digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

See the original image at cbs11tv.com

Fort Worth Donut Shop Robber Shot & Killed

cbs11tv.com — Fort Worth defense attorney Trey Loftin told CBS 11 News, "We're a gun toting state. We have a lot of John Wayne in our blood. We're gonna shoot first and ask questions later."

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • Stevanoski, on 05/11/2008, -7/+78I grabbed my telephone," Randal explained. "He said, don't call police. I say I gotta do something." Pretty cool cat I say.

    Also, Confucius must have a saying about bringing a bb gun to a shotgun fight.
    • bizkit00, on 05/11/2008, -18/+5Confucius say: "If my neighbor no come, what is gone happen? I might die."
      *has a flashback to reading tom sawyer* Just translate the damn quotes back into english!
      • Jus7in, on 05/11/2008, -4/+5If you need help translating that, what the hell are you doing on Digg? YouTube has a lot of people on your intellectual spectrum, methinks.
      • fatjoe, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1god bless asians ay. they really do adopt the american culture well. shoot first ask later
    • socivitus, on 05/11/2008, -2/+8I'm pretty sure its Sean Connery who would say that. ^_^
      • zzhiwen, on 05/11/2008, -0/+8Why are you digging this person down?!? Go see "The Untouchables," people!
    • mostfynest, on 05/11/2008, -12/+6The ugly SOB deserved it, if it was me I would have pumped him with many more shots than Mr Livingston or whatever his name was, then kicked his ***** skull in. Good Riddance!
      • spuddly, on 05/11/2008, -15/+11I'm not totally convinced that robbing a donut shop with a bb gun deserves the death penalty, but maybe that's just me...
        • GiggleStick, on 05/11/2008, -1/+10He also beat the little Asian lady up, and made her think she was going to be killed. Here's a tip. Don't beat up and rob women, and you won't be shot by a legal gun owner. Sorry, but I can't make any promises about the criminals, because apparently they're not real big on the whole "obeying the law" thing. Not even gun laws apparently, which was really surprising.
        • ShadowMerchant, on 05/11/2008, -1/+5I think *all* armed robbers should get the death penalty on the first offense, but maybe that's just me...
      • mostfynest, on 05/11/2008, -11/+8Dude are you thick? Was anyone too know it was a BB gun? Think again before wasting this space on cyberspace.
    • LeeSoong, on 05/11/2008, -1/+21Didn't he know how we make Donuts in Texas?

      Texans throw the raw dough into the air,
      and shoot a hole through it as it falls into the grease.

      "I'll have a dozen Black Talon hollow point glazed donuts, please..."
  • JimmySpaza, on 05/11/2008, -37/+87Too bad all the good guys aren't allowed to carry weapons. If so, crime would plummet overnight...and a lot of bad guys would be sleeping with the fishes.
    • ZenMojo, on 05/11/2008, -65/+32Actually, if all of the good guys carried guns, then the good guys would get shot by their own guns, and their kids would get shot by their guns, and then the bad guys would steal their guns and shoot other people. At least, that's statistically what would happen, but I can't predict the future in every case.
      • jjohnstn, on 05/11/2008, -5/+37Ummm...no. Plenty of good guys own and sometimes carry guns now (far more then you know about as they are often concealed) and very, very few instances of loss of weapon retention or a child getting hurt or killed by the weapon.

        • troye, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1This fact applies to all of the United States also.
      • Tenlow, on 05/11/2008, -3/+35Actually, a lot more people own (and carry) guns than you might think (at least in the United States). They just don't talk about it. You know, because they're responsible?
      • goingpostale1, on 05/11/2008, -3/+27*****, not even the DOJ supports that idea. More criminals are killed in justifiable homicides every year then by cops. Rarely are bystanders injured by TRAINED, and LICENSED individuals carrying handguns. KTHXGG
      • ZxEfR, on 05/11/2008, -2/+7Guess you don't know that lying in a debate actually hurts your cause.
      • gl77, on 05/11/2008, -18/+5until one day when the good guy climbs a tower and starts offing people for no reason. gotta be careful of the "nice quiet neighbors". So many people on here are against Bush, but so many embrace his narrow minded Texas mentality of "shoot first, ask questions later"
        • doctechnical, on 05/11/2008, -2/+21At which time the ***** in the tower will realize what a terrifically bad idea that was as the would-be victims return fire. In your ideal world the victims wouldn't have that option. Nice.
          • gl77, on 05/11/2008, -18/+2yes just give everyone the authority to shoot whomever they please. everyone taking the law into their own hands. there would be no need for police or even any sort of order for that matter. yes in your ideal world everyone is a potential victim. Nice.
          • MacParrot, on 05/11/2008, -1/+8@g177
            While I don't technically own a gun ( my wife has two and was trained as a young girl by her father), I have no problem with responsible gun ownership. The key word is responsible.
            Just because some people have guns doesn't mean everyone is going to walk around and shoot whoever they feel like. Look at Switzerland. By law, every homeowner must have a working firearm and yet their crime rate isn't higher than say England, where just owning or possessing a gun can be enough to get you chucked in the bin for a few years (unless you go through quite a bit of red tape).

          • moresheth, on 05/11/2008, -1/+6This actually happened during the UT Tower shootings. It was a police officer that killed him, but civilians went out there with their guns, right along with the officers.
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Whitman#Snipe ...

          • GiggleStick, on 05/11/2008, -1/+6@gl77
            Thank God the only way for a crazy person to kill someone is with a gun.

            Also, I can kill you in many different ways. However, that does not imply that I have the authority. I will have to prove I had just cause to kill you afterwards. Welcome to how the world works.
      • matador3, on 05/11/2008, -5/+18You're a dumbass, 48 States now allow concealed carry. I don't know where you live but if you're in the US chances are you're around people carrying concealed guns every day. Its a wonder you're still alive. /sarcasm
      • whereiseljefe, on 05/11/2008, -3/+9Wait, what? I can't understand so much fail in one place.
      • Joeyrev, on 05/11/2008, -1/+12According to the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (http://webapp.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy.h ... there were 789 unintentional gun deaths in 2005. That's pretty low when you consider the amount of gun owners in the United States.
        • ShadowMerchant, on 05/11/2008, -0/+6If you have a child under five, your swimming pool is 100 times (that's 100 *times*, not 100 percent) more likely than your gun to kill him or her. This was in the _Freakonomics_ book.

          Ban swimming pools! Think of the children! If it saves even one life it would be worth it.
          • LeeSoong, on 05/14/2008, -0/+1'When they outlaw swimming pools, only outlaws will have swimming pools...'

            'I will give up my pool, when they drag cold dead body out of it...'

            Updated 2nd amendment:
            '...The right of the People to dig and fill pools shall not be infringed. '

            'NPA - The National Pool Association, protecting water sportsmen's rights'
      • Jus7in, on 05/11/2008, -1/+7Mojo, this is your cue to never comment again. You've injected more stupidity into three lines than I've seen in a while.
      • deadlyfluvirus, on 05/11/2008, -1/+6Unintentional gun deaths are quite low considering the amount of gun owners, I don't know where you get your crap from. More people die in car accidents. Please an hero yourself, it would serve the world well.
      • LeeSoong, on 05/11/2008, -0/+8ZenMojo -

        Spock:
        "Captain, long range sensors indicate a level 3 Troll up ahead, in orbit around digg,
        posting anti-gun statements about Texas."

        Captain:
        "What is your assessment of the situation, Mr. Spock ?"

