How to properly use a gun

[kurth]

Great example at
http://www.jumpingpixels.com/sheriffs7.html

[whistle]

1. And also the proper code of dress and conduct for police....

...http://www.jumpingpixels.com/laugh6.html

[GAspnes]

2. excellent

karma.

[Pawel K]

3. Thank you for that, great video

They didn't seem so tough after they saw that.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

4. Priceless!

I love it. Fucking rednecks.

[BlueCollar]

5. works for me,,,

[Mr_Spock]

6. lol - that's funny

Can't be sure it wasn't staged, but it's still funny. :rofl:

[RandiFan1290]

20. Yes, It's staged

The guy driving the BMW is wearing a Trailer Park Boys T-shirt. This is a bad parody of that Canadian TV show.


Do rednecks drive Toyota pick ups?? ;)

[Subdivisions]

7. Love it! eom

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

8. That's a juvie rambo wannabee wet dream.

The most stupid piece of tripe I have seen in months.

[Hemperor]

9. thats is the coolest thing ever

what a good arguement against gun control eh?

[Richard Steele]

10. How stupid do you have to be to NOT think the BMW guy is a cop?

The moment they show the first clear view of him,
the word "OFFICER" is lighting up in my head.

That was long and tedious, but the INEVITABLE last few seconds
made it all worthwhile.

[enfield collector]

16. because he would have cited

the assholes for something. lot's of honest citizens carry guns legally because of people like those two inbreds on the video.

[Richard Steele]

18. I'm not smart enough to even begin to explain how badly you misunderstood.

This is where I would make a wisecrack about you collecting
the SHORT Enfields... if there was a chance in hell you would get the joke.

But there isn't, so I won't.

[enfield collector]

32. your lack of smarts is pretty obvious.

[bling bling]

87. I don't know too many cops that drive BMW's.

Not in the city I live in, anyway. Cops in most areas here start out less than 30,000 a year. Most of them cap off around 60,000. That's exactly why I would NOT have thought the BMW guy was a cop in a million years.

[lpbk2713]

11. I would have been tempted to put a round in the asshole's radiator

and a few other strategic places in his car.

[bahrbearian]

26. Just to get their attention, they didn't seem to be getting IT.

[durrrty libby]

12. Every person in this video acted like an idiot

It's a sad commentary on human misbehavior

:freak: :dunce: :spank:

[Lindacooks]

43. You're right.

And the Beemer guy is f***ing lucky the rednecks didn't have a gun, or there would have been a lot of dead people.

[SofaKingLiberal]

13. ROFLMFAO!

:rofl: :rofl:

[OffWithTheirHeads]

14. Been there, done that

That is why I own guns. I don't rely give a fuck that othrs don't like guns. I have never owned a gun until the Bush cabal took over the United States. Since then, I have bought several. To quote Emilio Zapata, "better to live on your feet than die on your knees"

[Oreo]

15. Classic

thanks

[Vidar]

17. Kneecap a recruiter?

[oasis]

19. Sweet!

:bounce:

[magellan]

21. Eh, not so much

Taking the camera was a step too far. They should have left it at the top of the road with the moran's keys. (Removing the DVD first, of course.)

[aikoaiko]

22. Idiots got awfully polite quickly.....

Its a funny spoof, but still, in real life, its good to be able to defend yourself when attacked and having a gun is an excellent way to defend yourself.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

23. Dear god...

Do things like this happen often in the US? I have seldom been more glad I'm not an American.

In some ways the guy with the gun scares me more than the rednecks - what if they'd had a gun too?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

38. Actually, thinking about it, I'm fairly sure it was staged.

I think the camerawork is too consistent for it not to be.

That said, the general thrust of my previous post stands.

[lonestarnot]

24. Couldn't get sound, but I watched.

:rofl:

[bahrbearian]

27. Oh you need the sound,, did you reboot your computer?

[lonestarnot]

29. Ok ... stand back, I'm going in again! Cover fire!

[lonestarnot]

33. Oh yeah, dialog was worth the trouble! Happy birthday dude!

[bahrbearian]

35. Oh Yeah.

:toast:

[lonestarnot]

47. heh heh heh

:toast:

[XOKCowboy]

25. BWAHAHAHAHA!!!! That was excellent!

K&R for poetic justice.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

28. The Proper Way To Use A Gun Is For 1st Degree Armed Robbery? Are You Nuts?

I enjoyed the video and all, but I wouldn't go around condoning 1st degree armed robbery as being responsible with a gun.

