because money isn't worth a human life, any human life.

Keep believing that.

I don't have to believe it, it's a well-known policy. Life before money, hand it over.

Like this:

and what happens when someone doesn't follow those policies? Please let me know, the criminal gets off with murder? I mean this is truly brilliant.

They get fired...

probably dead eh? wow dude you are a schmuck and a half.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Ordering the clerk into the back room at gun point changes everything.

I disagree. Had he locked them both in a room, taken the money and gone, no one would have been harmed. To really be in the clear here, you have to wait until the guy starts shooting, at a person.

No you don't perhaps you should actually read the law. usually all that is required is fear for your life. an armed man ordering you into a backroom would make most people fear for their life.

The shooter wasn't ordered to do anything.

Exactly...trying to rob that store with a paintball gun was all his idea.
A stupid idea,but it was all his.

And being stupid isn't a Capital Crime, which makes you damn lucky...

You advocate allowing armed robbers to work their trade with no consequences and you're calling me stupid?

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Wow, but according to the OP there were 1,999,999 exact same cases last night of violet crimes being stopped. Yet all we heard about was one.

Either the OP was lying or....there is no second option...the OP is a liar.

Or you're a liar. The generally agreed upon statistic is 2 million gun defenses per year.

Stop lying, Leftists!

 

[Ame®icano]

it was their choice to go in with a gun and the choice had consequences PERIOD!!!!!

It was the choice of the shooter to shoot, when he more than likely didn't need to.

I don't care, he will get the consequence for his choice right? What is the difference? Why are you hell bent to save a villian, I don't get it. Are you one? Are you wanting to be one and are scared to come out of the closet? just curious how a douchebag like you functions in society.

Money is never worth killing for.

Then why are there armed guards at all the banks?

To protect the people, not the money. The money they hand over, it's policy...

Isn't that what shooter was doing?

Btw, why arm guards are protecting people if policy is to hand the money over?

 

[westwall]

You know, Paint, you really are a despicable piece of shit contrarian. The thug was armed. Not only is he guilty of armed robbery but also aggravated assault. If someone dropped dead of a heart attack during the robbery then the thug would be guilty of felony murder.

Fuck that scum fuck. If you have a weapon confronting someone for whatever reason then you are putting a reasonable person in apprehension of immediate death or severe bodily injury, in which case deadly force is both legal and appropriate.,

Not much good to not take a gun to a robbery like that eh? And armed robbery is still not a capital offense here, and no one was assaulted.

sure they were assaulted, sorry you lose.

No one was assaulted...

sure they were, they were held at gunpoint. not free to do what they wanted to do, assaulted pretty boy.

They were held only as long as it took him to get the money he wanted. People like that are taught to just do what he says and hand it over. No one usually gets hurt that way.

If you point a weapon at me for one millisecond that constitutes assault with a deadly weapon dipshit. You earn the consequences.

 

[westwall]

Bullshit.

Nope. The robber wanted only money, not to kill anyone.

Is that what he told you?

Nope, pretty fucking obvious. That's his history...

has nothing to do with anything Frances. nothing, it wouldn't be allowed in as a discussion point anyway. It is what the issue was that day that minute and his consequence for doing it. bye!!!!

It will come out it court, as will the history of the shooter. Should be interesting.

You certainly desperately hope it does. Here's a bit of a wakeup for you, the guy had a CCW in Illinois. You have any idea how hard it is to get one there? This guys history will be impeccable. I wouldn't be surprised if he weren't a friend of the Mayor as well. You lose yet again...

 

[westwall]

Wait a minute? Are you saying our newly departed criminal tried to rob a store with a paintball gun?

That's correct, and he was 55 with at least one son.

what law are you defending? Please I'm dying to know this.

The law that says we hire cops for this kind of work, not Joe Blow playing John Wayne.

probably something he should have thought of eh. Instead of the people being threaten and thinking about statistics for being threatened, the dead guy should have weighed his options then right? He should have thought what are the odds I get out of here clean. hmmm you are very one sided sob aren't you Frances.

His odds of getting away clean were quite good, but not getting away with it in the end.

and he didn't wow will you look at that. he lost.

Lost his life, over cash, but to you guys that's fine, the life of ******* is cheap...

Yes, the life of a scumbag committing a violent crime is most certainly cheap.

 

[westwall]

probably something he should have thought of eh. Instead of the people being threaten and thinking about statistics for being threatened, the dead guy should have weighed his options then right? He should have thought what are the odds I get out of here clean. hmmm you are very one sided sob aren't you Frances.

His odds of getting away clean were quite good, but not getting away with it in the end.

and he didn't wow will you look at that. he lost.

Lost his life, over cash, but to you guys that's fine, the life of ******* is cheap...

The life of a criminal is cheap.

I think all life you don't approve of is cheap for you...

No, you have already stated in this thread that humanity should die, so your mock outrage at this piece of human refuse dying is colored by that sentiment. You just hate that people are able to defend themselves against criminals.