        Spock:
        "Texas without guns? Illogical."
    • santaliqueur, on 05/11/2008, -8/+33Al the good guys ARE allowed to carry weapons. The trouble is, the bad guys usually have them already.
      • Professr, on 05/11/2008, -1/+14Have you actually seen the gun laws? Here in Georgia, you can't carry anywhere near bus stops, public transit, parks, or in parking lots or restaurants that serve alcohol. That pretty much cuts out 90% of metro areas, which I'm thinking this donut shop would have fallen into.
      • Rickler, on 05/11/2008, -0/+11For normal citizens, having a concealed carry permit is basically non existent in California; as with many other states. It's a pain in the ass to just transport a firearm.
      • Quentusrex, on 05/11/2008, -2/+11Washington State and Virginia are awesome when it comes to concealed carry permits... Check www.opencarry.org for more info. As for me and my wife we both carry. Glock 21sf for me, Kimber Ultra Carry 2 for her.
      • JerodSlay, on 05/11/2008, -1/+4Here in Texas, we can carry a concealed handgun w/ permit and training, but there are a ton of restrictions on where you can take it. My biggest complaint is not to school (college/university).
    • drog, on 05/11/2008, -13/+54It sure is nice that the world is divided into good guys and bad guys, and that all the bad guys are so bad that they need to die.
      • m0tbaillie, on 05/11/2008, -24/+14Yea no ***** - this is what happens when we live under the "good vs. evil" mentality of the Bush Administration for 8 years. People actually thing that John Wayne wild west take-the-law-into-your-own-hands ***** is justifiable. Okay, so the guy was a piece of ***** who was robbing a store? Who the ***** are any of those people to decide that he deserved to die for what he'd done?
        • SaladCactusKing, on 05/11/2008, -2/+18It has nothing to do with the ***** Bush administration or the War in Iraq or Red States or anything. Things change when someone shoves a gun in your face.
        • ZxEfR, on 05/11/2008, -8/+4Do us all a favor and please never vote! And NO.....I'm not a fan of the phony Christian Bush either so don't even try it.
        • chrisutley, on 05/11/2008, -4/+16They had to assume that was a real gun, not a BB gun. If someone walks into your place of business or home with a gun and threatens you with it, your right to shoot them dead on the spot should be defended without exception. This isn't about George Bush (I think he's an idiot, but the blame Bush for everything crowd is just as bad). If you are robbing a store with a gun, then your intent is clearly implied. Give me something, or I will shoot you. What's not clear is whether or not you will be shot whether you surrender goods/money or not. You must have the right to shoot first in that situation, or the criminals are given a distinct advantage. Anybody that thinks differnetly would certainly change their tune were a family member or they themselves confronted with the same type of leathal threat. Go find something important to whine about like Iraq or the economy, because this is a story about an idiot that brought this outcome upon himself for the contents of a register drawer that was probably less than $1000.
        • mythril, on 05/11/2008, -0/+6m0tbaillie: they where humans, with the right to defend themselves.
        • ShadowMerchant, on 05/11/2008, -2/+2All armed robbers and other violent criminals deserve to die on the first offense, every time. All three-time felons deserve death too. Civilized people need not tolerate scum who won't follow the rules. If I were in charge, we'd execute 10 times as many criminals as China. I would conservatively estimate that the world would be a better place if at least a third of the people now in our prisons were given the chop. And I'd do it by hanging in public, too.
      • Scynet, on 05/11/2008, -5/+15Agreed, everyone of us is sometimes bad, sometimes good. Dividing humans into a static good/evil category is just naive.
        • chrisutley, on 05/11/2008, -3/+16It's not about good vs. evil. It's about armed robbery and the implied threat of death. They didn't know it was a fake gun, they just knew a criminal was there with a gun. Should they wait to see if the criminal with the gun is going to shoot them on the way out? Why should they have to guess? The criminal brought this on himself, by threating lethal force by carrying the weapon into the robbery with him.
          • Scynet, on 05/11/2008, -3/+2Yeah, but I was replying to the main parent's idea of somehow separating "good" citizens from "evil" ones and only giving the good ones a gun
          • WoollyMittens, on 05/11/2008, -1/+3Yes, this particular comment threat IS about good vs. evil. You can just skip to the next thread instead of trying to end this one.
        • Pixelante, on 05/11/2008, -5/+4If someone is threatening me or my family, I don't care if he's good or evil. I'd rather like being able to shoot him because getting closer with a steak knife could be awkward to say the least, if he's armed.
      • SSUK, on 05/11/2008, -1/+2Phew, thank goodness for that. I was thinking my childhood had lied to me all these years...
      • LeeSoong, on 05/11/2008, -2/+6Anybody holdin' up my breakfast donuts is a bad guy,
        and if they delay me from getting my Starbucks coffee in the mornin' - well, that's down right EVIL.

        (Criminals should never try robbing a Starbucks, they'll trip over the MacBook cords, and be cut down in a hail of gunfire from the hyper-caffeinated workers.)
        • MacParrot, on 05/11/2008, -0/+6Actually the Mag-safe cords would pop right out allowing them to make a clean getaway
          • LeeSoong, on 05/12/2008, -0/+2Take a bite out of crime: Buy HP laptops, with crime stopping power cords!
      • RipleyIsDead, on 05/11/2008, -5/+1That's why we love the Patriot Act so much!

        /sarcasm
    • optimuscrime, on 05/11/2008, -18/+13I agree, it'd plummet overnight because the next day everyone would be dead, carrying the bullet of someone else's crusade for good.
      • Kyan, on 05/11/2008, -1/+5Well, that would certainly help bring down gas prices in the demand fell that sharply.
    • yournightmare, on 05/11/2008, -0/+17I'm allowed to carry my Springfield XD .40 with me almost anywhere I want to go. I've only been two places in the past two years where I couldn't carry my weapon. I really hope I never have to use it for its intended purpose. Where I live, my concealed carry license gives me the right to not only carry my weapon most places, but to stop violent felonies. I would not use it to stop a violent felony (such as an armed robbery) unless the criminal fired his weapon or pointed it at me or my family/friends. I would certainly use it if someone was trying to kill or rape me, my son, or another family member. I would probably feel ***** terrible about it afterwards too, even if I had to shoot to keep from getting killed.
    • groovechamp30, on 05/11/2008, -10/+5If good guys carry weapons, the bad guys realise they definately need bigger and better weapons. Or maybe they only target the most vulnerable and the weakest people.
      • matador3, on 05/11/2008, -0/+8They already do target the weakest and most vulnerable people. Thats why guns are the best defensive weapons because they are the most effective equalizer.

        "Fortunately, there is a weapon for preserving life and liberty that can be wielded effectively by almost anyone — the handgun. Small and light enough to be carried habitually, lethal, but unlike the knife or sword, not demanding great skill or strength, it truly is the "great equalizer." Requiring only hand-eye coordination and a modicum of ability to remain cool under pressure, it can be used effectively by the old and the weak against the young and the strong, by the one against the many." http://jim.com/cowards.htm
      • matador3, on 05/11/2008, -0/+7Also, guns are somewhat subject to the law of diminishing returns as far as power and size goes so its not really possible for an 'arms race' to occur between criminals and citizens. As a gun gets larger it gets harder to conceal and therefore less useful to a criminal who would need to hide it. As a gun gets more powerful the recoil gets harder, follow up shots become slower, and magazine capacity is diminished. For example, a .50 BMG rifle is the most powerful weapon that an American can own without special permits. You'll hear all kinds of hysterics from the anti-gun crowd trying to get these things banned yet they're almost never used in crimes and nobody has ever been murdered with one. Why? Because they're huge, heavy, impossible to conceal, have a slow rate of fire because of low mag capacity (most are single shot); they're extremely expensive, shoot expensive ammunition, and have recoil that can knock you on your ass. Basically, criminals find them useless for committing crimes.
        • ShadowMerchant, on 05/11/2008, -0/+1But they are perfect for penetrating a tyrant's armored limousine.
    • ogore, on 05/11/2008, -8/+1 this could have been a where they used the taser correctly for once but no
    • ElAssoWipo, on 05/11/2008, -0/+8This story is about an honest man with a shotgun vs a criminal with a BB gun.
      • Laughsatyou, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1and apparently honest man is the bad guy here on digg.
    • Wakkyweed, on 05/11/2008, -3/+8The good guys ARE allowed to carry weapons in the vast majority of places in America, so that's kind of a dumb statement. The problem is that the NRA has fought tooth and nail to prevent passing any laws that would keep weapons out of the hands of the bad guys. From waiting periods to background checks to closing loopholes in gun show sales to straw purchases, the NRA has fought against any gun control law, no matter how sensible it might be, out of the irrational fear that it will lead to the banning of all guns.

      Don't get me wrong, I'm not against guns in general. I grew up in Texas and hunted every year. I've been considering getting a handgun for my own protection. I just think that we would be better off with strict regulations so that it will be as hard as possible for the bad guys to get guns.

      Here's something I've never understood - why is it that you are required to take safety classes and written exams and prove to an instructor that you can properly operate a car before they will allow you to drive, but if you want a gun all you have to do is walk into a Walmart and plunk some cash down? Shouldn't something as dangerous as a gun require the same level of responsibility that we expect from a driver?
      • dickybrown, on 05/11/2008, -0/+3in Mass. you need to take a class (and pass) before you can apply for a license to carry - it's up to the states
      • miriv365, on 05/11/2008, -3/+4"The problem is that the NRA has fought tooth and nail to prevent passing any laws that would keep weapons out of the hands of the bad guys. From waiting periods to background checks to closing loopholes in gun show sales to straw purchases,"

        So the bad guys actually bother submitting to background checks?
        • Wakkyweed, on 05/11/2008, -1/+0No, I don't expect the bad guys to bother submitting background checks, because right now America is awash in cheap and plentiful guns. It will take strict new laws and decades of enforcement to get those guns out of the hands of criminals and off the streets. Only then will such things as background checks be truly effective.
          • ShadowMerchant, on 05/11/2008, -1/+1Keep dreaming. The British have outlawed essentially all guns, except for a very few single-shot and double-barrel shotguns owned by farmers and aristocrats. Yet they have more guns on the street than ever. And they are on an island!
          • Wakkyweed, on 05/11/2008, -1/+0According to Wikipedia, the firearm homicide rate in England and Wales is .12 per 100,000 people. In the United States, that rate is 2.97 per 100,000 people. That means that you are almost 25 times more likely to be killed by a firearm in American than in England. So judging by that, then yes, I would have to say that the English have had a very great success in getting guns out of the hands of criminals.

            I will keep dreaming - of a safe and sane America.
          • ShadowMerchant, on 05/11/2008, -0/+1You got the decimal place wrong; according to the Home Office, the murder rate in England in 2005-06 was 1.1 per 100,000.

            http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/output/page40.as ...

            Moreover, if you go back 50-100 years, before serious gun control was brought in, you see that the rate was typically in the range of 0.6-0.9 per 100,000. Gun control has not made England safer.

            http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp99 ...

            Oh, and look at the chart on page 14 of the above citation. In 1900, when every Englishman *except* a police officer was allowed to carry a concealed pistol wherever he went, the rate of ALL indictable crimes was about 3 or 4 per 100,000 population. Now it is about 90 per 100,000.

            I repeat, gun control has not made England safer. Its only function is to protect the political class from the public.

          • Wakkyweed, on 05/12/2008, -0/+0I'm afraid you are using the wrong statistics. The homicide rate in England is 1.1 per 100,000, but the FIREARM homicide rate is only a fraction of that. You lumped in all homicides, including strangulations, stabbings, beatings and so forth...