[Pharaoh]

30. They should of shot out the radiator

and the tires before they left................

scum sucking Bush supporters!

[lpbk2713]

31. The *victim* would have to make a formal complaint to a LEO

in order for this to be considered a crime. If (and I stress IF) this was an actual event, the new owner of the video has the *victim's* role in this as evidence. Somehow I don't think this would have been reported to Law Enforcement.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

34. What The Hell Are You Talking About? It Was 1st Degree Armed Robbery,

period.

It doesn't have to be reported in order to be a crime, and I'm not sure what kind of twisted logic that is.

If this was an actual event, then the event captured someone committing 1st degree armed robbery. That's exactly what it was, whether reported or not.

[lpbk2713]

36. I'm talking about the fact that a crime may or may not have been commited

here is a moot point. What I'm saying is I doubt that the alleged rednecks would not have reported it because their complicity is on the video that is in the "gunman's" possession.


That Is What I Was Talking About.


(I Hope The Caps Make You Happy)

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

37. Calling It A Moot Point Is Pretty Ignorant, No Offense. The Whole Premise

of this thread was that what we were to see on video was the proper way to use a gun. Since the video showed an act of 1st degree armed robbery, no matter how humorous, it is pretty irresponsible to declare that to be the proper use of a gun.

So since that quite simple fact relates directly to the OP, calling that point moot is simply false and misguided.

Furthermore, if the video is real, there is no question as to whether a crime was or wasn't committed. First degree armed robbery was committed, without question.

You also state now that you were only saying you didn't think they'd report it. But that is not accurate according to your quote:

"The *victim* would have to make a formal complaint to a LEO in order for this to be considered a crime"

No, that's just absurd and patently false. My point was that formal complaint or not it is still a crime, and that reporting his has nothing to do whatsoever with whether or not it is considered such.

[Balbus]

45. I thought there had to be a conviction before it was

"first degree armed robbery." So in effect, you're referring to an alleged "First degree armed robbery." And, sorry, you're not going to find any jury or judge anywhere to convict the BMW owner - the rednecks, maybe - but not the BMW owner. So the OP still stands. So who is ignorant now?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

49. Actually A Jury Wouldn't Be Hard To Find Whatsoever. It Was Blatant.

There's no question it was first degree armed robbery. It is pretty evident to even a moran watchin the video that's what occurred. Finding a jury to convict on that charge would be a piece of cake based on that video evidence. What the other drivers did is irrelevant in a court of law within the context of whether or not 1st degree armed robbery was committed. You obviously don't know courts of law very well at all.

As far as the other drivers are concerned, they could be guilty of their own charges, no doubt. But that is a seperate issue and does not in any way undermine the case for a 1st degree armed robbery conviction.

"So the OP still stands."
The OP is still ridiculously reckless in its assertion that is the proper way to use a gun, as the proper way to use a gun is NEVER in the act of committing a felony.

"So who is ignorant now?"
Same person as before.

[Guaranteed]

54. Oh, so you must know the elements, then.

What are they? Let's see your analysis.

How does the fact that the man was protecting himself from two thugs picking a fight with him factor into it?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

55. It Doesn't.

At the point of the crime the men were no longer acting in any threatening manner due to the use of the gun. That was fine in its use to avoid the confrontation and subdue the actors from further aggression.

Howeverrrrrrrr, at that point when the threat was disolved, and the 'had been victim' then chose to use the gun as an intimidating factor in order to steal one's rightful property, it no longer becomes self defense but then turns into a crime of its own, which is first degree armed robbery. If a mugger comes up to you with a knife and tries to steal your money, but you instead pull a gun and steal his money instead, he is guilty of attempted armed robbery but you'd be guilty of armed robbery.

I fail to see why this is such a hard concept for some on here to understand.

[Guaranteed]

57. You think the threat was dissolved. It wasn't.

Those guys COULD have had a gun or another weapon in the truck and chased them down after they left. In fact, they could have done a lot of things to pursue the BMW people if it wasn't dealt with right then. By taking the keys, the BMW people actually dissolved the threat, with a minimum of violence. They also told them where they were going to put them so that the guys could pick them up after a little walk. Taking the keys was not only legal, it was the correct, moral way to handle the situation (contrast it with shooting them....?).

