| Submit your comments on this article |
| -Lurid Crime Tales- |
| Because vermin like your spawn exist |
| 2016-11-06 |
| HT Insty [TheLibertyZone] The parents of an armed robber shot by a Pizza Hut employee are asking "why?" They're asking why their son was shot by a restaurant worker, rather than law enforcement. They're asking why the employee had a gun. They're asking why their son was shot in the head. The answers are short and sweet: 1) The reason why their son was shot by a restaurant worker rather than law enforcement is because law enforcement wasn't on the scene. 2) The reason why the employee had a gun is because vermin like their spawn exists. 3) The reason he was shot in the head is because he was carrying a handgun during the commission of a crime (edited to add) which was recovered at the scene. Mommy dearest claims the shooting was personal because Michael Grace, Jr. was shot in the head. Why does it matter? This scum and two of his friends walked into a restaurant armed and tried to rob the place. Period. It doesn't matter if the shooting was personal or not. Had he not been in there waving around a pistol, the wouldn't have been shot. Not in the leg. Not in the head. Not anywhere. Mommy dearest claims her spawn wouldn't have hurt anyone. The very fact that he had a gun negates that claim. She claims he'd fallen on hard times and turned to crime to provide for his child. You know… As a kid, I remember my parents hunting through other people's trash for clothing, furniture, and other necessities. Not once did they grab a gun and try to rob a restaurant! I wonder why that is! Perhaps because despite our financial difficulties, my parents are decent people who would never dream of committing an act of violence against another human being or taking by force what was not theirs? What did these parents teach their spawn? That his "rights" included treating others as prey? That he was entitled to assets that did not belong to him? That his need and "desperation" were claim checks to other people's earnings? Their son died as a predator. He walked into a peaceable establishment and tried to make prey out of the employees there. And unfortunately for him, one of his intended prey decided "Not today, motherfucker." His "rights" ended with the muzzle of his gun pointed at another human being. Parents like these are why we can't have nice things. |
| Posted by:Frank G |
| #7 I feel for the parents losing a son, but this is another episode of "Play Stupid Games, Win Stupid Prizes". If their little knucklehead had been shot by the cops, at least they would have the comfort of the community rioting, burning and looting on their behalf. As noted in #1, most stores have a policy against fighting back due to liability concerns over collateral damage. However, the problem for the employees is uncertainty. Is the robber a Willie Sutton type who will grab the money, tip his hat and walk out the door whistling OR is he some low-rent criminal genius who has decided to kill all the witnesses so he can make his getaway unobserved. The victims just don't know and the cost of guessing wrong is extremely high. tl;dr: better to shoot than to die. As for the shot in the head part, the general rule is aim for the center of mass. Maybe the guy just missed a bit, so to speak. |
| Posted by: SteveS 2016-11-06 15:07 |
| #6 "Dude, I know all their security and rules, man. We're cool" |
| Posted by: Frank G 2016-11-06 14:17 |
| #5 They also said their son used to work at the same Pizza Hut restaurant where the robbery happened All too common; it's almost a cliche. |
| Posted by: Pappy 2016-11-06 13:31 |
| #4 4 words: Because he deserved it! 8 words: Because you didn't teach him right from wrong. |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2016-11-06 12:11 |
| #3 How's the fambly supposed to get ahead if de boy cain't go out and "earn?" |
| Posted by: M. Murcek 2016-11-06 11:29 |
| #2 They're asking why their son was shot by a restaurant worker, rather than law enforcement. "What difference does it make." HRC |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2016-11-06 08:58 |
| #1 Comment from the article: Apparently business establishments capable of being robbed by armed violent criminals should never allow their employees to be armed because it’s too dangerous for the armed violent criminals. Most (if not all) large chain stores prohibit concealed carry. Many also refuse to allow employees to confront shoplifters. Others refuse to call the police or jot down license numbers. No bad publicity desired. Consequently, cash paying shoppers pick up the shrinkage tab. If this sounds like Obamacare at the retail level, perhaps it is ! |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2016-11-06 08:16 |