            And your argument that gun control somehow caused crime rates to rise in England is specious. As you say, if you go back 50-100 years the crime rate in England was much lower. But if you go back 50-100 years in the U.S. it was also much lower. Since guns are plentiful and easy to obtain here, then the reason crime has risen in both countries must be due to some other factor, like poverty, drugs, the breakdown of the traditional family, so forth and so on.

            Really, though, one thing that cannot be denied is that right now the U.S. has higher rates of both crime and especially gun crime than almost all of the advanced nations of the world.
    • bdbr, on 05/11/2008, -3/+8Of course, if a POLICEMAN shot and killed a criminal with a BB gun, Diggers would be screaming in anger about the policeman.
    • yukevster, on 05/11/2008, -4/+2Lame logic...what determines a good guy from a bad?!? Humans cannot be divided so succinctly dude. What if a good gut with a gun becomes a bad guy with a gun and kills someone out of anger, or jealousy, or...??!
    • fatjoe, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1So stealing donuts is your definition of a bad guy.... nice
  • fusen, on 05/11/2008, -109/+140I'll probably be digged down because of all the gun loving Americans on Digg but do you really think robbing a donut shop with a BB gun means you deserve to be killed? Surely 1-2 years in prison is more equal to the crime...
    Also, "We're gonna shoot first and ask questions later." is one of the most retarded comments you can ever make.
    • barktwiggs, on 05/11/2008, -8/+69Depends on the BB gun. Many BB/Airsoft guns today are indistinguishable from the real thing. Sure, there's laws mandating orange markings on the barrel for these weapon simulators, but given that the guy is robbing a store, I don't think he's the type to maintain the proper markings for a fake firearm. Though the concerned neighbor may encounter some legal trouble when shooting someone outside his home.
      • torrefaction, on 05/11/2008, -3/+46Hypothetical scenario. You walk into what seems to be a civil disturbance between a stranger and your neighbor. You see him with a gun. Do you wait for him to shoot you or your neighbor, or do you put a stop to a criminal before anything dangerous happens?
        • cuco, on 05/11/2008, -34/+3I would ask myself "why the hell is this country still at war over in Iraq?" Now it all makes sense... :facepalm:
          • redfox2600, on 05/11/2008, -2/+22So if I were to rob your sorry ass right now with my 357 the first thing you would think about the how the US screwed up in Iraq before protecting yourself or your family? Yes Bush ***** up, I know, stop playing it like it your ace in the hole in EVERY ***** argument.
        • pilot3033, on 05/11/2008, -27/+6I would, ya know, talk the situation down so all parties came out unharmed. Force is a last resort to be used when there is absolutely ZERO chance that a peaceful resolution can be had... this happens very rarely, most people can be talked out of such situations. Sadly, instead of teaching negotiation and peaceful resolution, we cling to "shoot first, ask questions later." ...like a scene from Republican Space Rangers...

          • Kronos6948, on 05/11/2008, -2/+27Because, "ya know", you have the power to convince the criminal of his wrong ways and make him turn over a new leaf. Try talking to someone brandishing a gun, telling you to shut up and give him your money. If you think he's gonna stand around and wait for you to give your speech before you hand over the money, you're sadly mistaken.

            If talking down criminals were that easy, cops wouldn't need to carry weapons or use force. And, there wouldn't be so many robberies.
          • yournightmare, on 05/11/2008, -1/+14I don't know why you're getting dugg down, to be honest. I am a concealed weapons holder and carry my gun pretty much everywhere with me, locked, loaded, and ready to fire. I would MUCH rather have my weapon drawn and try to talk someone down, then live with the guilt of shooting someone (even someone who acted like they were going to shoot me). Of course, if the person with the weapon is clearly acting unreasonably, I might decide not to try and talk him down and just shoot instead. It really depends on the behavior of the person with the weapon how I would handle the situation. But yes, I would prefer to end it without shooting my gun.

            But you have to remember, I'm sitting here behind my computer telling you how I would react in a highly stressful, very fast-paced, possibly life-or-death situation. It's pretty easy to say how I would act, but much different to find out what I actually would do in the situation when I'm scared ***** and confused. As someone who has been a victim of violent crime, had a gun shoved up against his temple, been beaten, duct-taped, and thrown in a restroom (at the store I used to work at), I can tell you first-hand that ***** doesn't go the way you think it does (no, that's not why I carry, it was 15 years ago and I'm WAY over it, I was over it a week later in fact). Your brain shuts down almost completely because of the intense stress of the situation. So I can sit here and say I'll talk the guy down, but in the heat of things there's really no telling how pee-in-my-pants-scared I'll be and therefore how much more willing I'll be to pull the trigger instead of rationalizing with an armed criminal.
          • Pixelante, on 05/11/2008, -1/+12Some years ago a guy tried "peaceful negotations" with armed robbers on a bus. Happened in Italy during a pilgrimage. One of the bandits simply said "kill him" and the poor guy, father of two kids, was shot through the throat before his family. That's what you get for your good intentions.
        • Murdats, on 05/11/2008, -18/+3well being in a civil country I would handle it like anyone else in a civil country, without guns blazing.
          • Pixelante, on 05/11/2008, -2/+5You mean like surrendering and/or dying. A "civil" country in your mind is a country that doesn't really much care if you get murdered. There are plenty of "yous" around. To the State, as long as it doesn't become a homicide epidemic, a number of crime victims per year is acceptable, just like a number of road accidents is acceptable. There are enough people around.
            Of course, if you were a VIP, a Very Important Person (you know, someone with big money) things would be different, but VIPs have armed guards.
          • deadlyfluvirus, on 05/11/2008, -1/+8You have been watching to much Dr. Who episodes on BBC. In the mean time, lets step back into reality here.
          • Murdats, on 05/11/2008, -4/+1actually I live in a country that has gun regulations, as does large populations of the world.
            it isnt the post apocalyptic nightmare you americans imagine it to be, we manage to live and get burgled just fine thank you.
          • Pixelante, on 05/11/2008, -1/+7Ah, a willing drone. Must be a wonderful thing to love the chains.
      • wwnexc, on 05/11/2008, -0/+45The neighbor did the right thing.

        The robber made the mistake to "pretend" to threaten the woman's life.
      • Kronos6948, on 05/11/2008, -1/+23People like the OP would probably ***** their pants, and hope that someone else takes care of it, also while hoping that the criminal doesn't see him.
      • wattersm, on 05/11/2008, -1/+3Why yes, yes it does. Thieves are a leech on honest, hard working citizens so any means to remove them is fine with me. Besides, if somebody points a gun at you how would you react? Fight or flight, it's either me or him.
    • SaladCactusKing, on 05/11/2008, -8/+121It's a risk the robber took when he pulled a gun (fake or real) up to a woman. Doing something like that can get you shot, lawfully or not.
      • m0tbaillie, on 05/11/2008, -49/+5Sounds like a bunch of ***** rednecks were too busy stroking themselves and acting out their favorites John Wayne/Clint Eastwood scenes. That ***** should not fly under the law and, it likely won't. Those people are just as guilty as the man they killed for taking the law into their own hands.
        • KloroFormd, on 05/11/2008, -2/+30Would you take the risk of seeing your mother shot and killed while you waited for police? Your argument is quite... ***** stupid.
          • Pixelante, on 05/11/2008, -3/+8Don't waste time on the guy. He's another willing drone, who proudly goose-steps each day to his cubicle while saluting the CCTVs and praising the cops who keep him safe from people with skin too dark for comfort.
        • ZxEfR, on 05/11/2008, -2/+14I pray I'm never in a bad situation with someone like you. Your gonna be psychoanalyzing the guy as he's doing your wife......and I don't mean sexually......well.....could be sexually. I feel so sorry for people like you.........please don't have kids.
          • Pixelante, on 05/11/2008, -2/+7Moot point, the guy doesn't have a wife. Losers are loners.
        • mythril, on 05/11/2008, -0/+12Since when does defending yourself make you a redneck? You do realize that the person that shot him was not omniscient and could not tell in advance that he was holding a bb gun?
        • ShadowMerchant, on 05/11/2008, -0/+2"That ***** should not fly under the law and, it likely won't. Those people are just as guilty as the man they killed for taking the law into their own hands."

