This guy was out on a jog? With a gun and a load of cash? Huh?
This guy was out on a jog? With a gun and a load of cash? Huh?
beastwood wrote:
This guy was out on a jog? With a gun and a load of cash? Huh?
Clearly, that combiniation gives criminals the right to attack the jogger. Please visit
www.liberalsprotectingcriminals.comand make your donation now.
Carrying cash? - Only criminals are permitted to carry cash.
Out at night? - Only criminals are permitted on the streets.
Lock up the victim. Sue the jogger into the stone ages.
wow. this thread provides a truly disturbing account of the American psyche, where any action - the more extreme, the better - is justified so long as it is protecting ME and MY shit. this logic is so myopically self-centered, and so indifferent to otherness, that our community and planet would be in ruins if everyone acted as flagpole (and florida) deem acceptable. so much hate, so little time. the world sucks so we might as well destroy a little more of it. ...and before anyone has a chance to ask, yes, I would just let the potentially armed assailant shoot me (because there is no alternative to EITHER killing someone OR being killed).
Something absolutely doesn't sound right here.
Let me run through this again -- you go out 'jogging' at night through a questionable neighborhood with almost a $1,000 in cash and a gun? How many people do this?
Sounds like someone looking to buy drugs to me.
How many shots needed to 'repel' the 'criminal' (never established - skin color doesn't automatically make that possible) -- and the person is shot in the back 'attacking' this person?
I suspect the cops are going to dig into this one and we'll hear about some interesting details.
People can only speculate as to why he had the money. Maybe he was worried about a break-in and figured the money was safer on his person. As for the shots in the back, that's neither here nor there. If the guy turns when being shot at he's going to take a round in the back. But the shooter has no way to know whether he's going to turn back around and return fire. Once you start shooting at a threat, you continue until you're sure the threat is stopped.
There are several weird things about this story, but the bottom line is that the guy defending himself gets the benefit of the doubt. Most states have concealed carry now (FL was a trend-setter in the 1980s). If you don't want to get shot by a permit-holder, don't assault them.
No trigger discipline wrote:
Festizio wrote:probably shot the entire magazine
its a f***ing clip you dip shit.
IDIOTS! It's a magazine moron!!! A clip is something else.
[quote]Melbs wrote:
wow. this thread provides a truly disturbing account of the American psyche, where any action - the more extreme, the better - is justified so long as it is protecting ME and MY shit. this logic is so myopically self-centered, and so indifferent to otherness, that our community and planet would be in ruins if everyone acted as flagpole (and florida) deem acceptable.[quote]
You are absolutely right. I shouldn't care about this jogger. I shouldn't care that he was mugged. It doesn't affect me. It doesn't affect my things. Why should I be a voice for law and order and the protection of someone else's property when it doesn't affect me and my own. Why should I give a damn about someone else. You should be given a humanitarian award for sticking up for the rights of this dead criminal.
Let's revert to law of the jungle. It's every mugger for himself.
thisiswhatsisay wrote:
Wait for the civil trial, folks. This family is going to sue the living daylights out of this man. And they are going to win.
Not true. And who says he has anything worth anything to begin with? Could be one of you jackoffs for all we know.
granddaddypurp wrote:
its callled adrenaline and it only comes about when your LIFE IS IN DANGER
If it would have been me I would have shot 8 times too, three in the on three in the second and two in the third guy ! I mean the three were together I would have assumed after the first hit they were all going to rock and roll on me and to 357 heaven they would go !
666EnergyDrink wrote:
I am extremely liberal
Therefore you are extremely stupid.
I Like Blue Women wrote:
beastwood wrote:This guy was out on a jog? With a gun and a load of cash? Huh?
Clearly, that combiniation gives criminals the right to attack the jogger. Please visit
www.liberalsprotectingcriminals.comand make your donation now.
No, that combination of facts gives intelligent people reason to question the jogger's story.
An unemployed guy went out for a "jog" well after midnight with a grand in cash and a laser-sighted 45. He ends up killing another guy. The circumstances raise suspicion that *maybe* the "jogger" was something other than an innocent law-abiding citizen. We don't know one way or the other, but it seems a reasonable question to ask regardless of political persuasion.
SomeActualData wrote:
I Like Blue Women wrote:Clearly, that combiniation gives criminals the right to attack the jogger. Please visit
http://www.liberalsprotectingcriminals.comand make your donation now.
No, that combination of facts gives intelligent people reason to question the jogger's story.
Should we have any questions about a young criminal who's out late looking to knock out and mug people? Or does that story check out as being one you support?
