Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * - - - 4 votes

Robbed at gunpoint


  • Please log in to reply
173 replies to this topic

#1    OverSword

OverSword

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 14,429 posts
  • Joined:16 Oct 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Seattle WA USA

  • I love chocolate

Posted 23 May 2014 - 07:09 PM

From the article:

A Durham, North Carolina restaurant with a sign on its front door reading, "No Weapons, No Concealed Firearms," was robbed at gunpoint on May 19.

Gunsnfreedom.com published a photograph of the sign on May 21, making "The Pit" restaurant a self-declared gun free zone--the same kind of zone Michael Bloomberg and Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America pressure other restaurants into becoming.
According to Durham's ABC 11, around 9 PM "three men wearing hoodies entered the restaurant through the back doors with pistols, and forced several staff members to lie on the floor." The armed men "also assaulted two employees during the crime."
The suspects are still on the loose.
When Chipotle announced their intended gun ban by saying the sight of law-abiding citizens carrying guns caused customers "anxiety and discomfort," Breitbart News responded with a simple question:


If law-abiding citizens caused customers "anxiety and discomfort," what will those customers feel like when a criminal enters Chipotle, now confident that no victim in the restaurant is allowed to have a gun which which to fight back?



read it here


#2    freetoroam

freetoroam

    Honourary member of the UM asylum

  • Member
  • 8,178 posts
  • Joined:11 Nov 2012
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:rivers and canals of England and Wales.

  • If you didn't see it with your own eyes, or hear it with your own ears, don't invent it with your small mind and share it with your big mouth!

Posted 23 May 2014 - 07:28 PM

Have just looked it up and it seems there are quite a few gun shops there, 18 listed, its not a gun free area, so to put a sign up telling people you have no guns in your shop is really asking for trouble. Looked at the crime rates and its not crime free zone so the shop was just attracting the robbers with that sign.

In an ideal World a law would be passed were NO guns were allowed and all those out there destroyed, trouble is the law makers are not going to take a risk of trying to pass that without making sure they are armed first.

#3    Lilly

Lilly

    Forum Divinity

  • 17,303 posts
  • Joined:16 Apr 2004
  • Gender:Female

  • "To thine own self be true" William Shakespeare

Posted 23 May 2014 - 07:33 PM

Yeah, a 'no guns here' rule at that location could indeed backfire on them.

"Ignorance is ignorance. It is a state of mind, not an opinion." ~MID~

Posted Image

#4    jamesjr191

jamesjr191

    Astral Projection

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 635 posts
  • Joined:20 Feb 2014
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:North Carolina, USA

  • S*** happens, again and again.

Posted 23 May 2014 - 08:12 PM

I live in North Carolina about 60 miles from Durham. We have some of the same idiot businesses here. HA! :w00t: maybe they will take the dumb a** signs done now!

Edited by jamesjr191, 23 May 2014 - 08:12 PM.

I created the Sound of Madness.

Wrote the book on pain.

Somehow I'm still here,

To explain,


When you gonna wake up and fight... for yourself?


#5    The Exorcist

The Exorcist

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 101 posts
  • Joined:28 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:United Kingdom

Posted 23 May 2014 - 08:54 PM

So what if none of the customers had a gun because the restaurant prohibited them? What were they supposed to do if they did have a gun? Take the law into their own hands and shoot the robbers, or try to scare them off? This kind of "Wild West" cowboy mentality is something very much particular to the US - other western countries just don't think like that (I'm not in any way bashing your wonderful country).

If one of them did have a gun and decided to use it, there is the strong chance that they would end up killing or seriously injuring the robbers - this would lead to the heros being arrested and possibly charged with murder. You can't just use a gun in self-defence so liberally. The legal defence of self-defence only applies if the force used by the victim is proportional to the force used, or perceived threat posed, by the perpetrator. In a case like this, gun or no guns, the people in the restaurant and the owners of the establishment would have been well-advised to cooperate with the robbers and give them what they wanted (money, I'd suppose). Even if the people there did have weapons, it would not have been a good idea to go about waving guns like some bloody Clint Eastwood.

As to the possibility that had the "no guns" sign not been there, the robbers would not have committed the crime in the first place (i.e. the customers having guns would have acted as a deterrent), then that's a whole other matter, and not the subject of what I am debating here. Robberies take place, guns or not.

Edit: typo

Edited by Exorcist, 23 May 2014 - 09:06 PM.

"Now I am become death, the destroyer of worlds."