          Rubbish. In the rabbit cages of Europe, that may be true. Here in the land of free civilized people, the brave and honest citizen who removed this worthless piece of ***** from the gene pool will face no charges. The police will shake his hand and he will enjoy the respect and admiration of the vast majority of his fellow citizens.
      • whereiseljefe, on 05/11/2008, -1/+41Same thing would have happened had he pointed a BB gun at a police officer.
    • Kronos6948, on 05/11/2008, -6/+66Lemme know how you feel if you're getting robbed by someone with what looks to be a real gun.
    • xBreakdownx, on 05/11/2008, -18/+7But "shoot first ask questions later" sounds cool.
      • goingpostale1, on 05/11/2008, -8/+9Sure you want 1-2 years in jail for the offender, until its your ass hes robbing, then you want blood. An old joke goes a guy robs you, and then hits you over the head. As the blood is pouring down your face, a conservative comes up to you asks how your doing and says " We gotta get that guy!". He then runs after him. A liberal follows shortly after, asks if your alright and says " We gotta get that guy, and help him!".
        • Kronos6948, on 05/11/2008, -3/+4I was with you until you got to the whole Conservative/Liberal thing.
        • seltaeb4, on 05/11/2008, -2/+5Hmmm... you *did* use the word "joke," but I find no trace of any such creature in your posting.
    • ZenMojo, on 05/11/2008, -3/+46Who has the time to tell the difference? He wanted the donut lady to think it was real, so she and everyone else thought it was real. This is nothing like that guy who shot the kid who walked across his lawn or that other guy who shot those burglars in the back while they were running away.
    • cheseball, on 05/11/2008, -1/+37Well, if you had a gun and heard something happening next door and decided to check whats happening and see there that there was a robber with a gun, what would you do? If you decide to just stand there the robber would probably shoot you(if it was a real gun).
    • Tenlow, on 05/11/2008, -2/+59If someone points a gun at me I'm not going to ask first. I'm going to save the questions for later. If I have the option, you're goddamn right I'm going to shoot first. Shooting second doesn't really strike me as a sound plan for self preservation.
      • andycord, on 05/11/2008, -1/+9Look how well shooting second worked for Greedo.
      • Pixelante, on 05/11/2008, -3/+1"Shooting second" is not an option. Gunfights involving pistols happen at
        • Pixelante, on 05/11/2008, -0/+11Darn Digg.
          I was writing: Gunfights involving pistols happen at ranges less than 7 meters, with usually 1 to 2 shots being fired from the same gun. The fight is won by the one who shoots first, unless your opponent is so high or drunk that he manages to miss the target (happens even at 2m range) or his weapon misfired or blows up. If you are threatened, you are packing, and you draw, you must fire.
          • ChildeRoland420, on 05/11/2008, -0/+3Actually, most gunfights involve the unloading of at least one of the guns. Once a person is in a position where it's "shoot them or get shot" they'll shoot every round they have without even realizing it.
      • vandy, on 05/11/2008, -3/+3I see your point here, but I urge you to consider your actions in the robber's point of view. He has a gun, in this case a real gun, but he is using it merely as a scare tactic. The robber does not intend to use the gun as a weapon, but leverage. He will only use it if need be. The next thing the robber sees is you pulling your gun out. You have the intention of shooting first, but now the robber does too. You have severely escalated the situation, putting yourself and others at a much higher risk.
        • Tenlow, on 05/11/2008, -0/+2You're missing my point. If a robber is committing a crime with a gun, he is showing he has no regard for human life and needs to be dealt with as such. I will not wait to see what he wants to do. A lethal weapon is not leverage, it is a lethal weapon.
        • Laughsatyou, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1wow just say that to yourself while you are being raped.
    • bandomac, on 05/11/2008, -7/+45If you commit armed robbery thinking, "if I get caught, I will only get a couple of years," then you are an idiot. Especially in Texas. The robber deserved what he got the minute he decided to threaten someone's life. I am sure someone will miss him, but in this case I prefer my tax money to be spent on a pine box rather than several years in a 10x10 cell. Good riddance.

      While they are at it, they should send his mother the bill for the casket. It is Mother's Day after all.
      • vandy, on 05/11/2008, -2/+1I wouldn't say the robber deserved to be killed, since he was only guilty of armed robbery. Many people have lived for crimes far worse. However I am not surprised he was shot as you are taking on that risk by brandishing a rifle.
        • ShadowMerchant, on 05/11/2008, -1/+1All armed robbers should die on the first offense. If they are not shot dead by honest citizens, then they should get the needle.
    • OverZealousHobo, on 05/11/2008, -1/+25and he beat the ***** out of her...(sidenote)
    • Tryptomine, on 05/11/2008, -19/+9I don't think he deserved to be killed by any means. However, I don't really think you can blame them for defending themselves either (especially since, as others mentioned, they may not have been able to tell it was not a real gun).
    • jjohnstn, on 05/11/2008, -0/+31It's a fair question. The answer is "yes", he made a serious error in judgement and committed a crime which cost him his life. It was self-defense on the victim's part, whether the gun was a .45 pistol, BB gun, airsoft gun, cap gun, or simply his pointed finger in a pocket. The perception of the victim is that it is/was an armed robbery and her life was in danger.
    • x252, on 05/11/2008, -16/+69Dear European:

      America here.

      It's our right to own a gun and defend our property.

      Thanks.
      • bandomac, on 05/11/2008, -28/+1P.S. ***** yourself silly eating a croissant.
        • mcm020, on 05/12/2008, -0/+2Croissant?!? We eat McGriddles, thanks.
      • SSUK, on 05/11/2008, -2/+30Dear American:
        Hey, how's the weather over there? Good? It's not so good over here.
        Are you enjoying the new season of Scrubs? We've just got the first episode over here so far... It's pretty boring.
        Anyway, talk to you later,
        Cheers.
        • palehorse864, on 05/11/2008, -0/+8Dear European:
          Glad to know that you are getting Scrubs. The first episode may be a little slow, but give it a shot. It gets really entertaining later on. Also, give Dr. Cox a chance. I know he seems like a jerk at first, but you begin to like him after a little while.
          Talk to you later,
          Cheers.

          P.S. Thank the English for me for their Earl Grey tea. It's delicious.
          P.P.S. Thank the French for Arsene Lupin stories. Although we don't get many translated, those that are translated are very enjoyable.
          P.P.P.S (Or make a raspberry sound if applicable): Tell the Germans, we're not too angry at them any more for that debacle a few decades ago. In fact, it gave some of us a great way to exaggerate the faults of people we don't like. Who doesn't love good hyperbole.
          • groovechamp30, on 05/11/2008, -0/+4Dear American,

            Thanks for the Scrubs help.

            Is Ronald McDonald real? He looks fake.

            Thanks
            Europe
          • palehorse864, on 05/11/2008, -0/+3Dear European,

            Your welcome.

            I would say Ronald Mcdonald is semi-real. He's a man in clown makeup, but the character himself is all an act. He was originally played by American television personality Willard Scott who also created the roll of Bozo the clown (Also played by several actors).

            Don't worry, America is fairly safe to visit as this version of Ronald no longer exists. If he still existed, I would advise changing any travel plans to North America to choose one of the other countries available to you on the continent, either Canada or Mexico.

            Here is some stock footage of the original Ronald. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krXP_TUZqsk
            You can see why I would advise booking a trip here had the clown still existed in that form.

            P.S. I imagine you have heard rumors that we have a high crime rate. I regretfully must tell you that in this case, that is true. The Hamburglar is still at large pilfering burgers and remains a fugitive. Mayor McCheese is working with local law enforcement, as well as contacting INTERPOL for assistance. I hear that INTERPOL is sending a very capable officer, they have apparently borrowed him from the French Sûreté. I believe he is one Jacques Clouseau, an upstanding officer. They are also sending one of their own Japanese officers in toe, someone named Zenigata. I am sure the hamburglar will be nabbed in no time.
          • groovechamp30, on 05/11/2008, -0/+3Dear American,

            That's soooo good to hear. I was really scared, specially when I saw that video!

            Can you catch the hamburglar plz?

            Anyway, I heard california has hot models and New York has some wiseguys. Sounds cool. We have Irish people and Spaniards, they're ok I guess.

            Thanks for your help,

            Europe
      • SSUK, on 05/11/2008, -19/+2Dear American:
        Hey, how's the weather over there? Good? It's not so good over here.
        Are you enjoying the new season of Scrubs? We've just got the first episode over here so far... It's pretty boring.
        Anyway, talk to you later,
        Cheers.
      • kukiweed, on 05/11/2008, -20/+11Last I checked Europe has way lower crimerates than the US and A, while we don't have a gun in each home. Have a nice time shooting eachother like idiots. Cheers.
        • Genthree, on 05/11/2008, -4/+15Nope, you have MUCH higher petty crime rates. We just have more murders. :-)
        • groovechamp30, on 05/11/2008, -15/+1Its un-american not to love murders! Baby Jesus cries if you don't own a gun.
        • matador3, on 05/11/2008, -1/+19Check again http://www.reason.com/news/show/28582.html You have to pay attention to trends as well. In the UK, as gun laws have become more restrictive overall crime rates have gone up. I'm using the UK in that example because Europe isn't exactly standardized in terms of gun laws. Switzerland has more guns per capita than the US and the Czech Republic allows concealed carry. I don't know about the Czechs but Switzerland has a way lower crime rate than the UK. In any case our overall crime rates have been trending downwards since the early 90's at the same time as gun ownership rates have gone up.
          • groovechamp30, on 05/11/2008, -1/+1But you can't compare the two, culturally, Swiss society is nothing like the US. They don't have the same problem with poverty, marginalised sections of the population, disenfranchised minorities etc.

            Their gun ownership isn't about home protection or "mah riiiiights!" either. Its a historical relic from Switzerland's traditional stance as a neutral country.
          • Pixelante, on 05/11/2008, -0/+1Actually, Switzerland's tradition comes from the necessity for a small land-locked country to be able to muster a fighting force quickly. That and the fact that Switzerland actually HAS a militia army formed by citizens, who are required to keep their shooting skills honed. Target shooting is a very popular activity in Switzerland, with practically every small town having a range. As a consequence, a good lot of citizens has a weapon in their homes and is trained to use it. It can - and WILL - be used for self-defence, even if most people prefer alternatives like pump-action shotguns that are more suited to home protection. As for "mah riiiights", shooters do think that yes, it's a right of them to keep arms.
            And it's not a "historical relic", unless you consider WW2 to be so far removed. That was the time when it was required to keep both the weapon AND ammo at home.
          • groovechamp30, on 05/11/2008, -1/+1Well yes, WW2 was more than half a century ago. Swiss society is nothing like America.
          • Pixelante, on 05/11/2008, -1/+2Considering that a great deal of stuff we take for granted comes from the Middle Ages, WW2 is not that far removed. Let's stop believing that everything that matters happened just two seconds ago.
          • groovechamp30, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1Well yeah its fairly irrelevant...The world is completely different.
      • groovechamp30, on 05/11/2008, -4/+10Dear American,
        We need more guns! We're feeling really unsafe in Europe, plz send more guns (big ones).
        Thanks!
        • Pixelante, on 05/11/2008, -3/+9You should. Europe is far from the crimeless paradise you would love it to be. Violent crime is on the rise, and it makes it really no difference if you are killed by a bullet or by a knife.
          I hope you're not a soccer fan. Plenty of violence at them soccer matches.
          • groovechamp30, on 05/11/2008, -1/+2Maybe 25 years ago, there was violence at football matches. But what's that got to do with anything?

