McDonalds Incident Proof Positive That We Need Our Full Gun Rights Restored

It was excessive at the end. After they were firmly on the ground I would have abandoned the rod and proceded to use my belt so that there would be no lasting injuries.
 
The one he kept hitting at the ends was continually trying to get back up. Not the one who was smart enough to stay down and not further provoke.
 
Fine outcome as far as I'm concerned.

Those ladies should think about their actions. What'd they really expect to happen? Spitting on someone, slapping someone, and then jumping the counter after them? Really?

We have all just witnessed a, lawful, attitude adjustment.


 
Last edited:
juleswin said:
Ghettobagged, bull dyked tells alot about you and where you are coming from. For the love of Jesus, he has already disabled them with a long metal rod, they were on the ground and hes standing on top of them with the rod firmly in his hand. Yes I live in Omaha (which is no kind of small town) but I dont care where the hell in the world you are, but at that point, its time quit hitting.

That would have been considered animal cruelty if it was done to a 300 lbs silverback gorilla and excessive force and assult when it is done to a human.
Click to expand...

It comes down to personal responsibility. Those women took their lives in their own hands when they decided to attack that guy. They got what he dealt out.

There was a guy in a subway about a year ago who was attacked by a group of people--a 14 year old girl started it, he was too much of a reasoned gentleman to give her a total smackdown as he could have. If he would have taken those measures initially, the rest never would have attacked him. They saw his weakness.

This guy, who seemingly has been raised on the mean streets knows what you have to do to stop uncivilized people from attacking any further. He's willing to defend...even to excess...and once again, that's the chance that those women took when they decided to assault him and go after him. I will remind you that he retreated, and they could have stopped themselves from jumping the counter at any time--but they obviously wanted violence.

Not saying the guy is a saint, but he's not a doormat.
 
amy31416 said:
It comes down to personal responsibility. Those women took their lives in their own hands when they decided to attack that guy. They got what he dealt out.

There was a guy in a subway about a year ago who was attacked by a group of people--a 14 year old girl started it, he was too much of a reasoned gentleman to give her a total smackdown as he could have. If he would have taken those measures initially, the rest never would have attacked him. They saw his weakness.

This guy, who seemingly has been raised on the mean streets knows what you have to do to stop uncivilized people from attacking any further. He's willing to defend...even to excess...and once again, that's the chance that those women took when they decided to assault him and go after him. I will remind you that he retreated, and they could have stopped themselves from jumping the counter at any time--but they obviously wanted violence.

Not saying the guy is a saint, but he's not a doormat.
Click to expand...

Gun Laws only deprive the responsible person from the ability to protect themselves. Criminals are not going to follow the law anyway so regardless of any form of any gun law, criminals will still want to use guns. If criminals were aware that every single person that they ever intended on victimizing was packing as much heat and probably more, they would think more than twice about actually committing any crimes against an Armed People.

Hmmm, why dont Military Bases get robbed by thugs with guns in ski masks?
 
amy31416 said:
How so?

Do you think you should be able to attack another human being and have a controlled outcome?
Click to expand...

No offense, but I think that sells the wrong idea. Just rephrase a bit.

@zade: Do you think that another human being who is willing to violate the law should have a Right to take what ever they want from you, or do you think you should have the Right to be able to protect yourself?
 
DamianTV said:
No offense, but I think that sells the wrong idea. Just rephrase a bit.

@zade: Do you think that another human being who is willing to violate the law should have a Right to take what ever they want from you, or do you think you should have the Right to be able to protect yourself?
Click to expand...

Perhaps. But all I mean to say is that a reasonable person would contemplate that the person they're thinking of attacking might be carrying (or have access to) a gun/knife/other weapon, a jiu jitsu master, not opposed to violence, etc.

And I realize that we're not talking about reasonable people here, but if you choose to attack someone who's done nothing to you, I don't think you have the right to complain when the other person protects themself by beating you to a pulp. Which is close to what that guy did.
 
TheeJoeGlass said:
He should be charged because he's guilty of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. Just because you get smacked, you don't have the right to beat people like that.
Click to expand...

Please, they attacked him. He had every right to beat them until they stopped moving or fled. He had no idea what they were capable of, their history or if they were armed. He had every right to do whatever he felt was necessary to protect himself.
 
DerailingDaTrain said:
Phones can start recording at an instant these days. I'm sure when the women started insulting him the customer pulled out his phone to record it. However, I must make a statement that some people seemed to have missed. This young man has used a gun before, when he was convicted of killing a fellow classmate at the age of 18 over an argument. So, if he had a gun, he would have just killed these two women instead. His force was excessive but they were extremely rude and even violent towards him so I agree they got what was coming. But, knowing this man's background I think that he has anger issues and poor impulse control, evidenced in the murder of his classmate which landed him in jail for 10 years. So, in the end, guns would not have made this any better but simply worse because now there would be two murder victims and a man in jail for killing them.
Click to expand...


His past is irrelevant since he was the one being assaulted. You're making a big assumption regarding what would or wouldn't have happen if a gun was present. Excessive is matter of opinion. Anger issues, right! That's why he retreated to the back of the store after getting assaulted. If they would have gotten shot I would not use "victims" to describe them.
 
McDonalds Incident Proof Positive That We Need Our Full Gun Rights Restored

And here I thought that the defense authorization bill that was just passed was proof that we need Full Gun Rights restored.

:(
 
DerailingDaTrain said:
He "retreated" to the back to get a weapon and beat these women with it. Your point makes no sense. And yes his past has everything to do with it as he has clearly shown he is quick to react with violence in situations. Couldn't he have just went to the back and stayed there or better yet called the cops and reported these women for assault?
Click to expand...

Apparently you missed the part where the attackers chased him to the back. He retreated to the back and the attackers followed him to continue their assault, that he grabbed a tool to defend himself from further injury is something anyone would do. And no, his past has nothing to do with this situation. You make no sense!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

acptulsa
We Need the Police Because...
Replies
0
Views
19K
acptulsa
acptulsa
Back
Top