#6    Mantis914

Mantis914

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,209 posts
  • Joined:26 Jun 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Lone Star State

  • You have shown me a strange image, and they are strange prisoners. Plato

Posted 23 May 2014 - 09:35 PM

View PostExorcist, on 23 May 2014 - 08:54 PM, said:

So what if none of the customers had a gun because the restaurant prohibited them? What were they supposed to do if they did have a gun? Take the law into their own hands and shoot the robbers, or try to scare them off? This kind of "Wild West" cowboy mentality is something very much particular to the US - other western countries just don't think like that (I'm not in any way bashing your wonderful country).

If one of them did have a gun and decided to use it, there is the strong chance that they would end up killing or seriously injuring the robbers - this would lead to the heros being arrested and possibly charged with murder. You can't just use a gun in self-defence so liberally. The legal defence of self-defence only applies if the force used by the victim is proportional to the force used, or perceived threat posed, by the perpetrator. In a case like this, gun or no guns, the people in the restaurant and the owners of the establishment would have been well-advised to cooperate with the robbers and give them what they wanted (money, I'd suppose). Even if the people there did have weapons, it would not have been a good idea to go about waving guns like some bloody Clint Eastwood.

As to the possibility that had the "no guns" sign not been there, the robbers would not have committed the crime in the first place (i.e. the customers having guns would have acted as a deterrent), then that's a whole other matter, and not the subject of what I am debating here. Robberies take place, guns or not.

Edit: typo

But its ok for the robbers to go around terrorizing and waving guns or knives all over the place and hurting as many people as possible because they have civil rights and we don't want to infringe on that now would we?  Pssh, please...

There's nothing Wild West about defending yourself and there certainly isn't anything "cowboy" about it either.  I'm glad people are finally saying "enough is enough", we're not dealing with people who are content with robbing you, there's no telling what else may have happened, God forbid a wife and kids get brought into it also... If you know what you are doing and are capable of getting the situation at hand under control like gun owners go through in training, I don't see where there is a problem unless it turns into a hostage situation where you will need professionals to deal with that.

Who's side would you be on in a case like this?

http://eaglerising.c...e-hero-stopped/


#7    OverSword

OverSword

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 14,429 posts
  • Joined:16 Oct 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Seattle WA USA

  • I love chocolate

Posted 23 May 2014 - 09:58 PM

View PostExorcist, on 23 May 2014 - 08:54 PM, said:

So what if none of the customers had a gun because the restaurant prohibited them? What were they supposed to do if they did have a gun? Take the law into their own hands and shoot the robbers, or try to scare them off? This kind of "Wild West" cowboy mentality is something very much particular to the US - other western countries just don't think like that (I'm not in any way bashing your wonderful country).

If one of them did have a gun and decided to use it, there is the strong chance that they would end up killing or seriously injuring the robbers - this would lead to the heros being arrested and possibly charged with murder. You can't just use a gun in self-defence so liberally. The legal defence of self-defence only applies if the force used by the victim is proportional to the force used, or perceived threat posed, by the perpetrator. In a case like this, gun or no guns, the people in the restaurant and the owners of the establishment would have been well-advised to cooperate with the robbers and give them what they wanted (money, I'd suppose). Even if the people there did have weapons, it would not have been a good idea to go about waving guns like some bloody Clint Eastwood.

As to the possibility that had the "no guns" sign not been there, the robbers would not have committed the crime in the first place (i.e. the customers having guns would have acted as a deterrent), then that's a whole other matter, and not the subject of what I am debating here. Robberies take place, guns or not.

Edit: typo
The reason the robbers felt comfortable going in there is because they could be 99.999% sure they would be unopposed.


#8    The Exorcist

The Exorcist

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 101 posts
  • Joined:28 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:United Kingdom

Posted 23 May 2014 - 10:01 PM

View PostMantis914, on 23 May 2014 - 09:35 PM, said:

But its ok for the robbers to go around terrorizing and waving guns or knives all over the place and hurting as many people as possible because they have civil rights and we don't want to infringe on that now would we?  Pssh, please...

There's nothing Wild West about defending yourself and there certainly isn't anything "cowboy" about it either.  I'm glad people are finally saying "enough is enough", we're not dealing with people who are content with robbing you, there's no telling what else may have happened, God forbid a wife and kids get brought into it also... If you know what you are doing and are capable of getting the situation at hand under control like gun owners go through in training, I don't see where there is a problem unless it turns into a hostage situation where you will need professionals to deal with that.