            Who said there was no violence in Europe? Its certainly not on the rise though.
          • Pixelante, on 05/11/2008, -0/+0You haven't taken a stroll through fair Verona recently.
      • adamwho, on 05/11/2008, -7/+1I thought we had the right to form well ordered militias?
    • Skurt, on 05/11/2008, -1/+35If you stick your hand in your jacket pocket and make like you have a gun,
      you will be tried as if you had a gun.

      if you write a note and hand it to the teller telling them you have a gun,
      you will be tried as if you had a gun.

      If you brandish a toy BB gun and everybody *thinks* it is a 'real' gun,
      then you will be tried as if you had a gun.

      It is not *if* you have a real gun, it is *if* everyone acts and thinks you have a real gun.

    • ZxEfR, on 05/11/2008, -0/+7Yes
    • arcooke, on 05/11/2008, -0/+34My BB gun: http://img390.imageshack.us/img390/6365/p1000535vw ...

      Walmart, $20 about 5 years ago. If someone pointed this at you, would you pull out your own gun and shoot or stand there to examine it first? He pointed a gun while robbing a store and it obviously looked real enough to pull the trigger. The killing was justified and it's nobody's fault but the robber. If you pointed something like that at a cop, you'd be laying on the ground bleeding in a matter of seconds.
    • matador3, on 05/11/2008, -0/+30Its very simple, if you don't want to get shot don't rob stores and threaten other people with guns, real or not. I have no problem with law abiding people having guns because I'm not going to do any of those things so I have nothing to worry about. Why are you worried?
      • arcooke, on 05/11/2008, -1/+4Can I have a high res version of your avatar please? Thanks. :P
      • shotgunefx, on 05/11/2008, -0/+7Hey, stop making sense ;)
    • opmike, on 05/11/2008, -1/+31I think we must "ignore" the fact that it was a BB gun. He used it SOLELY because it would be viewed as a legitimate firearm. As such, people have the right to defend themselves and that is exactly what happened. You don't threaten people's lives without first considering that there may in fact be serious repercussions for doing so. In this case, those repercussions involved people defending the very lives that he threatened to take.

      This has nothing to do with "gun-loving" and I absolutely hate when people toss around that term when it isn't relevant. We live in a world people will kill for monetary gain without a second thought. You simply CANNOT expect people tossed into situations such as this to expect anything otherwise. If you were awoken in the middle of the night and there was an intruder in your house brandishing what looked like a firearm and you yourself were armed, what action would you take? Certainly, taking the time to ascertain whether it was or was not a real firearm would be the last thing on a person's mind.

    • ArchangelZLT, on 05/11/2008, -12/+2In case you don't know, I don't advocate freedom of carrying guns; but in this matter any sentiment towards the thief is hypocritical.
      • banik2008, on 05/11/2008, -0/+6I didn't know, but thanks for telling me.
    • Jus7in, on 05/11/2008, -1/+14People have a right to protect themselves and their property at any and all costs, in my opinion. This wasn't a 'shoot and ask questions later' situation. The thug was caught in the act, and I'm sure as hell glad he'd dead. I wish this kind of stuff would happen more often.
    • jesus8mypoptart, on 05/11/2008, -13/+21First of all ***** YOU for saying "all the gun loving americans", your a piece of *****. Americans arent the only ones who like, have, and own guns so ***** off for being an ignorant *****. Im pretty sure some dumbass stabbed someone while waiting in line for GTA in Europe. Second ***** YOU we love our guns because its what gave us freedom from your ***** tyrant monarchy country in the first place. Thirdly if someone tried to rob me, beat me up and they had a gun that they presented to me to be real and deadly, ***** them I hope they get shot. Its people like you that put worthless criminals back on the street to do wrong again.
      • arcooke, on 05/11/2008, -10/+15Your excessive swearing makes you sound so cool. There needs to be a book called "How to be just like jesus8mypoptart for dummies"

      • groovechamp30, on 05/11/2008, -6/+7Yeah!! ***** YOU!!!!

        I heard one guy in Denver once raped a cat whilst shooting in the air singing cowboy songs!!! SO YEAH! ***** YOU and your STEWPID *****!

        If some American came to my house with a gun or tried firing mortar rounds into my garden, ID BE READY. Id RUN AT HIM AND PUT FLOWERS in his gun barrel and teach him a HIPPY EURO-WIENY LESSON.

        YEAH ***** YOU! YEAH! PIECE OF *****

        thanks,

        Europe.
      • jgzman, on 05/11/2008, -3/+3"Americans arent the only ones who like, have, and own guns so ***** off for being an ignorant *****. Im pretty sure some dumbass stabbed someone while waiting in line for GTA in Europe."

        Am I the only one who finds this Hilarious?
        • groovechamp30, on 05/11/2008, -2/+4No its pretty ridiculous....Not hilarious, as this person actually exists in real life!
    • 24imac, on 05/11/2008, -1/+20I dont care what you have in your hand, if you enter my house, I dont know you, you will get a face full of lead. My wife and daughter are way more important than 1-2 years of jail time for some smuck. He deserved what he got, and I would have done the same thing if someone entered my house or my business and did the same *****, or if someone enters my neighbors house.
      Petty crime, or not, we have the right to shoot first and ask questions later in texas, and we carry in our car to.
    • smashingmonkey, on 05/11/2008, -0/+21It's not a matter of what anyone deserves. The moment an attacker brandishes a weapon he's effectively telling you that killing you is on the table and thus has instantly lost his right to the benefit of the doubt. The way I see it there are two kinds of people in the neighbor's position:

      1. The person who shoots first.
      2. The person who isn't out there helping in the first place, cowering in a corner somewhere and blaming instead the person who has the courage to stick his/her neck out for a fellow human being.
    • dafunkmonster, on 05/11/2008, -0/+19Having just been robbed of my 1200 dollar bass guitar (worth millions to me), I would have to say YES. If you're dumb enough to commit armed robbery, you deserve to get shot.
    • bobbknight, on 05/11/2008, -0/+14You need to look at the laws, even a toy gun constitutes armed robbery.
      I have a BB pistol that has the exact look of a colt .45 automatic, trust me if I moved it in the direction of someone armed with a shotgun, I too would be dead.
      We have no idea what the BB gun in the story looked like.
      We do not have any idea what the robbers condition was, something like 70% of these types of crimes are committed under the influence of a drug or alcohol.
      We do know that he was a bad man intent on doing bad things, and that this time the only cost to the state, will be the disposal of the bad man.
      • groovechamp30, on 05/11/2008, -9/+2Yeah great way of dealing with society's problem people. Vigilante eugenics! Kill anyone who is "bad" so they aren't a cost to the state.

        Don't bother trying to rehabilitate, just kill!
        • Pixelante, on 05/11/2008, -1/+4Rehabilitation has been shown over and over again to be wishful thinking. Put a man in prison for a crime, he doesn't come out reformed. He'll be a more hardened criminal. Moreover, he'll be barred for getting a job because the vast majority of firms do not hire ex-cons, as a rule. They have it in their charters.
          Rehabilitation does not exist, get over it. Prisons exist only to keep bad apples in another basket for a reasonable time. Once out, they'll commit more crimes and go behind bars again. Granted, some poor sod will probably get killed, but society can withstand the loss.
          • groovechamp30, on 05/11/2008, -1/+3That's a fairly horrible way to look at life.

            Rehabilitation doesn't exist if you throw them in a brutal prison like those in the US. Of course their are evil people who need to be locked up forever, but in America you imprison more people per head of the population than anywhere in the world, 738 people per 100 000. Thats 2.19 million people in prison in the US. Surely thats stupid?

            China, with a population of more than a billion people and a supposedly brutal government, imprison less people (more than 1.55 million).

            http://www.umds.ac.uk/phpnews/wmview.php?ArtID=163 ...
    • blagoaw, on 05/11/2008, -4/+5I feel sorry for this guy. He felt it worth the risk to rob a donut shop. With a BB gun (more danger + charges).

      I don't mean it to be funny at all -- Personal responsibility is one thing, but this guy had sunk lower than anyone should ever have to sink. I am sorry that he was killed, but hope this will give him some peace.
      • mcquitty, on 05/11/2008, -1/+3I hope that the neighbor will have peace knowing that he stopped a violent crime.

        I hope Angel has peace knowing that her neighbors are there for her.
      • franklymister, on 05/11/2008, -1/+4So beating up a little old lady somehow makes him worthy of pity?
      • ShadowMerchant, on 05/11/2008, -0/+2I am glad he was killed, and hope he is enjoying no peace at all.
    • anachronaut, on 05/11/2008, -0/+2If you point a realistic looking gun at someone and they are armed and prepared to defend themselves, you've just escalated the situation to a "shoot or be shot" scenario. It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to figure out that that might have some fatal consequences.

