What is the Democrats' Take on This?

[Seymour Flops]

Concealed carry permit holder shoots an armed robber in a dollar store. I believe that if the man lives through those five shots, he may turn his life around and avoid further crime. Assuming he survives prison, I guess.

Are Democrats glad, sad, mad, what?

 

[sealybobo]

Concealed carry permit holder shoots an armed robber in a dollar store. I believe that if the man lives through those five shots, he may turn his life around and avoid further crime. Assuming he survives prison, I guess.

Are Democrats glad, sad, mad, what?

Good question. I'm liberal. Extreme Liberals would say why did the ccw guy get involved? The store employees are told to give up the money and call police. So the question is should ccw people stay out of it? Hell no. We all say we wish a good guy with a gun was there. We can't punish a good guy with a gun.

If I wanted someone killed and I was a gang banger, I'd get a ccw and convince the person I want to kill to rob a store with me. When they went in guns blazing, I take them out and I'm the hero.

What's your question? Am I glad he survived and will get prison time?

Are you guys claiming prosecutors and judges are too liberal on violent crime? You got to prove they did it. To a jury of 12. If you knew what you were talking about you'd see judges and the justice system is not liberal. But our system says 6 of the jurors get to be picked by the accused lawyers. Especially if you are rich.

 

[LuckyDuck01!]

Since you've specified that you prefer to only hear Democrats opinions, I'll not opine on that. But, when it comes to armed scum robbing people, I always roll my eyes at the criminal's family saying the predictable response to their scumbag family member getting shot: "He is a good boy and didn't deserve to be shot. The one who shot him should be arrested and sent to prison." If one delved into his family, you would probably find that the families are criminals themselves.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Good question. I'm liberal. Extreme Liberals would say why did the ccw guy get involved? The store employees are told to give up the money and call police. So the question is should ccw people stay out of it? Hell no. We all say we wish a good guy with a gun was there. We can't punish a good guy with a gun.
. . .
Wht's your question? Am I glad he survived and will get prison time?

The question was deliberately open-ended. I believe that many Democrats feel exactly the way the family of the robber feels, that the CCW holder should have minded his own business. I know that many Democrats believe that the man should not have been allowed a CCW in the first place, or even to own a handgun. Not because he isn't a law-abiding citizen, but precisely because he is.

Since so many Democrats hold that belief, I was hoping that one or more of them would come on this thread to defend those beliefs.

Are you guys claiming prosecutors and judges are too liberal on violent crime? You got to prove they did it. To a jury of 12. If you knew what you were talking about you'd see judges and the justice system is not liberal. But our system says 6 of the jurors get to be picked by the accused lawyers. Especially if you are rich.

Normally, I would not point this out, but since we are discussing who knows and doesn't know that they are talking about, there is no justice system in the U.S. or any of the states in which the defense gets to pick six of the jurors. If there were, there would never be a conviction because the defense could just pick six friends of the defendant.

Jurors are brought in from randomly selected voters and go through a process of questioning the determine if they can be fair. Each side is allowed a limited number of "strikes" to eliminate jurors that should be able to be fair but which one side or the other wants to avoid for whatever reason.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Since you've specified that you prefer to only hear Democrats opinions, I'll not opine on that. But, when it comes to armed scum robbing people, I always roll my eyes at the criminal's family saying the predictable response to their scumbag family member getting shot: "He is a good boy and didn't deserve to be shot. The one who shot him should be arrested and sent to prison." If one delved into his family, you would probably find that the families are criminals themselves.

You are more than welcome to comment on the thread. I fully expect it to be almost all non-Democrats saying that the robber got what he deserved and is lucky to be alive, while Democrats avoid the thread like a welfare dolee avoiding a job fair.

 

[sealybobo]

The question was deliberately open-ended. I believe that many Democrats feel exactly the way the family of the robber feels, that the CCW holder should have minded his own business. I know that many Democrats believe that the man should not have been allowed a CCW in the first place, or even to own a handgun. Not because he isn't a law-abiding citizen, but precisely because he is.