I'm still waiting to hear about the earlier altercation. But the additional facts that you can get from various stories indicate that a) the dead man had no criminal record, b) baker had no criminal record, c) baker had almost $1k on him at 1:30 a.m. in a dangerous neighborhood, d) baker was carrying a .45 with hollow point (cop killer) bullets and a laser sight, e) the witness said that baker was walking, not jogging, e) there was supposed to have been an altercation earlier between baker's brother and mustelier, f) baker uttered the dirty harry line twice, g) mustelier may or may not have connected on his swing (did the police check out baker's face to confirm his story? was baker wearing running shoes?), h) baker was unemployed, i) mustelier did not get into trouble prior to this, g) one shot from a .45 would knock just about anyone down or spin him around, so an additional seven shots served only bloodlust. Why would Mustelier, who had no criminal record, all of a sudden decide that he wanted to beat up some random person? Maybe he wanted to beat him up because of an earlier argument with his brother.
The picture I get is that Baker was out to kill someone, to pull a Bernard Goetz, and/or he had a very specific victim in mind, Mustelier, because the latter had gotten into an altercation with his brother earlier that night, and/or he had just sold some drugs and was carrying the cash back home (he was five houses away).
I admit that I do not know what happened and I could be completely wrong, but that is the picture I am getting.
I Like Blue Women wrote:
No, that combination of facts gives intelligent people reason to question the jogger's story.
Should we have any questions about a young criminal who's out late looking to knock out and mug people? Or does that story check out as being one you support?[/quote]
No doubt this kid got what was coming to him. That doesn't mean we can't question the glaring abnormalities in the other guy's story too.
jjjjjj wrote:
I admit that I do not know what happened and I could be completely wrong.
I'll concede that.
Yeah, I'm surprised at the amount of people that think this is okay. 8 shots fired, 4 hit. Where did the other 4 bullets go? What happens if Tommy Baker gets punched in the face in Jacksonsville and pulls out his .45 and starts shooting? An untrained idiot (running at 1:30 AM in a sketchy neighborhood with 1k in cash = idiot. Yes, I've run after midnight as well, but I don't live in a neighborhood I know to be dangerous. You're unemployed, run during the day) with a deadly weapon is absurdity at its finest. Add in the fact he knew the assailant AND talked smack before firing at him really puts the cherry on top. A life is now finished because of a punch to the face? And that's okay?? Stunning.
When I was in college I would sometimes end up running very late at night, like 1am, even though the area around the college was certainly not the safest. On one such run I came around a corner fast and almost ran over a girl, but managed to mostly dodge her and we just bumped shoulders. I kept running, but a second or two later I heard her scream. So I stopped and turned around, just instinctively really. She was staring at me in terror. It took me a second to realize that she was scared of me (I was wearing sweats and it was dark, so it wasn't obvious I was a runner, and I'm a guy). Before I could say anything, she turned and ran down the street (even though she was wearing a skirt), looking back periodically to see if I was chasing her. I felt horrible for having scared her so badly, and actually just walked home shaken by the whole thing.
But had she been packing a gun, and if she had the mentality advocated by a number of posters on this thread, I would've gotten shot and probably been killed.
And if that had happened, some of you would have said she did the right thing -- it was dark, I "assaulted" her (bumped her), she couldn't tell if I was armed, I stopped and turned around, she couldn't tell what my intentions were, it was a known high-crime area, etc.
I have no idea what happened in the Florida case. But I think people's view of whether it's a good thing for citizens to be armed and legally able to use deadly force to defend themselves if they feel threatened (without warning or attempting to flee) might change if they found themselves in a situation like I did, where you could well be on the receiving end of deadly force through no real fault of your own.
Personally, I'm not in a hurry to have my life depend on the split-second judgement of armed fellow citizens any more often than it already does.
A Different Perspective wrote:
When I was in college I would (...)
Happened to me and my friend as well. In my case it ended with awkward screaming, but my friend received a nice amount of paralyzing gas. We always wondered what would happen if this woman had a handgun.
Well, I am pro-gun, but after witnessing amount of idiocy in this thread I'm thinking about changing it. Sure, everyone should have right to self-defense, yet seems most people simply can't handle responsibility of gun ownership.
to JJJJJJ: not a personal here. Since i don't know you at all.
Like I said on my post to the other thread.
You watch way too much TV. TV is fiction. The news is fiction.
d.(cop killer bullets?) Do you work for Gun Control America?
e. So now it's a crime to be walking?
f. "the dirty harry line?"
h. unemployed?
g.#2 should have been j. So now you are an expert on how guns work and self defense etc. How many people have you shot in self defense? Oh, you've seen it on TV.
Your "picture" is wrong.
But at least you do admit that you may be wrong. Agree. Since none of us were there that night.
Imagine yourself in the jogger's position, be honest with yourself.
We need to get the word out to these teens that we RUN ARMED!!!