      So yes, the guy deserved to get shot if events transpired the way the story says they did.
    • nonrate, on 05/11/2008, -0/+2Do you deserve to die because you didn't look both ways crossing the street? This isn't a question of equity, but of consequence. Crossing a busy street without looking is plain stupid. But if you get hit, you might die from your stupidity. Just like robbing a donut shop. You're going to see crime drop dramatically, at least in the next few months, in the neighborhood where this happened.
  • wwnexc, on 05/11/2008, -8/+30That attorney appears to be refreshingly honest.
  • jordanmerle, on 05/11/2008, -1/+72How much money can you honestly expect to get from robbing a ***** donut shop?
    • DigitAl56K, on 05/11/2008, -0/+67And you just know the place is bound to be crawling with cops!
    • SSUK, on 05/11/2008, -1/+17$70 and all the glazed pastries you can shove in your pockets. It's worth the risk!
    • DickyT83, on 05/11/2008, -9/+4It's America, so he could expect a fortune.
      • Lenbot, on 05/11/2008, -0/+1Actually I think Canadians eat more donuts
    • TVarmy, on 05/11/2008, -1/+5Actually, fast food restaurants and places like them, like coffee shops and donut shops, tend to have a lot of cash in the registers because people pay in cash there more often than at other businesses, where credit/debit cards are used more often. Many food places don't even take cards. If the robber can talk the owner of the store into opening the safe (which may be impossible due to timer locks), then the robber will get a real haul.
    • thanacus, on 05/12/2008, -0/+2All the dough one could carry!
  • goingpostale1, on 05/11/2008, -9/+53You live by the sword, you die by it.
    • whereiseljefe, on 05/11/2008, -3/+23You don't live by the sword, eventually some dick who does will make sure you die by his.
    • ZxEfR, on 05/11/2008, -10/+1Wow stupid is digging you down......I'm always amazed by some people......I don't know why people still amaze me with their (and my own) stupidity.....I mean I've seen A LOT of stupid in my time so one would think I would eventually stop being amazed by it.
    • sychodelix, on 05/11/2008, -8/+3Those who live by the sword will eventually be picked off by some bastard with a sawed-off shotgun.

      If you're going to do a joke, do it right.
    • matador3, on 05/11/2008, -2/+8Those who beat their swords into plowshares will end up plowing for those who did not
      • Cornea, on 05/11/2008, -4/+2And those who beat their ploughshares into swords will see their economy screwed.
    • blagoaw, on 05/11/2008, -0/+7Live by a BB gun, die by a real gun.
    • fatjoe, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1ironic
  • Rendonsmug, on 05/11/2008, -7/+11How about all the good guys get shotguns and all the bad guys get bb guns?
  • TheMidnight, on 05/11/2008, -15/+69***** that guy. If you point a gun at me, I'll do whatever it ***** takes to stay alive--throw a chair at you, shoot my own gun, kick you square in the nuts, or break your goddamn neck.
    • 4rp4n3t, on 05/11/2008, -6/+20Real tough guy huh....
    • whereiseljefe, on 05/11/2008, -3/+21You know all of those require you to get off your couch and put down the Funions, right?
    • sjbdallas, on 05/11/2008, -4/+18We Texans would rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6.
    • SharkyTech, on 05/11/2008, -10/+13Funny, your list didn't include giving them the money so no-one gets hurt.
      • mythril, on 05/11/2008, -2/+8yeah, that is sooo guaranteed to work.

        /sarcasm
      • MacParrot, on 05/11/2008, -0/+8Did you even read the article? He beat her up first.
      • ShadowMerchant, on 05/11/2008, -0/+1Not one nickel for robbers. Kill them all.
  • indigit4l, on 05/11/2008, -10/+2Think it was because it was a donut shop?
  • MAGZine, on 05/11/2008, -37/+12Yeah, because that's a perfectly sensible reaction to someone stealing donuts.
    • SaladCactusKing, on 05/11/2008, -2/+27It's a perfectly sensible reaction to putting a gun to the head of a poor immigrant woman who can barely speak english and is trying to survive through selling donuts
    • CGorman68, on 05/11/2008, -1/+22Ummm... What?

      "***** opening the register! Give me all your bear claws!"
    • shdurham, on 05/11/2008, -1/+12Maybe you should read the article, dumbass.
    • sjbdallas, on 05/11/2008, -0/+2At gunpoint it is a sensible reaction. You want donuts then have her fill the bag and run out. You pull a gun out and now your on a second level and better be ready to defend yourself as mush as th guy you drew down on.
    • Kronos6948, on 05/11/2008, -0/+4Not to mention the guy's got a prior's list as long as his arm, including aggravated assault and robbery.
    • deadlyfluvirus, on 05/11/2008, -0/+6Where do you people come from? Did you even bother to read the article?
    • ShadowMerchant, on 05/11/2008, -0/+0Death on the first offense is a sensible response to all violent felons.
  • mjoe, on 05/11/2008, -10/+20ft. worth represent!
    • WilD9, on 05/11/2008, -0/+4Hecks Yes! Thats how we do it!
    • zenmasher, on 05/11/2008, -3/+2Yeah....um....did you scroll down to the bottom of the page. CBS has a list of slideshows. The most popular one being "gay celebrities"...huh, weird. What was that conversation like. "Hey, I know how we'll get people to stay on our website. Let's show pictures of circus freaks." "No, come one, this is 2008. People would find that offensive." "How about gays then." "Hmm, that could work. They are very fascinating...as long as they stay in Hollywood."
      • blagoaw, on 05/11/2008, -0/+2That's listed under "Most Popular Slideshows" (I know you pointed it out as the most popular one). Perhaps thinking it's "popular" reduces the shame in clicking on it. It's like mass media.

        I do question how that came to be an option in the first place. Perhaps the previous results served as market research.
  • OverZealousHobo, on 05/11/2008, -8/+1dugg for "happy donuts" and morbid irony...
  • rjhomuth, on 05/11/2008, -14/+7I'd kill for donuts as well.
  • cptnawesome, on 05/11/2008, -1/+94If the facts were known, then yes, a much lesser "punishment" would be warranted. Punishment is in quotes because the State is not doing any punishing of the accused; the question here is what rights the individuals have to defense. So really, your question makes zero sense. The question is only whether the shooter should be punished and if so what that punishment should be. We're not at all concerned with what the robber would get had he been apprehended. For someone throwing around the term "retarded", you've made a very bad argument. No one is saying he deserved to die, the point is simply that others have a right to defend themselves when a person makes representations that he is armed with a lethal weapon.

    Furthermore, "shoot first, ask questions later" makes plenty of sense in this context. If a person breaks into your home and waves what appears to be a gun at you (I'm limiting discussion to reasonably mistaking a BB gun for a real gun; obviously the robber thought it passed muster or else he probably would not have used such a relatively harmless weapon as a threat) at you, "shoot first" is exactly the right mentality. If I'm guarding my life or the lives of my family, I'm not going to take the time to ascertain whether the person is brandishing a real gun or just something that is meant to look like a real gun. His decision was made precisely to scare me into compliance, so no tears should be shed when someone actually takes his word that the object is a real gun. To think otherwise is, as you would phrase it, retarded. You're giving more rights and protections to the person who decided to commit a crime in the first place. But for his actions, he wouldn't have been shot in the first place, now would he?

    [This was supposed to be a response to fusen.]
    • x252, on 05/11/2008, -2/+20Dugg for logic, reason, and the american way.
    • ZxEfR, on 05/11/2008, -4/+5Uh......I'm saying he deserved to die!!!
    • sjbdallas, on 05/11/2008, -0/+18Great posting. He didn't walk in there yelling "it's a just a bb gun" so no one could know. I know in the heat of the moment, i probably wouldn't be able to tell if it was real or not. His family will get on the news crying that they didn't have to kill him and that he wasn't even carrying a real gun and people out there will agree with them like the robber is the victim. No one handed him a bb gun and forced him to go rob a donut shop. he made that decision for him self.
      Bottom line: you decide to rob stores and banks, break into cars in driveways, sneak into homes in the middle of the night to steal, then you better be ready to get shot, beat with a baseball bat, whacked with a cast iron skillet, or just kicked in the nuts.
    • fusen, on 05/11/2008, -10/+2I don't see how you can say he wasn't punished, as he clearly was. Punishment in this case was simply delivered by the first person who thought they had a right to hand it out. Whether it's done in self defense or not, he was punished for robbing the store.
      You then say "no one said he deserved to die", yet reading through 80% of these comments I can see pretty much all American's saying something a long the lines of "he got what he deserved".

      At the end of the day, I'm only trying to give the robber the simple right to live and protection from being killed over a burglary. Seeing as how easy it is to get guns in the U.S he could have easily committed the crime with a real gun instead of a BB gun yet went ahead and used a BB gun that will basically have very little chance of killing someone.
      There is bound to be huge differing opinions about the outcome due to cultural differences most likely due to the fact the death penalty was outlawed in the UK quite a while ago and is only really considered a solution by tabloid reading right wing folk, where as, as far as I've read in the past it's much more acceptable in the US.
      TBH I'm boring myself here as no argument is going to change your mentality or the majority of digg readers. In the UK gun crime is a rare thing and a death by a shooting is a big deal where it clearly isn't in the US
      • kerrle, on 05/11/2008, -0/+2Don't ascribe his use of a BB gun to some desire not to do harm. The article clearly says he had a criminal record, and as such he would not have had easy access to guns. He most likely used whatever tool was actually available to him, and as others have pointed out, it must have looked real enough or he wouldn't have tried to use it.
    • jiqiren, on 05/11/2008, -3/+2@cptnawesome, get with the program! The "new way" is using "@" to denote who you are talking to!
      It's like you're in a time warp where you haven't heard of twitter... sheesh!
    • nevetando, on 05/11/2008, -3/+4Let me explain something to everybody here about use of lethal force in America. there seems to be a lot of whining about whether or not he deserved to die.

      1. all taking of human life is a homicide. fact. it is whether or not it is murder, or justifable
      2. legality is determined by 3 factors, they are:
      A. Ability. does the person have the means to cause death or crippling injury to me. I.E is he armed, OR (and this is important) physically imposint enough (thats right, YOU DO NOT HAVE TO BE ARMED) to cause death or crippling injury to me or others
      B. Oppourtunity. is this person with in range or harming me. if the person is armed with a gun, sight is your range... he could be 100 yards away for all the law cares. for non firearms it is general considered 21 feet or 7 yards.
      C. Jepordy. You must fear IMMEDIATELY for your safey or others safety.

      This act fills out all 3 critera easily. legal homicide.
      • ChildeRoland420, on 05/11/2008, -0/+4JUSTIFIABLE homicide
      • ShadowMerchant, on 05/11/2008, -0/+2Right, this is justifiable homicide. Not only do you face no criminal charges for justifiable homicide, in most cases (unlike excusable homicide) you can't be sued in civil court either.
    • nonrate, on 05/11/2008, -0/+3"You're giving more rights and protections to the person who decided to commit a crime in the first place"
      Right's are not "given". They are inherent. If you can do it, you have the right to do it. The US constitution identifies and protects (or it used to) our rights that create a society of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The right to rob a donut shop does not achieve that goal.
      • cptnawesome, on 05/11/2008, -0/+1No, you are mistaken. Rights can certainly be created and taken away. There are of course natural rights--which is what you are speaking of--and statutory rights.

        For example, our law system does not recognize the right to inherit property as a natural right. If it did, you could never disinherit your children, because they would have a natural right to take property at their parents' death(s). Yet you have the right to obtain property if your father leaves you property in his will, because of the statutorily-created right to convey property at death (subject of course to creditors claims and the such, but that's going well beyond the scope of the discussion.)

        • nonrate, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1You're being blinded by illusionary language. Some of our language was created specifically for the purpose of making you believe something that's not true, like the language of law; which is not the same as the english language. Nor, is it natural.
  • DrNemo, on 05/11/2008, -11/+48Nothing of value was lost.
    • sjbdallas, on 05/11/2008, -1/+3I think I see what you did there.
    • redslash, on 05/11/2008, -9/+5Human life is precious, period. Think about all the potential one life could have... snuffed out in an instant. Did he deserve it? Probably. Was it still sad to see happen? Yes, indeed.

      (Not to mention the fact that it'll leave lasting scars on the poor employee... that counts as something valuable lost, doesn't it? And what about the shotgun ammo?)
      • modad, on 05/11/2008, -1/+8Yeah, he had a lot of potential: "State records indicate Lane had an extensive criminal history, including aggravated assault and aggravated robbery." He was definitely a scholar on his way to finding the cure for cancer or solving world hunger.
      • wattersm, on 05/11/2008, -0/+2Some humans are worthless.
      • gryphon50, on 05/11/2008, -0/+0EVERYONE's life is precious?? What, Ted Bundy, Hitler, Stalin? Tell me you don't really believe that. It's because the lives of normal, decent people ARE precious that scum like this guy should be eliminated.
        • ShadowMerchant, on 05/11/2008, -0/+1"It's because the lives of normal, decent people ARE precious that scum like this guy should be eliminated."

          Well said. Those who would be kind to the cruel, in the end, are cruel to the kind.
    • supermajic, on 05/11/2008, -11/+4Wow you're a piece of *****. You have no idea of the guy's motives. He was probably absolutely desperate. Maybe he has a family he can't afford to feed. He carried a BB Gun in there I really doubt he intended to hurt anyone.
      • soupdawg30, on 05/11/2008, -1/+7He beat the woman up while robbing her.
      • supermajic, on 05/11/2008, -0/+3well he didn't really beat her but.. "State records indicate Lane had an extensive criminal history, including aggravated assault and aggravated robbery."
        I admit my own fail. gg.
    • blagoaw, on 05/11/2008, -7/+1Digg's full of disgusting insecure assholes. You can see what happens any time there's a socially acceptable opportunity to beat a subject down. Armed robber? BOOM baby! HEADSHOT>>!!!()!(!!
  • DraconPern, on 05/11/2008, -4/+44Texas ftw!
    • AnthonyJK, on 05/11/2008, -12/+2Texas ftl!
    • sjbdallas, on 05/11/2008, -1/+8the more stories like this I read, the more I want to go get my concealed carry permit.
  • SaladCactusKing, on 05/11/2008, -17/+17Remember hippies! Robbery != Shoplifting. No one is advocating shooting a shoplifter.
    • Chainheart, on 05/11/2008, -2/+12Politicizing does not help debate...
      • SaladCactusKing, on 05/11/2008, -3/+7Its not politicizing. I'm a registered democrat and I'm voting for Obama. I'm not right wing by any means, it's a matter of reality: When you aim a gun at an unarmed woman when there's an armed neighbor standing by, he'll probably shoot you.
        • Professr, on 05/11/2008, -1/+6Obama's self defense v1.0: Aim a gun at an unarmed woman with confidence, since law-abiding citizens won't be able to own one to shoot you with! Everyone wins! (except the victims)
    • dafunkmonster, on 05/11/2008, -0/+6I support shooting shoplifters. Damn snickers are never in stock anymore, thanks to those shoplifting buggers.
    • Hawksman, on 05/11/2008, -1/+0Remember .... "Shoplifters" ......don't tote guns......
  • jjohnstn, on 05/11/2008, -4/+24Every now and then, we need to dump some chlorine into the gene pool......
  • x252, on 05/11/2008, -19/+8In before liberal fags bawwwwwing that it wasn't fair.
    • makemoneynotart, on 05/11/2008, -1/+14I am a liberal and I take full advantage of my liberty to own guns. L-I-B-E-R-T-Y. Genius.
    • karmaghost, on 05/11/2008, -0/+0But what about the liberal heterosexuals?
  • optimuscrime, on 05/11/2008, -18/+8"We're gonna shoot first and ask questions later." - dumb

    I'll admit that this phrase has a wild west badass factor to it, but you are all smarter than this. We can't congratulate this mentality when it works, if we want to condemn it when innocents are killed.
    • raybury, on 05/11/2008, -1/+7The statement you quote is indeed dumb, but if the robber pointed a gun at someone who is armed, he got what he was asking for.
    • ZxEfR, on 05/11/2008, -0/+10"We're gonna shoot first and ask questions later" --- you better believe there are times when this statement is very appropriate......this case was one of those. Any time some wanker whips out a gun (of ANY kind) and starts pointing it at people is exactly when you had better get that mentality.
    • sjbdallas, on 05/11/2008, -0/+10What innocents? If they're sticking guns and knives into my face, i'm sending them on an express train to hell.
    • dafunkmonster, on 05/11/2008, -0/+4I congratulate this mentality every time someone brandishes anything that looks capable of killing (grenade, gun, bazooka).
      • Wakkyweed, on 05/11/2008, -2/+1What if a guy gets stopped by the cops for drunk driving. He stumbles out of his car and reaches into his pocket and pulls out what appears to be a gun. The cops immediately shoot him without asking any questions. It turns out that he didn't have a gun, he was just holding his cellphone.

        Do you also congratulate that example of the "shoot first, ask questions later" mentality? Hey it LOOKED capable of killing...

        While I agree that the guy with the shotgun did the right thing, lets not get too trigger happy out there, please.
        • wattersm, on 05/11/2008, -0/+2Your straw man does not apply here, let's compare apples to apples.
          • Wakkyweed, on 05/11/2008, -1/+0How does this not apply? Dafunkmonster said that he congratulated this mentality EVERY time that someone brandishes ANYTHING that LOOKS capable of killing. People have been shot for "brandishing" cell phones, wallets, toys, broomsticks, whatever. All I'm saying is you should be a little careful before you pull that trigger.
          • ShadowMerchant, on 05/11/2008, -0/+0Interesting you should bring this up. Private citizens with concealed weapons permits commit fewer crimes per capita than sworn police officers. They also shoot fewer innocent bystanders per justifiable homicide. We would be better off allowing all honest citizens EXCEPT the cops to carry guns, just as they used to do in England a hundred years ago, when crime there was a trifling fraction of what it is now. We really only need the cops as a uniformed crime scene evidence collection squad.
  • studdenfadden, on 05/11/2008, -17/+6Thankfully, I don't think that there is a country in the world where you are not allowed to use lethal force to defend your own life or someone else's. That being said, this case sounds a little bit too much like a vigilante dolling out the death penalty for robbery. The attitude of everyone involved and the shop owner's attorney just seems a little too redneck.
    • whereiseljefe, on 05/11/2008, -0/+10FTA: "Meanwhile her neighbor, 54-year-old Stanley Livingston, heard the commotion next door, grabbed his shotgun and ran over to help. That's when Lane allegedly pointed his gun at Livingston, who fired one shot killing the robber."