Who's side would you be on in a case like this?

http://eaglerising.c...e-hero-stopped/

I would obviously be on the side of the victims. But this is a matter of what is legal and what is not - it is not legal for citizens to take the law into their owns hands, and for good reason. This would lead to anarchy, and it would eventually spiral out of control, with vigilante gangs. This has happened before. That it why it is necessary to make it unlawful for a citizen to administer justice themselves. Allowing people with guns to defend themselves in public would open the door for a whole host of problems, legal and moral. We as citizens are protected by the police. I know this is not a perfect system, but it is the best system, considering all things.

"Now I am become death, the destroyer of worlds."

#9    Mantis914

Mantis914

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,209 posts
  • Joined:26 Jun 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Lone Star State

  • You have shown me a strange image, and they are strange prisoners. Plato

Posted 23 May 2014 - 10:32 PM

View PostExorcist, on 23 May 2014 - 10:01 PM, said:

I would obviously be on the side of the victims. But this is a matter of what is legal and what is not - it is not legal for citizens to take the law into their owns hands, and for good reason. This would lead to anarchy, and it would eventually spiral out of control, with vigilante gangs. This has happened before. That it why it is necessary to make it unlawful for a citizen to administer justice themselves. Allowing people with guns to defend themselves in public would open the door for a whole host of problems, legal and moral. We as citizens are protected by the police. I know this is not a perfect system, but it is the best system, considering all things.

Totally disagree and for these reasons:

1.  http://crimeblog.dal...-at-large.html/

Police took almost up to an hour to show up and in most metropolitan areas this has been the norm, it maybe that they are overloaded with calls, who knows but if your life is being threatened at that very moment and you have the means to stand up for yourself... why not?

2.  There hasn't been a case of vigilantes arming themselves that I can ever recall and the closest thing I can think of that ever happened remotely close to that was when Richard Ramirez, the night stalker was caught.

3.  Again, gun owners, the responsible ones, go through training and are not just out waving guns around like the criminals are and doing drive by shootings killing children in the process so that kind of thinking needs to be thrown out of the window.  This is not about being judge, jury and executioner, this is about saving lives if you are capable and willing to accept that responsibility.  I don't think anyone (except the criminals) takes any pleasure in watching someone bleed to death right in front of them but it beats cowering in fear while your wife, child or possibly self gets raped and killed or worse.  And forget if they are on angel dust or worse, you may end up in their stomach...


#10    aztek

aztek

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 6,965 posts
  • Joined:12 Nov 2006

Posted 23 May 2014 - 11:00 PM

View PostExorcist, on 23 May 2014 - 10:01 PM, said:

. We as citizens are protected by the police.

no we are not,  and USSC says so, not me.

the rest of your post is effectively turns worthless by this phrase alone. you are wrong on all counts.

we are not punishing anyone, nor taking justice onto our hands, we are stopping a crime and protecting ourselves from that crime, which is NOT a police job.
again refer to USSC for more explanations on police duty. and also see what verb to police actually means, it has nothing to do with protecting,

Edited by aztek, 23 May 2014 - 11:05 PM.

RESIDENT TROLL.

#11    andy4

andy4

    Conspiracy Theorist

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 982 posts
  • Joined:16 Nov 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fl

  • When the power of love overcomes the love of power, there will be peace.

Posted 23 May 2014 - 11:19 PM

View PostExorcist, on 23 May 2014 - 08:54 PM, said:

So what if none of the customers had a gun because the restaurant prohibited them? What were they supposed to do if they did have a gun? Take the law into their own hands and shoot the robbers, or try to scare them off? This kind of "Wild West" cowboy mentality is something very much particular to the US - other western countries just don't think like that (I'm not in any way bashing your wonderful country).

If one of them did have a gun and decided to use it, there is the strong chance that they would end up killing or seriously injuring the robbers - this would lead to the heros being arrested and possibly charged with murder. You can't just use a gun in self-defence so liberally. The legal defence of self-defence only applies if the force used by the victim is proportional to the force used, or perceived threat posed, by the perpetrator. In a case like this, gun or no guns, the people in the restaurant and the owners of the establishment would have been well-advised to cooperate with the robbers and give them what they wanted (money, I'd suppose). Even if the people there did have weapons, it would not have been a good idea to go about waving guns like some bloody Clint Eastwood.

As to the possibility that had the "no guns" sign not been there, the robbers would not have committed the crime in the first place (i.e. the customers having guns would have acted as a deterrent), then that's a whole other matter, and not the subject of what I am debating here. Robberies take place, guns or not.