Since so many Democrats hold that belief, I was hoping that one or more of them would come on this thread to defend those beliefs.

Normally, I would not point this out, but since we are discussing who knows and doesn't know that they are talking about, there is no justice system in the U.S. or any of the states in which the defense gets to pick six of the jurors. If there were, there would never be a conviction because the defense could just pick six friends of the defendant.

Jurors are brought in from randomly selected voters and go through a process of questioning the determine if they can be fair. Each side is allowed a limited number of "strikes" to elimi

nate jurors that should be able to be fair but which one side or the other wants to avoid for whatever reason.

That's what I meant. LOL. Not that the defense gets to "pick" 6 jurors. But they get to strike some and say yes to others.

Did you see Oz Pearlman on Howard Stern? He guessed the name Valarie Harper whispered into Howard's ear before she died. He explains he doesn't talk to the dead. Through lots of research on her, her relationship with Howard, by asking a few questions where they don't tell him much, he was able to deduce the word was Curly. And Howard lost his mind. Now most guys would say they are in touch with the dead and make millions. Oz doesn't do this. He still makes a lot of money because he's amazing but he admits he's not psychic, can't speak to the dead. He has spent YEARS perfecting this talent.

My nephew is going to be a lawyer. A good defense lawyer picks 6 jurors. They exclude jurors they can sense won't be sympathetic. I want Oz to be my lawyer.

 

[LuckyDuck01!]

You are more than welcome to comment on the thread. I fully expect it to be almost all non-Democrats saying that the robber got what he deserved and is lucky to be alive, while Democrats avoid the thread like a welfare dolee avoiding a job fair.

The left approaches it from two angles, one is that they believe it's a great moral thing to side with the criminal because the criminal is perceived as a victim of society and class inequality. The other is that whatever the right wing believes must be countered. Ultimately, they just refuse to admit that thieves and robbers are just garbage human beings.

 

[sealybobo]

The left approaches it from two angles, one is that they believe it's a great moral thing to side with the criminal because the criminal is perceived as a victim of society and class inequality. The other is that whatever the right wing believes must be countered. Ultimately, they just refuse to admit that thieves and robbers are just garbage human beings.

What I've noticed in my years is whatever the right wants bad enough, they get.

And I don't like it that people get 40 years but they don't really spend 40 years in jail. Let's do away with that. If you should get life but you plead guilty to 2nd degree murder and that gives you a 20 year sentence, stop letting them out in 10.

 

[Oddball]

Concealed carry permit holder shoots an armed robber in a dollar store. I believe that if the man lives through those five shots, he may turn his life around and avoid further crime. Assuming he survives prison, I guess.

Are Democrats glad, sad, mad, what?

YOU A WACIS!

 

[LuckyDuck01!]

What I've noticed in my years is whatever the right wants bad enough, they get.

And I don't like it that people get 40 years but they don't really spend 40 years in jail. Let's do away with that. If you should get life but you plead guilty to 2nd degree murder and that gives you a 20 year sentence, stop letting them out in 10.

The policy of one day off for every day of good prisoner behavior, is in place in state prisons. Another thing that helps them get out of prison early is the "converting to Christianity claim." The prisoners have learned that if they claim they have found Jesus, the parole boards, are more favorable when it comes to early parole.
Federal prisons on the other hand are different. Whatever sentence you are given, that is what you serve, no matter how "good" you are.

 

[sealybobo]

The policy of one day off for every day of good prisoner behavior, is in place in state prisons. Another thing that helps them get out of prison early is the "converting to Christianity claim." The prisoners have learned that if they claim they have found Jesus, the parole boards, are more favorable when it comes to early parole.
Federal prisons on the other hand are different. Whatever sentence you are given, that is what you serve, no matter how "good" you are.

