This is a hero?

[slim 1,533]

So what? I realize that there are some very strange people out there, and I also realize that since YouTube came along these people have access to mass audiences - random interviews are not enough to be able to launch any kind of hypothesis as to why armed robbery exists, nor what one can usefully do about it.

So a criminal saying "I will not rob someone who I know has a ____." Doesn't help?

You can't logically form a hypothesis based on first-person information?

[Peikko 1,575]

So a criminal saying "I will not rob someone who I know has a ____." Doesn't help?

You can't logically form a hypothesis based on first-person information?

Not really, no.

Well not one that is of any use in terms of trying to reduce armed robbery.

[slim 1,533]

Not really, no.

Well not one that is of any use in terms of trying to reduce armed robbery.

So, let me try to rephrase this.....

If a criminal specifically tells you, "if you have one of these in your house and I know you have one of these in your house, I will NOT rob your house."

How do you not form a hypothesis based on that information?

[Peikko 1,575]

So, let me try to rephrase this.....

If a criminal specifically tells you, "if you have one of these in your house and I know you have one of these in your house, I will NOT rob your house."

How do you not form a hypothesis based on that information?

I don't need a hypothesis, I already know what this criminal will do if he sticks to his claim.

[nab 74]

Every armed robber offends for his own reasons. But it's not as if killing one inspires someone to take his place. Most armed robbers will continue to offend, even if caught, punished and later released. This particular robbery had a participant who had previously been convicted of burglary and kidnapping. He brought two other younger guys with him this time. Popping him the first time would have prevented him from re-offending and probably also prevented these two younger guys from turning to crime. I can't see how you could argue that popping him would have caused others to become robbers that wouldn't have otherwise.

Thus, popping him the first time would have reduced the number of armed robbers and the number of armed robberies. It is a finite number and we can pop them all.

i agree. when dirtbags like this go around bragging how they held this or that place up and flash the cash they recruit others into the life. big difference the impression these younger boys would have gotten had he come back to the nieghborhood in a body bag after first robbery.

[slim 1,533]

I don't need a hypothesis, I already know what this criminal will do if he sticks to his claim.

Right. Specifically one telling you something lets you know what that one is thinking... but... couldn't you form a hypothesis on the rest of his co-workers based on what he's said?

I mean, if a plumber tells you it's better to use a strainer than to flush stuff down the drain, can you not form a hypothesis that putting stuff down your shower is bad too?

i agree. when dirtbags like this go around bragging how they held this or that place up and flash the cash they recruit others into the life. big difference the impression these younger boys would have gotten had he come back to the nieghborhood in a body bag after first robbery.

I'm a firm believer in shooting criminals dead the first time.

However, I'm also a firm believer in complying with the law and this pharmacist went above the law.

[SMR 368]

If it is constantly changing, then it is not a fixed number that we can deal with and move on, which was my point as you know.

You may not be able to track the total, but you can sure track the delta. You kill a robber and no matter how many robbers there are, there is one less than there would have been if you hadn't killed him.

Right. Specifically one telling you something lets you know what that one is thinking... but... couldn't you form a hypothesis on the rest of his co-workers based on what he's said?

I mean, if a plumber tells you it's better to use a strainer than to flush stuff down the drain, can you not form a hypothesis that putting stuff down your shower is bad too?

I'm a firm believer in shooting criminals dead the first time.

However, I'm also a firm believer in complying with the law and this pharmacist went above the law.

If the situation was stabilized and he went and got another gun, I would agree with you. But if you read the other account (not the one the robber's mother gave) you see that there were three robbers and he was under fire. In that situation, it's a simple matter of self preservation to make sure that you make sure the guy who you shot stays down so you can focus on the others.

[Peikko 1,575]

Right. Specifically one telling you something lets you know what that one is thinking... but... couldn't you form a hypothesis on the rest of his co-workers based on what he's said?

I mean, if a plumber tells you it's better to use a strainer than to flush stuff down the drain, can you not form a hypothesis that putting stuff down your shower is bad too?

I'm a firm believer in shooting criminals dead the first time.

However, I'm also a firm believer in complying with the law and this pharmacist went above the law.

No. Your analogy is incompatible - criminal behaviour is complex and driven by multiple factors - knowing not to flush ####### down the drain is direct cause and effect, no hypothesis required.

[slim 1,533]

If the situation was stabilized and he went and got another gun, I would agree with you. But if you read the other account (not the one the robber's mother gave) you see that there were three robbers and he was under fire. In that situation, it's a simple matter of self preservation to make sure that you make sure the guy who you shot stays down so you can focus on the others.

Based on the video, the robber on the floor of the store was incapacitated and presented no threat as the pharmacist walked by him, grabbed another gun, walked back to him, and pumped several rounds into him.

The fact that he was facing other assailants could be a mitigating factor in his defense but it doesn't give him the right to shoot someone who no longer presented an immediate threat.

No. Your analogy is incompatible - criminal behaviour is complex and driven by multiple factors - knowing not to flush ####### down the drain is direct cause and effect, no hypothesis required.

Criminal is a job just like plumber is a job. Alhtough, I'm glad you brought up cause and effect.

If possessing something in your home or business causes robbers to willfully skip over your place... what's the effect of that?

[Peikko 1,575]

Based on the video, the robber on the floor of the store was incapacitated and presented no threat as the pharmacist walked by him, grabbed another gun, walked back to him, and pumped several rounds into him.

The fact that he was facing other assailants could be a mitigating factor in his defense but it doesn't give him the right to shoot someone who no longer presented an immediate threat.

Criminal is a job just like plumber is a job. Alhtough, I'm glad you brought up cause and effect.

If possessing something in your home or business causes robbers to willfully skip over your place... what's the effect of that?

It doesn't though - armed robbery frequently takes place in stores where the owner is armed. Are you saying that even though stores know that advertising they are armed would prevent a criminal entering the premises they deliberately try to keep that information secret? What would be the purpose of that?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I don't understand the need to argue minutia over points that cannot possibly be proven in the real world.

There is simply no evidence that having a gun reduces incidences of armed robbery.

[slim 1,533]

It doesn't though - armed robbery frequently takes place in stores where the owner is armed. Are you saying that even though stores know that advertising they are armed would prevent a criminal entering the premises they deliberately try to keep that information secret? What would be the purpose of that?

I'm not sure what you're saying here as most places that openly display being armed aren't robbed.

There is simply no evidence that having a gun reduces incidences of armed robbery.

There is, actually.

Places with armed guards are very infrequently robbed.

[Ban Hammer 13,651]

I don't understand the need to argue minutia over points that cannot possibly be proven in the real world.

There is simply no evidence that having a gun reduces incidences of armed robbery.

Antwun Parker might beg to differ on that last part.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Antwun Parker might beg to differ on that last part.

I'm sure he would, but one story does not represent a national picture.

[mawilson 2,133]

again, it depends on the state as to the answer. in more than a few, yes, you could as they are committing felony armed robbery. so yes, popping robbers like rabbits is an option in those states.

Hey, I like rabbits.