Edit: typo

Please stick around here. Seriously.

This topic also shows that guns are used for bad things, surprise surprise. If this was meant to be a "guns are good" thread, than the opposite can be said in the way it was used in this instance, and hence why we are talking about it.

Love your brother as yourself, because you know what? He IS yourself, literally.- Bill Hicks

Dream argument

#12    andy4

andy4

    Conspiracy Theorist

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 982 posts
  • Joined:16 Nov 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fl

  • When the power of love overcomes the love of power, there will be peace.

Posted 23 May 2014 - 11:20 PM

View PostOverSword, on 23 May 2014 - 09:58 PM, said:

The reason the robbers felt comfortable going in there is because they could be 99.999% sure they would be unopposed.

Yeahhhh gooo guns!!! Help rob those stores baby!!!!

Love your brother as yourself, because you know what? He IS yourself, literally.- Bill Hicks

Dream argument

#13    freetoroam

freetoroam

    Honourary member of the UM asylum

  • Member
  • 8,178 posts
  • Joined:11 Nov 2012
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:rivers and canals of England and Wales.

  • If you didn't see it with your own eyes, or hear it with your own ears, don't invent it with your small mind and share it with your big mouth!

Posted 23 May 2014 - 11:39 PM

View PostExorcist, on 23 May 2014 - 10:01 PM, said:

I would obviously be on the side of the victims. But this is a matter of what is legal and what is not - it is not legal for citizens to take the law into their owns hands, and for good reason. This would lead to anarchy, and it would eventually spiral out of control, with vigilante gangs. This has happened before. That it why it is necessary to make it unlawful for a citizen to administer justice themselves. Allowing people with guns to defend themselves in public would open the door for a whole host of problems, legal and moral. We as citizens are protected by the police. I know this is not a perfect system, but it is the best system, considering all things.
There was a time i would have backed you up on this, but not anymore. After reading and being told how the Americans live with guns in their lives, its a whole different kettle of fish to our way of thinking in the UK and to be quite honest, although I am anti guns, I can see where they are coming from. It is a way of life we do not experience here. I am just grateful we do not have the gun issues here, thats because here they are illegal and are not part of the household "must haves".
If we ever got in a position where there were gun shops on most street corners and the criminals all carried one, then no doubt the law abiding public would eventually follow suit if the police lost control and were no longer in a position to protect the public at all times.
If a restaurant put up a sign like that in England people would be confused and ask why? we have no gun here, but in the USA people ask why? we do have guns here, thats just inviting the robbers in.

In an ideal World a law would be passed were NO guns were allowed and all those out there destroyed, trouble is the law makers are not going to take a risk of trying to pass that without making sure they are armed first.

#14    andy4

andy4

    Conspiracy Theorist

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 982 posts
  • Joined:16 Nov 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fl

  • When the power of love overcomes the love of power, there will be peace.

Posted 23 May 2014 - 11:44 PM

View Postfreetoroam, on 23 May 2014 - 11:39 PM, said:


There was a time i would have backed you up on this, but not anymore. After reading and being told how the Americans live with guns in their lives, its a whole different kettle of fish to our way of thinking in the UK and to be quite honest, although I am anti guns, I can see where they are coming from. It is a way of life we do not experience here. I am just grateful we do not have the gun issues here, thats because here they are illegal and are not part of the household "must haves".
If we ever got in a position where there were gun shops on most street corners and the criminals all carried one, then no doubt the law abiding public would eventually follow suit if the police lost control and were no longer in a position to protect the public at all times.
If a restaurant put up a sign like that in England people would be confused and ask why? we have no gun here, but in the USA people ask why? we do have guns here, thats just inviting the robbers in.

I'd put up that sign and just sit in the corner with a gun, waiting, hoping, to blow someone's head off.

Sarcasm, yes.

Love your brother as yourself, because you know what? He IS yourself, literally.- Bill Hicks

Dream argument

#15    spartan max2

spartan max2

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 3,108 posts
  • Joined:15 Nov 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ohio

  • People get mad when it rains or it shines but no one gets mad at the moon

Posted 24 May 2014 - 12:13 AM

If I owned a store I would put a sign up that says something like

" We have guns and we dont call the police"

See how many people rob my store compared to the one across the street with the no gun sign :tu:

" I imagine that the intellegent people are the ones so intellegent that they dont even need or want to look "intellegent" anymore".
Criss Jami




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users