So Republicans need to point the finger at Religion when they blame liberals. Us atheists are liberal too. For other reasons.

Is death penalty liberal or conservative? Conservative, right? So in this case liberals are christians. But in some circumstances they are conservatives. So I'm confused on who's to blame here libs or cons?

 

[Seymour Flops]

The left approaches it from two angles, one is that they believe it's a great moral thing to side with the criminal because the criminal is perceived as a victim of society and class inequality. The other is that whatever the right wing believes must be countered. Ultimately, they just refuse to admit that thieves and robbers are just garbage human beings.

Yes to this.

Especially the part about whatever the right wing believes must be countered. To them "right wing" is what we would call normal people, i.e. people who do not believe that the answer to teenage sexual confusion is surgical, people who do not believe they are inherently evil due to the color of their skin, people who say "merry Christmas" this time of the year, and people who could see how badly Biden had deteriorated mentally long before they were willing to admit it.

 

[Hellokitty]

If criminal is using a gun to commit a crime good guys should be able to shoot lawfully even if they are not the direct target at the moment.
If a criminal is using a gun bystanders shouldn't be expected to judge if the criminal is going to use it and how or if they're in direct danger.

Side question for anyone. Are there any stories of a good girl with a gun stopping crime? I'm curious because a lot of women carry.

 

[luiza]

I fully expect it to be almost all non-Democrats saying that the robber got what he deserved and is lucky to be alive, while Democrats avoid the thread like a welfare dolee avoiding a job fair.

So why bother raising the incident as a Topic?

I cannot readily understand how the Intervener failed to kill him with five shots .
And why didn't he use the sixth shot to blow the kids head off his shoulders -- required defence for sake of the public etc blah blah ?

Should Mr Halfuseless lose Carry Rights until he has improved his ability to use the weapon properly ?

 

[Seymour Flops]

If criminal is using a gun to commit a crime good guys should be able to shoot lawfully even if they are not the direct target at the moment.
If a criminal is using a gun bystanders shouldn't be expected to judge if the criminal is going to use it and how or if they're in direct danger.

Side question for anyone. Are there any stories of a good girl with a gun stopping crime? I'm curious because a lot of women carry.

It happens often, but the news is loathe to report it.

Woman fights back, shoots robber in Crosby

Sheriff's deputies said a would-be robbery victim shot the man who was attempting to steal her purse at a gas station in Crosby.

www.click2houston.com

 

[Seymour Flops]

So why bother raising the incident as a Topic?

I cannot readily understand how the Intervener failed to kill him with five shots .
And why didn't he use the sixth shot to blow the kids head off his shoulders -- required defence for sake of the public etc blah blah ?

Should Mr Halfuseless lose Carry Rights until he has improved his ability to use the weapon properly ?

I’ll put you down for not liking that this happened, but also not wanting to explain why you oppose self-defense, so just making a random personal attack on the person who defended himself.

 

[Hellokitty]

It happens often, but the news is loathe to report it.

Woman fights back, shoots robber in Crosby

Sheriff's deputies said a would-be robbery victim shot the man who was attempting to steal her purse at a gas station in Crosby.

www.click2houston.com

Thanks for the link!
I was really asking about cases of women intervening when they're not the direct victim, but to help a stranger.
Just curious if women are willing to take the same risks as men.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Thanks for the link!
I was really asking about cases of women intervening when they're not the direct victim, but to help a stranger.
Just curious if women are willing to take the same risks as men.

I'm sure there are many such cases, but they will not be easy to find because they don't fit the narrative. Here is one:

The one day a woman carries gun, she saves a life

The one day a concealed weapons license holder carried her gun, she used it to save a stranger.

www.usatoday.com

Lesson in this: If you are legal to carry, always carry.

Always.

BTW, I would think a woman is more likely to intervene than a man, especially today's "men."

 

[Seymour Flops]

Not sure the hero is "innocent" in this one: