Father Shoots Gunman Threatening Family in Texas Restaurant

[sarahtasher]

Seems like I found the problem.

And while I don't carry everywhere, you'd have to be an idiot to go on safari in Chicongo unarmed.

If that's not a good enough answer for you, my wife would be armed as well and more than capable of defending herself.

Safari Chicongo. Must the latest (((KLUVER KUDE WURD))).¸
(What pass as Shakspearian wit for alt-right-saying Chicago is like Congo cause they are Blacks, KEK. They actually think this is SUBTLE, presumably beyond bouts of sniffing cans of paint)

We all know what the usual suspects means by ''UNSAFE neighborhood''. We all know what their sites brainwash them into believing are ''dangers to their wives'' (''dangerous swarthy savages'' that can soil their racial purity) They are copy-pasting the barkings of the Copperheads in 1864, when the slavers began to feel defeat breathing on their necks.

You would be STOOPID and SJW to point out here that '''being raped by ''THUGS'' in my decaying home town of Alabama'' is a much more unlikely scenario than ''my owner/husband shoot me in the head with his big manly gun a night of binge drinking because I mention leaving him and/or that he does not need a tenth AK-47 but rather to pay the mortage''

[Ethris]

Chicongo. Must the latest (((KLUVER KUDE WURD))).

Definitely not code, I'm being pretty transparent about what I mean. You haven't shown where I'm wrong (good luck with that).

At any rate, lets frame this argument in an emotional manner, which is all you can seem to understand:

Why are you arguing for the ability of someone to threaten my life (or my wife's life) with a deadly weapon, for $20, with utter impunity? If someone is going to commit murder for $20, you should assume that it wouldn't matter to them much if they took that money from a live person or a corpse. Armed robbers are not known for their sense of honor; and you are asking me to trust that after I give this person money (thereby rewarding them for their criminal behavior), they will simply go on their way.

You are an idiot, and have either never been in a situation such as this; but if you have, you learned absolutely nothing from it.

There are real monsters out there, and they're more terrifying than anything your hysterical sheltered mind can fathom. If you want to go blindly into that world like a lamb led to slaughter, that is entirely your decision.

[sarahtasher]

Only one kind of people use CHICONGO.

- - - Updated - - -

Definitely not code, I'm being pretty transparent about what I mean. You haven't shown where I'm wrong (good luck with that).

At any rate, lets frame this argument in an emotional manner, which is all you can seem to understand:

Why are you arguing for the ability of someone to threaten my life (or my wife's life) with a deadly weapon, for $20, with utter impunity? If someone is going to commit murder for $20, you should assume that it wouldn't matter to them much if they took that money from a live person or a corpse. Armed robbers are not known for their sense of honor; and you are asking me to trust that after I give this person money (thereby rewarding them for their criminal behavior), they will simply go on their way.

You are an idiot, and have either never been in a situation such as this; but if you have, you learned absolutely nothing from it.

There are real monsters out there, and they're more terrifying than anything your hysterical sheltered mind can fathom. If you want to go blindly into that world like a lamb led to slaughter, that is entirely your decision.

Ah okay, we are using an emotional argument while you say that going to Chicago is like going to a safari is rational.

Is rational and stupid, for the record, because at a safari you shoot animals (the ''KLUVER and KUNNING'' allusion to Blacks), the animals are not the ones shooting at you...

- - - Updated - - -

Definitely not code, I'm being pretty transparent about what I mean. You haven't shown where I'm wrong (good luck with that).

At any rate, lets frame this argument in an emotional manner, which is all you can seem to understand:

Why are you arguing for the ability of someone to threaten my life (or my wife's life) with a deadly weapon, for $20, with utter impunity? If someone is going to commit murder for $20, you should assume that it wouldn't matter to them much if they took that money from a live person or a corpse. Armed robbers are not known for their sense of honor; and you are asking me to trust that after I give this person money (thereby rewarding them for their criminal behavior), they will simply go on their way.

You are an idiot, and have either never been in a situation such as this; but if you have, you learned absolutely nothing from it.

There are real monsters out there, and they're more terrifying than anything your hysterical sheltered mind can fathom. If you want to go blindly into that world like a lamb led to slaughter, that is entirely your decision.

Ah, ''HONOR'' too. Presumably like ''duh gud uld times'' in the South, where you could lynch a ''THUG'' in your state because someone told you that in the state across someone had seen a ''THUG'' talking to a white lady and the honor of the slaver vermin was soiled.

And of course, it's MY mind that is sheltered, not the mind of a good little footsoldier of the alt-right who squeak 'CHICONGO'

[Ethris]

Only one kind of people use CHICONGO.

People not afraid the truth.

Ah okay, we are using an emotional argument while you say that going to Chicago is like going to a safari is rational.
Is rational and stupid, for the record, because at a safari you shoot animals (the ''KLUVER and KUNNING'' allusion to Blacks), the animals are not the ones shooting at you...

Sweetie, I said safari, not hunting. But unlike animals, South Side residents will probably shoot at you, despite the excellent gun laws designed to keep weapons out of their hands.

Ah, ''HONOR'' too. Presumably like ''duh gud uld times'' in the South, where you could lynch a ''THUG'' in your state because someone told you that in the state across someone had seen a ''THUG'' talking to a white lady.

You are literally incapable of reading full sentences and forming logical conclusions. You see specific words and the few synapses comprising your neural matter immediately misfire to a ridiculous conclusion (and utterly predictable too, seriously apply yourself). Your primary example consisted of a scenario wherein a mugger threatens my wife for $20; and you expect that if I just give the mugger what they ask for, they'll go away without harming me or my wife. This requires me to trust the person threatening me and my wife will honor the exchange of money for our lives; which is not likely, and I am better off defending myself because there's a very real chance that if I don't, both of us are dead. All bets are off in this situation, which is why it's a shitty example and I've refuted it thoroughly.

[therealbowser]

I wouldn't necessarily call it a happy ending -- I mean a guy died in a restaurant, it probably traumatized a few people -- but it sure as hell is better than people getting killed or even robbed. The man's family was being threatened, he defended them and the man cowardly enough to do this got killed. This is what we call justice, friends. And probably luck, but hey, good luck is better than bad luck.

Now if this guy was not threatening the life of his family and was just a common thief, I might feel differently, but the second I read that he pulled a gun on the man's family, yeah... all sympathy vanished. Guy had it coming.

[sarahtasher]

People not afraid the truth.

Oh, let me guess this untold truth. ''EVERYONE NOT WHITE IS AN ANIMAL THAT NEED TO BE PUT DOWN''. Staggering new message. What seems odd is that you appears to think that people did not made the connection aeons ago between ''CSA lickers'' and ''gun moochers''.

[Chipperbane]

The moment the father refused to give up money, at gunpoint, was the moment he decided that money was more valuable than his or his family's safety.

[Youn]

Stand Your Ground

Senate Bill 378 also contains a "Stand Your Ground" clause; A person who has a legal right to be wherever he/she is at the time of a defensive shooting has no "duty to retreat" before being justified in shooting. The "trier of fact" (the jury in a jury trial, otherwise the judge) may not consider whether the person retreated when deciding whether the person was justified in shooting (TPC 9.32(c,d)).


Civil Immunity

In addition, two statutes of the Texas Civil Practice And Remedies Code protect people who justifiably threaten or use deadly force. Chapter 86 prohibits a person convicted of a misdemeanor or felony from filing suit to recover any damages suffered as a result of the criminal act or any justifiable action taken by others to prevent the criminal act or to apprehend the person, including the firing of a weapon. Chapter 83 of the same code states that a person who used force or deadly force against an individual that is justified under TPC Chapter 9 is immune from liability for personal injury or death of the individual against whom the force was used. This does not relieve a person from liability for use of force or deadly force on someone against whom the force would not be justified, such as a bystander hit by an errant shot.

This law does not prevent a person from being sued for using deadly force. The civil court will determine if the defendant was justified under chapter 9 of the Penal Code.

Texas laws assume a citizen has a right to defend themselves and if armed should try and stop crimes. The simple act of walking into a restaurant and threatening the people in the building with a weapon is a very quick way to die. Looking at those requirements, he would have probably been safe to shoot the robber the moment he brandished a weapon.

[sarahtasher]

The moment the father refused to give up money, at gunpoint, was the moment he decided that money was more valuable than his or his family's safety.

No, apparently, saying that your life is not worth 20$ is ''unmanly'' and you are obligated to present Stephen Seagallesques scenario of you disarming the miscreant THEN shooting him in the head.

- - - Updated - - -

Texas laws assume a citizen has a right to defend themselves and if armed should try and stop crimes. The simple act of walking into a restaurant and threatening the people in the building with a weapon is a very quick way to die. Looking at those requirements, he would have probably been safe to shoot the robber the moment he brandished a weapon.

Ah yes, we should kill all ''THUGS'' and ''ILLEGAL MIGRANTS'' seen fidgeting with a small object ''just to be sure'' (after all, they are animals and can't operate a cell phone, right ?)

[therealbowser]

The moment the father refused to give up money, at gunpoint, was the moment he decided that money was more valuable than his or his family's safety.

Incredibly ignorant way to look at it. If your family is being threatened, even if you give them money your family might get hurt. And in the heat of a moment like that, I imagine they are scared for their family's safety. The fact that this man didn't shoot him until the family was threatened is really telling.

If you really think this is about wanting to save pocket change over a man's family then I don't know what to tell you. That's just ignorant. Virtually no one is that stupid, and in no circumstance like this is anything clear cut. If your family is in danger and you react in such a way that the worst thing is possible -- and it absolutely was in this case -- then you are probably making the right decision in the heat of the moment.

What if the man isn't happy with the money you gave? What if he accidentally fires the gun anyways? What if your child tries to run and gets shot? It's not just a matter of give him your wallet and he walks away happily, these aren't diplomatic discussions. These are unpredictable lunatics with a gun threatening your family.

[sarahtasher]

Incredibly ignorant way to look at it. If your family is being threatened, even if you give them money your family might get hurt. And in the heat of a moment like that, I imagine they are scared for their family's safety. The fact that this man didn't shoot him until the family was threatened is really telling.

If you really think this is about wanting to save pocket change over a man's family then I don't know what to tell you. That's just ignorant.

Again, I'm fracking sure that every single police department would advise you strongly to just give the money to the muggers instead of trying to play the hero. You can find of course ''self defences'' courses that promise you that you can shoot the said muggers, but those courses are selling a fantasy.

[therealbowser]

Again, I'm fracking sure that every single police department would advise you strongly to just give the money to the muggers instead of trying to play the hero. You can find of course ''self defences'' courses that promise you that you can shoot the said muggers, but those courses are selling a fantasy.

I don't know the context so I can't assume. But I'm not going to fault a man for protecting his family nor am I going to pretend that in these scenarios everything is perfectly okay or predictable. Just because you give someone money doesn't mean that they are going to leave you alone. Nor does it mean that your family is safe. There are way too many variables to know if what he did was truly, absolutely the right decision. However, there is nothing wrong with how it turned out -- the man threatened his family and died, and I have zero sympathy for him.

[Chipperbane]

Incredibly ignorant way to look at it. If your family is being threatened, even if you give them money your family might get hurt. And in the heat of a moment like that, I imagine they are scared for their family's safety. The fact that this man didn't shoot him until the family was threatened is really telling.

If you really think this is about wanting to save pocket change over a man's family then I don't know what to tell you. That's just ignorant.

This is about a man sitting with his family, refusing an ARMED GUNMAN'S order to give him money. This in itself is stupidly dangerous - even more so when you consider the fact that the man's family is in the line of fire.

While there is no guarantee that giving them money will ensure your safety, there is an exponentially more valid reasoning that giving him your money will PROBABLY be safer.

In the end, this went down like so:

Father refuses to give up money, putting his family in danger. Father, having refused to give up money and putting his family in danger, decides, only after his family is AIMED at, to try to be a hero, assuming the man wouldn't freak, assuming the shot would be enough to stop retaliation, assuming his family would be safe.

This man put his family in danger, potentially scarred his children, and killed a man, all because he refused to give up his money.

The worth of the robber's life is irrelevant - he had people who loved him. The world might be a better place for some, but for his family, it is not. The world is not black and white. There are shades of gray you cannot ignore.

[Youn]

Ah yes, we should kill all ''THUGS'' and ''ILLEGAL MIGRANTS'' seen fidgeting with a small object ''just to be sure'' (after all, they are animals and can't operate a cell phone, right ?)

The moment the person brandishes a weapon with the intent to rob the place. He caused enough civil disorder to cause people to flee the building. The person with the weapon inside the building should have shot the robber. He instead choose to wait to see if the robber would directly threaten him or his family. That in and of itself was actually dangerous.

The fact the person was a THUG or ILLEGAL MIGRANT is non-sense and not relevant to the situation. The race, sex or cultural difference of the robber isn't in question. He was an armed robber that threatened people. His actions are not in question.

[sarahtasher]

This is about a man sitting with his family, refusing an ARMED GUNMAN'S order to give him money. This in itself is stupidly dangerous - even more so when you consider the fact that the man's family is in the line of fire.

While there is no guarantee that giving them money will ensure your safety, there is an exponentially more valid reasoning that giving him your money will PROBABLY be safer.

In the end, this went down like so:

Father refuses to give up money, putting his family in danger. Father, having refused to give up money and putting his family in danger, decides, only after his family is AIMED at, to try to be a hero, assuming the man wouldn't freak, assuming the shot would be enough to stop retaliation, assuming his family would be safe.

This man put his family in danger, potentially scarred his children, and killed a man, all because he refused to give up his money.

The worth of the robber's life is irrelevant - he had people who loved him. The world might be a better place for some, but for his family, it is not. The world is not black and white. There are shades of gray you cannot ignore.

Here for tough guys, non white petty criminals desserve summary execution, so due process is a losing battle.

I still have a faint hope that the argument ''but if you pull your weapon out, you might transform a simple robbery in a murder investigation'' might works on some. After all, dangerous SJW like Penn and Gillette made sketches on this.

[Ethris]

@sarahtasher

You write like a middle school student. Your arguments are terrible. You think pointing out perceived racism is an argumentative tactic, and yet you're moderately self-aware enough to sarcastically reference yourself as an "SJW"

Well you're acting like one, and I wouldn't put your actual age above fifteen.

You lack any kind of real world perspective or experience to inform any of your viewpoints; and no, shit you read on the internet does not count.

I did not vote for Trump in the last election, but because I know it would piss you off; and just to spite you in particular, I will in the next one. It's going to be a tough eight years for you, kiddo.

[sarahtasher]

The moment the person brandishes a weapon with the intent to rob the place. He caused enough civil disorder to cause people to flee the building. The person with the weapon inside the building should have shot the robber. He instead choose to wait to see if the robber would directly threaten him or his family. That in and of itself was actually dangerous.

The fact the person was a THUG or ILLEGAL MIGRANT is non-sense and not relevant to the situation. The race, sex or cultural difference of the robber isn't in question. He was an armed robber that threatened people. His actions are not in question.

I sure hope people are not dining Appplebee with the gun in their hands...

- - - Updated - - -

@sarahtasher

You write like a middle school student. Your arguments are terrible. You think pointing out perceived racism is an argumentative tactic, and yet you're moderately self-aware enough to sarcastically reference yourself as an "SJW"

Well you're acting like one, and I wouldn't put your actual age above fifteen.

You lack any kind of real world perspective or experience to inform any of your viewpoints; and no, shit you read on the internet does not count.

I did not vote for Trump in the last election, but because I know it would piss you off; and just to spite you in particular, I will in the next one. It's going to be a tough eight years for you, kiddo.

The guy that use CHICONGO SAFARI talk about argumentation. And who use words like ''BAD GUYS''

[therealbowser]

This is about a man sitting with his family, refusing an ARMED GUNMAN'S order to give him money. This in itself is stupidly dangerous - even more so when you consider the fact that the man's family is in the line of fire.

While there is no guarantee that giving them money will ensure your safety, there is an exponentially more valid reasoning that giving him your money will PROBABLY be safer.

In the end, this went down like so:

Father refuses to give up money, putting his family in danger. Father, having refused to give up money and putting his family in danger, decides, only after his family is AIMED at, to try to be a hero, assuming the man wouldn't freak, assuming the shot would be enough to stop retaliation, assuming his family would be safe.

This man put his family in danger, potentially scarred his children, and killed a man, all because he refused to give up his money.

The worth of the robber's life is irrelevant - he had people who loved him. The world might be a better place for some, but for his family, it is not. The world is not black and white. There are shades of gray you cannot ignore.

To clarify, are you assuming that the man refused to acknowledge him, or is this what actually happened? I'll take your word for it, I'm just curious.

Either way, even if he was foolish enough to refuse initially, that doesn't really matter. Once this lunatic threatened his family, it's a different situation. He didn't pull a gun on him when he was told to give him money, he did it once his family was threatened.

This isn't what I would do, but if I had a gun with me and was confident in my ability to use it, I would probably fire at a man that was acting unpredictably and threatening the lives of my family than humoring his demand, not out of logic but out of fear of losing my family. And it would probably be the right decision. But hey, that's just me. I don't own a gun personally and I would just give him money to begin with, but the man's actions make sense to me. At least, in the end.

I'll agree that it was foolish of him to refuse giving him money to begin with -- if that is what happened -- but him pulling a gun and killing them an once his family was threatened was almost certainly the correct choice, assuming he knew how to use it, and clearly he did.

[Youn]

I sure hope people are not dining Appplebee with the gun in their hands...

It was likely in a holster on his side or inside his jacket. That is what a concealed carry permit allows. And in this particular case, is how he suddenly had a weapon in which he was able to shoot the robber in the first place.

[Chipperbane]

To clarify, are you assuming that the man refused to acknowledge him, or is this what actually happened? I'll take your word for it, I'm just curious.

Either way, even if he was foolish enough to refuse initially, that doesn't really matter. Once this lunatic threatened his family, it's a different situation. He didn't pull a gun on him when he was told to give him money, he did it once his family was threatened.

This isn't what I would do, but if I had a gun with me and was confident in my ability to use it, I would probably fire at a man that was acting unpredictably and threatening the lives of my family than humoring his demand, not out of logic but out of fear of losing my family. And it would probably be the right decision. But hey, that's just me. I don't own a gun personally and I would just give him money to begin with, but the man's actions make sense to me. At least, in the end.

I'll agree that it was foolish of him to refuse giving him money to begin with -- if that is what happened -- but him pulling a gun and killing them an once his family was threatened was almost certainly the correct choice, assuming he knew how to use it, and clearly he did.

I found the actual news article from San Antonio:

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/loc...g-12411849.php

"SAPD Sgt. Roy Miller said the armed man asked the father for money.

The father said he wasn’t giving the man anything and turned to get an employee’s attention, Miller said."

I do not believe the action was not justified. His family was threatened. But the order of operations here has my stymied, and, frankly, I find it gormlessly stupid that the father put his family in danger by refusing an armed man's threat. He's no hero. He got remarkably lucky.