      Notice the whole "heard the commotion", "ran over to help", and "[the robber] ... pointed his gun at Livingston" parts.

      Dugg down for fail.
    • sjbdallas, on 05/11/2008, -0/+3I respect your opinion but I expect you'll get dugg down quite a bit. The case might be presented as a vigilante because some of the reporters in this town often try to investigate the shooter and make him look back. Seems there was a guy a few months back how had shot a SECOND armed robber in his gas station in 2 weeks. As long as people think they can take from us, we'll be arming ourself and stay prepared to punish.
      They say there are no athiests in foxholes, but also say that when some guy's pointing a sawoff shotgun at you or your famiy for ANY reason, any reservations you have about the death penalty go right out the window.
    • bobbknight, on 05/11/2008, -0/+3In all of the British Empire under the laws that have been adopted to date, the right to self defense has pretty much been eliminated.
  • pervezalammzn, on 05/11/2008, -5/+2yes exactly he is saying right
  • FutureSandwhich, on 05/11/2008, -5/+55Why would you ever rob a donut shop? The cops were probably on their way before anything started.
    • dafunkmonster, on 05/11/2008, -8/+3assinine.
    • Hoogs, on 05/11/2008, -1/+2Good point.
    • blagoaw, on 05/11/2008, -2/+1That's not just any money in there. It's COP money.
    • wubblie, on 05/11/2008, -0/+2I can't believe how stupid this guy was to think that the woman would go to jail if she shot him to protect her donut shop. The cops will never arrest someone for protecting a donut shop!
      • liuite, on 05/11/2008, -0/+1I had to escort a guy out of my store once, and he swung at me as I let go of him at the door. I dropped him in one swift move into a head lock, but let him go after 5 minutes. a pair of cops came 20 minutes later, and this was their advice "next time drag him to the back of the store, make sure there are no witnesses and beat the crap out of him. then you call 911 and report a robbery."
        I guess some cops support street justice!
  • zer0hour, on 05/11/2008, -13/+3why would you rob a donut shop?
    and why are people still working there at 1am?
  • raybury, on 05/11/2008, -0/+26RTFA. Livingston, the neighbor, came in after the donut shop owner had been beaten and encountered the robber who did it. He alleges the robber pointed his gun at him (and implicitly that the bb gun he pointed was not obviously just a bb gun). Since he fired a shotgun at the robber, there should be plentiful forensic evidence of the position of the bb gun at the time of the shooting, which will, I expect, verify Mr. Livingston's account. Regardless of what circumstances brought the alleged robber, Richard Thomas Lane, a middle-aged white man by appearance who, presumably, made some bad decisions, to (allegedly) beat and rob a hard-working immigrant donut store owner an hour or so after midnight, Mr. Livingston appears to have acted correctly in self-defense.
    • Think4urself, on 05/11/2008, -0/+1forensic evidence of the position of the bb gun at the time of the shooting? Wah? Looks like someone's been watching a tab too much CSI.
    • mcm020, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1There's no way to prove that.
  • gjokkel, on 05/11/2008, -27/+5Yeah... We have a choice:
    1 "Shoot first and ask questions later"
    2. Be a civilized society
    We cannot select both.
    • chrisutley, on 05/11/2008, -4/+11I wish I knew who to blame for this kind of thinking. It seems like everything in our society these days is cast in these kind of illogical, divisive terms. For whatever reason common sense has gone out the window, and we must debate issues like this from radical, irrational point of views.
      • matador3, on 05/11/2008, -10/+4I'm not sure which side you're taking so I'll just Digg you down ;)
        • Lixnig, on 05/11/2008, -1/+3I find it ironic that you could only see digging up or down as the only choices regarding a comment about people thinking in divisive terms. You could simply do nothing.
        • blagoaw, on 05/11/2008, -1/+2Digg only lets us digg up or down. I'm no genius, but I think that might be a polarizing factor.
    • pencilneck, on 05/11/2008, -0/+1I guess you are right, gjokkel. If said ***** was civilized, then he wouldn't of been shot first. A tip of my hat to Texas!
  • SaladCactusKing, on 05/11/2008, -14/+9"This is a robbery. Nobody ***** move. Open the register!"
    "Wait. Are you sure this is the right thing?"
    "..."
    "Have a cinnamon roll. Ever considered getting your GED instead of robbing old asian ladies? I understand you may have had family issues at home."
    "My mother...she was never there for me."

    *robbery ends*
    • Kronos6948, on 05/11/2008, -1/+8You forgot to add that two Jedi were in the donut shop, and started this conversation.

      Yeah, you're assumption is just as real as mine.
      • Cruelapollo, on 05/11/2008, -0/+3*insert grammar/spelling Nazi comment here.
        • Kronos6948, on 05/11/2008, -0/+2I know, I know...should be "your". First time in a long time that I didn't proofread my comment.
    • sjbdallas, on 05/11/2008, -2/+6Why don't you go ahead and stand on the corner of Malcom X and MLK Blvds in downtown dallas and preach that crap. See how many future theives and murders you can get on the right track.
      • MacDork, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1Why is it that every MLK street in every city is so crime ridden?
    • JanYpe, on 05/11/2008, -0/+5You forgot the part where they all hug and sing 'We are the world'.
  • KyleGoetz, on 05/11/2008, -12/+13There's an awful lot of people censoring their profanity with asterisks in this thread. Why? It's not like this is school. So many stories here have nudity now, so I don't think a little profanity will hurt anyone. Besides, when you replace with asterisks, we still all know what you're really saying. It serves no purpose at all.
    • matador3, on 05/11/2008, -1/+8Digg censors profanity now unless you're logged in.
    • notthatway, on 05/11/2008, -5/+1seriously? dug down.
    • zadadka, on 05/11/2008, -7/+2My kids use Digg for the rewarding articles it often presents.....so actually, yes, it is kinda like school.
      Besides, do you big hard men feel the need to swear in writing...does it make you clever, or does it in fact demonstrate that you aren't?
      Swearing in reaction, verbally, is understandable, but spelling out each letter to create it as written word is just crass, and firmly identifies your teenage or otherwise under-developed mentality.
    • MyDiggIsBig, on 05/11/2008, -2/+3a**** s***** s******** what did i say.
      • blagoaw, on 05/11/2008, -1/+2That's not fair. You've got to be swearing.

        Though if you are, I'd say asses ***** *****.
    • shadovvman, on 05/11/2008, -1/+2Your whole comment should be replaced with asterisks.
    • blagoaw, on 05/11/2008, -0/+3If censorship is outlawed, only outlaws will have censorship.
    • wattersm, on 05/11/2008, -1/+1Cause swearing is so awesome. Seriously, using profanity only makes your argument invalidate itself.
  • Jus7in, on 05/11/2008, -4/+35Ah, some good news on Digg for a change! One less piece of ***** off the street.
    • HanSolo69, on 05/11/2008, -0/+5Do you mean one more off the street or one less on the street?
      • Jus7in, on 05/12/2008, -0/+2Indeed, indeed. Reading this got me so riled up that my brain went completely ***** on me. That's embarrassing.

        Nice call.
  • matador3, on 05/11/2008, -4/+12Hypothetical question for all the hand wringing ninnies commenting on here. If it had been a police officer who responded and shot the guy in response to having the BB gun pointed at him would your opinion be any different. How should the hypothetical officer have responded?
    • pentalive, on 05/11/2008, -3/+8The ninnies would demand the hypothetical police officer be drawn and quartered, shot, sent to the Russian front, and if he survived, shot again.
    • gossipninja, on 05/11/2008, -0/+8I will say, if it was a cop who responded, assuming the criminal acted the same towards the cop as he did towards the neighbor, the cop would have dropped him. However, the cop being there, might have clued the robber in to give up because it was over. Soon criminals will realize that it is not the cops who they need to fear and worry about, its their victims. 48 states have concealed carry laws, once enough muggers get shot by little old ladies, they will realize that they aren't a badass just because they are packing, when any number of civilians around them are packing too.
  • bokep, on 05/11/2008, -5/+13BOOM HEADSHOT
  • gapingass, on 05/11/2008, -1/+8Just like in Boogie Nights!
  • JustinNoland, on 05/11/2008, -3/+33The article seemed to present a fairly accurate re-cap of the situation, and as such the guy who shot the robber was completely justified in his actions. Replica firearms are now virtually identical to the real thing, and given the circumstance and the split second decision to save her life and his own life (when the robber pointed the gun at him) only an absolute idiot wouldn't have acted to stop the suspect.

    The man didn't shoot to kill the robber, he shot to stop the robber from causing harm. An unfortunate side effect was that the scumbag died, but the intent wasn't to kill the man.

    And for all of those arguing that the police should have been called and he should have been given prison time, I'd like to see how your mentality changes when the barrel of a gun is aimed at your head, with a man threatening to kill you, and the police are 10 minutes away. The man is armed, threatening your life or others, and you aren't willing to take a stand against him? The fact that you wouldn't fight back tells me that you would rather let the officers (who are still 10 minutes away) deal with the suspect, and risk getting shot themselves. This means that you value their lives substantially below yours, because you want them to take the bullet for you, should it come down to that. That makes you an arrogant coward.

    The police have no commitment to defend you or your property. Ultimately, your life is your own responsibility, and people need to start learning that the police aren't going to be there to help you all the time. You need to help yourself, and that means carrying a firearm so that the first line of defense against a dangerous situation isn't someone 10 minutes away w