Secondly, the camera. That was evidence of what happened and subject to the jurisdiction of the courts. Now, given that, would you rather leave evidence of a crime with the crime's perpetrators or with the victim? Which is more likely to ensure that the truth will be told later in court, if needbe? If the police had been there, they would have taken the camera into their custody as evidence. In this case, the police weren't there, so the victim did.

There's absolutely no robbery here.

BTW, you wouldn't need a jury for this. The hard time you'd have is finding a district attorney who would charge the BMW guy with anything. He was totally reasonable. In fact, he handled a very scary situation perfectly.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

59. Your Case Would Be Torn To Shred In Court.

Firstly, the camera was not evidence. The DVD or Cassette inside was. The camera didn't need to be taken. Furthermore, like I said, your theory only holds any water if the camera WAS in fact taken to be used as evidence. But what are you possibly basing that off of? The perpetrator said nothing of using it for evidence and in fact declared quite the opposite, hinting that it was for him personally and thanked them for his new gift. The fact the video is online seems to lend credence even further to my version that it was not in fact taken as evidence but was instead taken out of vindictiveness for their actions: Hence theft.

You can go on all day with this notion that it was innocently taken as evidence, but it seems far more likely based on the gun holder's actions that it was not going to be immediately turned over to authorities. And again, I'll repeat, if that camera was not IMMEDIATELY turned over to authorities and a Police report filled out detailing the incident, then it is a case of theft, PERIOD. Because the theft involved a weapon it is then 1st degree armed robbery.

I agree that if the camera was confiscated and turned over to authorities that there would then be no crime or prosecutor that would push for one. But based on what I saw in that video and the nature of its being online, I think it is fair to deduce that it was not turned over to authorities and the incident reported, which makes it then a blatant case of 1st degree armed robbery that any prosecutor who cares about law at all would absolutely prosecute with no problem.

[Guaranteed]

61. ROFL. The camera was TOO evidence.

It was used to take the video! That's not material evidence? If the case went to trial, and the court only had the cassette itself, wouldn't questions come up as to how it was taken? Besides, the camera carried the fingerprints of the cameraman- those could be used to identify the perpetrators later. The camera- itself- was integral to the incident. It was NO DOUBT evidence.

FURTHER, by taking the camera the victims ensured that- just in case- whatever transpired after the confrontation could be recorded as well. That could be necessary to protect them from actions by the perpetrators.

And what the victims did with the camera after the confrontation is separate from and immaterial to whether the camera was actually evidence. That would be a separate issue for the authorities to deal with.

As far as the video being online, that's not dispositive of what was done with it. For one, maybe the incident was itself staged, so the point would be of no consequence and the fact that it wasn't turned over to the authorities would in fact be expected. Second, even if it was real and online, that doesn't mean that it wasn't turned over. I've seen plenty of videos online that I know for a fact were evidence in actual court cases. The fact that it's online does not mean that it wasn't turned over to the authorities.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

65. Once Again, Since You Seem To Like Echoes, If It Was Turned In As Evidence

then yes. But if it was kept as personal property then no. In the latter case it would be absolutely 100% armed robbery, of which the tape would convince a jury in a heartbeat.

I'm not sure what it is you are failing to grasp with this quite simple explanation: Camera turned in to authorities? No crime. Camera kept for the sake of keeping it? 1st degree armed robbery. This is fact. Hope you can understand that.

[Guaranteed]

51. Oh, give me a fucking break.

That's the most ridiculous fucking shit.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

52. Nope. In Fact, There Isn't A Shred Of Doubt That's What It Was.

I mean my god, do you guys really know that little about the law? :rofl:

[Guaranteed]

53. LOL I'll have to ask a criminal law professor at school about that.

That guy was perfectly within his rights. "What's the bat for?" I believe he said.

He took the camera as evidence of what happened- after all, he was the victim. Call it a "citizen's confiscation." And he took the keys to make sure they couldn't follow him.

He was restrained and did only as little as he had to to ensure his and his girfriend's safety and that the truth would be told later.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

56. If The Camera Was Taken As Evidence The Video Would Not Be Available On

the web. The crime would've had to have been immediately reported and the camera would have to be handed over immediately to authorities as evidence. The camera would then no longer be in the gun holder's possession now would it. In addition, the gun holder would only have had to remove the tape or dvd as evidence without having to steal the entire camera.

Furthermore, you hear him claim it is his new birthday present. It does not sound whatsoever nor were any declarations made that would lead one to believe that the camera was taken as evidence. Instead, it sounds like it was taken simply because the gun holder had the power in the situation and decided that he wanted to punish them by stealing their camera.

Fact is, whether you like it to be or not, that if the camera wasn't immediately turned over to authorities and a police report filled out of the incident, or if the camera was kept as personal property, then what we saw occur on the video was 1st degree armed robbery, period.

[Guaranteed]

58. Doesn't matter. Maybe it WAS staged.

But the camera was evidence regardless of what they did with it later, so the victim had the right to take custody of it at that moment. Therefore, it's not robbery.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

60. Probably Was Staged. But For Sake Of Argument We're Assuming It Wasn't.

And for the record, the camera would now be evidence of two crimes. The victim had only the right to take the camera until he had a chance to meet with authorities and turn it over. The victim does not have a right to steal someone's property with no intention of turning it in and using it as evidence, but only intention to keep a cool new camera. The former would be legal, the latter would be first degree armed robbery.

We keep going back and forth but that is only because we are both working on different assumptions. I've already given you credence and submission to your assumption, so you have to give credence to mine or we're going to go in this pathetic circle all night. Your assumption is that it was confiscated and then turned over to authorities to offer proof of the crime. If that was the case, then it is perfectly legal in my opinion. But you now have to assess MY situation, if it was the case. My assumption and reason for original reply was that the gun holder did not have any intention to turn the camera in to authorities, and that by taking it at gun point with only intention to keep it for himself as a new gift, had therefore committed 1st degree armed robbery. Now if my assumption on what he did afterwards is correct, do you then agree that it would in fact then be 1st degree armed robbery?

[Guaranteed]

62. No, I'm not assuming it was turned over to the authorities.

At the time of the incident, it was evidence, and therefore it was not robbery (which is different from theft, you should know).

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

63. Then You Are Blatantly Wrong.

If the camera was not turned over to authorities and the incident reported, then it was 1st degree armed robbery, period, end of story.

It's disappointing to see that even with you acknowledging the situation based on my assumptions of it not being turned over that you would still hold on to the narrow minded assertion that it still wouldn't be armed robbery, since it so obviously would be.

[Guaranteed]

64. It was evidence at the TIME, therefore it isn't robbery.

If the victims didn't turn over the camera to the authorities, that would be a separate issue for the authorities, like I said before.

On edit: And it still wouldn't be robbery.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

66. You Keep Saying That. What You're Failing To Realize Is That The Seperate

issue that you speak of is FIRST DEGREE ARMED ROBBERY! :rofl:

I'm amazed you haven't caught on to this yet. You keep repeating the same thing: "If the victims didn't turn over the camera to the authorities, that would be a separate issue for the authorities". Yes, it would be a seperate issue for the authorities. An issue of first degree armed robbery. I hope maybe you get this now.

[Guaranteed]

67. Wrong. Your problem is that you're confusing

how they got ahold of the evidence with whether or not they turned it in.

As the victim of the crime, they had the RIGHT to take the camera into their custody at the TIME OF THE INCIDENT. That is true regardless of what they did with it later, or even their intentions at the time. If they have the RIGHT to take hold of that camera, you can't call it robbery based on facts that occurred well after the incident. That makes NO sense given that they performed exactly the same actions, either way, during the confrontation. How could the elements of robbery not be met at the time of the actual incident, but then somehow be met later?

Now, I'm not sure what the charge would be if they didn't turn it in, but it would center around the fact that they were knowingly in possession of property that didn't belong to them and was in fact evidence of a crime. The manner in which they got the property would not enter into the equation- it wouldn't matter that they used a gun- and therefore it would NOT be robbery.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

69. With All Due Respect, Good Luck With That Absurd Explanation In A Court Of

law.

If the intention was to steal the property at gunpoint it is 1st degree armed robbery beyond a shadow of a doubt. Legally your argument holds no water whatsoever but I also can plainly see that you are not capable to accept this simple fact. Therefore, this argument is done.

Good luck with that defense bro. All I know is I'd LOVE to be the prosecutor working against you in court. What a field day. :rofl:

[Guaranteed]

70. A prosecutor would never bring your bullshit charges to court.

We have this thing called "reason" that we use in the law. :think:

The perpetrators of this crime had no right of possession of that camera after it was used in the crime. Without that right, you can't come to the conclusion of "1st Degree Armed Robbery," and certainly not based on occurrences well after the incident itself.

You said it yourself- turn the camera into the authorities, it isn't robbery. Don't turn it in, it's robbery. You're hinging the whole case on actions that had nothing to do with the incident itself. Gee, it was 85 degrees in Mexico City on that day, too. I wonder how that factored in.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

71. Dude, You Are Just Making Things Up As You Go Along. LOL

Seriously, this has crossed over to just sheer absurdity now. I don't know where you've picked up this supposed legal defense from, but rest assured you have not a clue what you're talking about.

"The perpetrators of this crime had no right of possession of that camera after it was used in the crime."

That's up to an officer of the law to determine, not a civilian. Are you trying to claim that if I see a drug transaction go down inside a vehicle that I can take a gun to that driver, tell him to get out, and steal his car? After all, he lost his rights to it. Hey, actually come to think of it, couldn't the gun holder in the video had stolen their car instead of just the keys? According to you yes! He could've! Hell, the car was used in the crime so they lost their rights to it. Now the gun holder has every right to just hop in it and drive it away! Yippeeeeeee!!!!!! :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Hey, it was your logic and statement. I have it quoted.

Fact is that logic is dead wrong and completely illegal. Now the COPS have a right to confiscate property used in the commission of a crime, but YOU DON'T! Got it?

I really don't know who told you this absurd hypothesis that I quoted of yours above, but trust me when I tell you to discard it and no longer trust the source that gave you this ridiculous information.

The following is a FACT, whether you like it to be or not: Regardless of what the perpetrators had done previously, if the gun holder held them at gunpoint while using intimidation tactics followed by stealing their camera with intention to keep the property rather than turn it over to authorities, then 1st degree armed robbery was committed by any definition you can find. Sorry you don't like that, but your dislike of it does not overturn simple fact.

Sheesh, I can't wait for Skinner, Earl or Elad to upload a talking to a wall smiley.

[Guaranteed]

75. Yeah, someone CAN do that, according to you!

As long as they turn over the car to the authorities, right? :dunce:

Cuz that's the determining factor, here. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

76. Nope. But Glad To See You Recognize The Ridiculousness Of Your Argument

now. Since all you've now resorted to now is silly ridicule of your own twisted logic, I'll assume you've now realized that what was seen in the video, if in fact real, was also in fact then 1st degree armed robbery.

We are done here. Goodnight.

[Guaranteed]

77. Absolutely not.

You've already conceded, on your own, that if the two victims turned over the tape to the authorities that it was not robbery (when you suddenly realized how important that tape really was). Now, you're regressing back to your initial, ridiculously incorrect outburst, unfortunately. Such a weak mind.

"Your assumption is that it was confiscated and then turned over to authorities to offer proof of the crime. If that was the case, then it is perfectly legal in my opinion." Your words, yes?

I suppose that since you're so confused about your own ideas, it shouldn't be surprising to me that you missed the whole point of my last post. You said that if the victims in the video turned in the camera, they could legally take it. I'll go with that. And you seem to be saying- now- that the strange man in your scenario has no right to take the car- even if he turns it into the authorities. You know, it could be that the possessory interest of the camera shifted entirely to the victims when those two men used it during their crime. Or do you know what a possessory interest is? I've been trying to explain it. An idea like that would account for how I can say that the victims on the video have a RIGHT to take that camera, while the stranger on the street in your scenario couldn't take the car. You can't say something that profound, though, because you can't think that deeply.

The perpetrators gave up their possessory interest in the camera when they used it in the commission of their crime. Similarly, the victims gained an interest in the possession of that camera when it was used to video the incident. They simply had a right to take it.


Goodnight :)

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

78. Whole Lot Of Words, Not A Whole Lot Of Logic Or Accuracy.

Nice try there Mr.BullGooseLoony, but you still couldn't be more wrong. You could use whatever falsely 'profound' sentiments that you want and it still wouldn't make your case any less likely to be laughed out of court.

The reason why I laugh so hard at your assessment is that you are trying to deflect on me the absurdity that you declared yourself. Let's jog your memory a little, Mr.BullGooseLoony. See, I never stated that just because something was used during the commission of a crime that the victim then has the right to steal it as long as it is turned over to the police. You were the one that said that. Yet when called out on the absurdity of that ideal, by stating that according to your twisted logic the victim could've then stolen their car as well, you have to falsely turn that warped ideal onto me as if I was foolish enough to say such utter stupidity.

Well, Mr.BullGooseLoony, you will not find a quote of mine anywhere that states such foolishness. The statement of mine you quoted fails to state that as well. What my statement was referencing, however, is that it may have been perfectly legal for the camera to have been taken and turned over if it contained proveable EVIDENCE of the crime. Your quote, again, was the following:

"The perpetrators of this crime had no right of possession of that camera after it was used in the crime."

But there is a distinctive difference between something that had simply been used in the crime and something that can prove as hard evidence the crime itself. According to you, anything that was used in any way during the commission of the crime, including their vehicle, has the right to be taken by the victim. Well it doesn't take profound thinking to arrive at the conclusion that is just a completely ignorant statement. What makes that statement even more absurd, is that you even declared that the victim has the right to take any and all of that property even if it is not to be turned over to authorities! :rofl:

So you can deflect that absurdity as much as you want, Mr.BullGooseLoony, but the fact of the matter is that it is you that would be laughed out of court with such claims regardless of how falsely poetic you try and make your words.

Fact: If the man holding the gun had only intentions of keeping the camera and aquired it via means of intimidation and the use of a weapon then that man committed 1st degree armed robbery. Yes, that is fact mr.bullgooseloony, and that is what all of this boils down to.

So keep going around in circles with your twisted logic, that you even have ridiculed yourself by falsely casting it onto me, only to defend it again when casted back upon you LOL Feel free to keep stating the same wrong assessments over and over. It doesn't change the fact that armed robbery was committed.

Buh bye now. :hi:

[lonestarnot]

48. don't get your panties in a wad. The whole thing was probably staged.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

50. Don't Wear Panties Jackass. And It Probably Was Staged. But That Still

isn't the point. The point of the OP was to declare the act as if it was real to be of the proper use of a gun. I'm just calling out the fact that using a gun to commit a felony is NEVER the appropriate use of a gun. Do you not agree with that?

[lonestarnot]

73. Jackass! My favorite animal!

:kick: Thank you. Say it again.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

74. LOL Woooohooooo!!!!!!!!

:kick:


:)

[CanSocDem]

81. 'Right' and 'wrong' come later.

The first thing to do is get the tool that greatly improves your chances of being 'right'.


.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

83. Hopefully You've Read The Gazillion Other Posts In This Subthread So That

I don't have to go through all the reasons I believe otherwise again. :)

[lpbk2713]

84. Aw come on, you can do it.

I know you can.




:eyes:

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

85. I Think The Point's Been Factually Made Enough. It's All There For

posterity. :rofl:

[CanSocDem]

89. I was being ironic.

:-)

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

90. Oops, My Bad. :o)

[Nostradammit]

39. That was completely staged

And if it did happen, the jury would find the "Toyota-driving rednecks" guilty of felony menacing.

Armed robbery my ass.

[Gidney N Cloyd]

40. That was *so* staged.

[Junkdrawer]

68. What? You don't think "rednecks" video themselves criminally harrassing...

strangers? Happens ALL the time!

:rofl:

[devilgrrl]

41. What redneck part of Canada are these two from?

Thickest Canuckistanian accents ever... I'm guessing somewhere around the outskirts of Toronto?

[Balbus]

42. Those incidents are far too common in the southwest.

Unfortunately, I didn't get a camera out of the deal when it happened to me. Just keys to a small-penis type of truck that I left at a Circle K a mile and a half down the road. Was it a crime to take their keys? I don't give a fuck. Due to the circumstances I feel I was quite restrained.

[devilgrrl]

44. Those where Canucks...

we're talking southwest Ontario here.

[Balbus]

46. Uh, thank you for the geography lesson...

If it would make you feel any better, I'll amend my post to say, "Even those this happened in Southwest Canada, unfortunately, this is a common occurenece in the southwest of the United States of America, on the continent of North America, in the northern hemisphere..." blah, blah, blah.

[OldSiouxWarrior]

72. That Was THE WRONG WAY TO USE A GUN

I shall not comment on whether or not the video was staged. For the sake of my remarks, I shall assume that it was genuine.

I have a CCW, have been though the classes and watched videos and read books on the subject.

When you are carrying a gun, you want to do everything you can to AVOID A CONFRONTATION. Your objective is to escape unharmed, not to hand out justice.

This guy didn’t do that. First he mouthed back at them and then they shot the finger at them. That makes the situation worse. The correct thing is to apologize, EVEN IF YOU ARE IN THE RIGHT, you still apologize and try to go on your way.

He, or his girl, almost certainly has a cell phone. They could have, and should have called the police. Or he could have pulled into a crowded area. Or he could have (assuming plenty of gas in the Beemer) gotten onto a major road and kept on diving.

The Beemer guy obviously decided to have a confrontation, depending on the threat of the gun to give him the upper hand and intimidate the jerks. It could have turned out far differently.

If a confrontation became unavoidable, then after he took the camera, he should have reported it to the police and turned over the camera – after making a copy of the DVD for himself, just in case.

And he definitely should not have posted it on the internet.

[tomreedtoon]

79. It was fake. Here's the most rational outcome:

The Beemer guy's a police officer, right? With a cell phone? And the number of his dispatcher? What better and safer response could their be than to lure the rednecks down that deserted road, where two police cruisers would cut them off from escape? By that time they would be guilty of so many crimes of harassment (with all the nice evidence captured on video) that they would quickly be spending time in a jail cell dancing for Bubba.

It's dramatic fiction, ill-considered and poorly thought out.

[OldSiouxWarrior]

82. Please read my first paragraph.

I shall repeat it:

I shall not comment on whether or not the video was staged. For the sake of my remarks, I shall assume that it was genuine. For the sake of discussion only, to make the points I wanted to make about the actual use of guns for self-defense, I treated it as real. You may note that one other poster said that something similar had happened to him.

There is no evidence that the Beemer guy is a LEO.

The thrust of my post is about how an armed civilian should handle such an event. Such events do happen. The guy in the video did lots of things wrong, if it was real.

I take no stance on whether or not it was real.

[tomreedtoon]

86. Why don't you care if it was real or not?

I realize that you were trying to make a point about gun use. And in that you were correct. A firearm is deadly force, and THEORETICALLY everyone who is ever trained to use a firearm is told that you only pull it if you have an intent to kill.

However, saying the video is real characterizes the way that police officers operate.

Now, I am not happy with the way certain police officers behave. But this film suggests that a cop would do something this stupid - while endangering another person (presumably a civilian) in the car with him. And do it with a video camera rolling, with his face and his vehicle clearly identified (even if they did some crummy masking of the license plate).

There ARE undoubtedly people on DU that are all too eager to characterize all policemen as "pigs." I just responded to a post that suggested that people on DU should arm themselves and get ready to kill cops before the cops kill them. But I don't think that attitude is either fair or right.

[OldSiouxWarrior]

88. I never said the Beemer driver was a cop.

I wanted to make the point that the Beemer driver aggravated the situation and didn't try hard enough to avoid a confrontation. Even if it is a fake, it is still close enough to what does sometime happen to be worth pointing out that the Beemer driver should not be taken as a model.

At no point have I suggested that the Beemer driver was a cop. I see no evidence of that.

I don't care whether it was fake or not as that is not relevant to the point I was trying to make. I do not care to be drawn off into side discussion as to whether it was real, or of the different people's occupations or political persuasions. There is not sufficient evidence for that.

[oasis]

80. Kick ass dude.

:bounce:

[meldroc]

91. Amusing, but staged...

and if a person actually did take the assailant's camera like this, he'd likely end up in jail for assault with a deadly weapon and armed robbery.

Being a person who has a Concealed Weapon License, and had some training, rule number one is to avoid confrontations instead of pulling a stunt like this. Lethal force is legally usable for one thing: protecting lives. Not for stealing cameras or humiliating assholes.

It was worth a few laughs though.

[redherring]

92. Funny, but I think it is staged as well