The YOUTHS strike again in Dallas: mob robbery of convenience store
- Thread starter Artful D0dger
- Start date
M
morganist
Bearice shit is raging fire.
Hey I am the first one to acknowledge the difference in races.
I played in a competitive sport and I was amazed at how frequently the fast guys and the quick guys were the black guys. I wanted their speed, because I had the rest of the game.
But I have been friends with a black professor and a black doctor... I had no desire to make generalizations about black people.
However, I do have a problem with the way democrats had destroyed inner cites and black culture with their victimization and hand out theology.
Culturism is far more rational and racism.
I too have had several black friends, a couple of which were reasonably accomplished professionals. However, I don't think we should allow that to stand between us and intellectual honestly, do you understand where I'm coming from in terms of that?
I've posted this before, and I'll do so again:
In theory, we have the intellectual and moral tools to defuse the dangers. "Is" does not imply "ought." Group differences, when they exist, pertain to averages, not to individual men and women. There are geniuses and dullards, saints and sinners, in every race, ethnicity, and gender. Political equality is a commitment to universal human rights, and to policies that treat people as individuals rather than as representatives of groups; it is not an empirical claim that people are indistinguishable. Many commentators seem unwilling to grasp these points.
Just because we can pick out single exceptions doesn't negate the existence of groups averages and tendencies, and just because we can isolate specific exceptions, doesn't mean that said tendencies aren't biological, genetic, or otherwise congenital in nature. Science is already more or less there, it's the journalists and the academics who are seeking to re-render the truth in the image of their world view. Acknowledging these group averages and tendencies, and acknowledging their congenital nature doesn't mean that we must shape policy around those facts, that we must have different sets of policies and rules applied to different groups, and I don't suggest that we ought to.
However, it's ironic that we ALREADY have policy based on skin color. Laws concerning college admissions, education funding, hiring, lending, promotions, and other things all already assume that some groups are inferior to other groups. There is irony to be found in the fact that the VERY people who oppose the scientific acknowledgement of group differences, are the most vocal advocates and supporters of racial discrimination policies which presume that some groups are inferior to other groups.
I don't know what you mean by saying that "culturism" is far more rational than racism. Why do you suppose ethnic/racial communities have similarity in their social outcomes even when separated from their ethnic region of origin for many centuries, with very little "cultural" commonality? It could be argued that culture and race have some link to them, or that there is some biological basis for culture, and many sociobiolgists would agree. For example, in being completely intellectually honest, could you identify any "cultural" commonalities between black Africans and black Americans? Despite the fact that blacks in America have been here for many centuries and have had little to no cultural influence from Africa do you see any features which the black community in America which still resembles that of sub saharan Africa? Do you see any of those resemblances in Haiti? Jamaica? South Central LA? Black communities throughout the world? What about hispanic communities? Do those resemble hispanic civilizations and nations? Why is it that in interracial adoptions that adoptees still tend to revert to the averages of their genetic group?
To go a step further out, what does any of this have to do with "hate"?
I've posted this before, and I'll do so again:
In theory, we have the intellectual and moral tools to defuse the dangers. "Is" does not imply "ought." Group differences, when they exist, pertain to averages, not to individual men and women. There are geniuses and dullards, saints and sinners, in every race, ethnicity, and gender. Political equality is a commitment to universal human rights, and to policies that treat people as individuals rather than as representatives of groups; it is not an empirical claim that people are indistinguishable. Many commentators seem unwilling to grasp these points.
Just because we can pick out single exceptions doesn't negate the existence of groups averages and tendencies, and just because we can isolate specific exceptions, doesn't mean that said tendencies aren't biological, genetic, or otherwise congenital in nature. Science is already more or less there, it's the journalists and the academics who are seeking to re-render the truth in the image of their world view. Acknowledging these group averages and tendencies, and acknowledging their congenital nature doesn't mean that we must shape policy around those facts, that we must have different sets of policies and rules applied to different groups, and I don't suggest that we ought to.
However, it's ironic that we ALREADY have policy based on skin color. Laws concerning college admissions, education funding, hiring, lending, promotions, and other things all already assume that some groups are inferior to other groups. There is irony to be found in the fact that the VERY people who oppose the scientific acknowledgement of group differences, are the most vocal advocates and supporters of racial discrimination policies which presume that some groups are inferior to other groups.
I don't know what you mean by saying that "culturism" is far more rational than racism. Why do you suppose ethnic/racial communities have similarity in their social outcomes even when separated from their ethnic region of origin for many centuries, with very little "cultural" commonality? It could be argued that culture and race have some link to them, or that there is some biological basis for culture, and many sociobiolgists would agree. For example, in being completely intellectually honest, could you identify any "cultural" commonalities between black Africans and black Americans? Despite the fact that blacks in America have been here for many centuries and have had little to no cultural influence from Africa do you see any features which the black community in America which still resembles that of sub saharan Africa? Do you see any of those resemblances in Haiti? Jamaica? South Central LA? Black communities throughout the world? What about hispanic communities? Do those resemble hispanic civilizations and nations? Why is it that in interracial adoptions that adoptees still tend to revert to the averages of their genetic group?
To go a step further out, what does any of this have to do with "hate"?
Why is it that to acknowledge the (very obvious) fact that racial groups have biological differences which extend well beyond "skin color", must necessarily conclude in the assertion that one is "better" or "worse"? Is it not supremacist in nature to think that blacks, hispanics, or any other group should be able and willing to conform to white social standards, concepts of achievement, and cultural norms? Is that not to assert that yours is better than theirs? Of course, you've noticed that the billions of dollars thrown at trying to turn black people into white people has mostly been a failure... That despite all the money, and all the effort, that differences still exist. Welfare or lack of welfare has failed to change this. Seems rather odd to conclude that there's no innate differences, no? But, what's the great moral travesty of acknowledging that group differences exist?
With a mob like that coming at me, the last place I would stand is by the register. For all one knows they may be coming to take the money.
Actually he was covered under the castle doctrine once they started robbing the store
§ 29.02. ROBBERY. (a) A person commits an offense if, in
the course of committing theft as defined in Chapter 31 and with
intent to obtain or maintain control of the property, he:
(1) intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly causes
bodily injury to another; or
(2) intentionally or knowingly threatens or places
another in fear of imminent bodily injury or death.
AN ACT
relating to the use of force or deadly force in defense of a person.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
SECTION 1. Section 9.01, Penal Code, is amended by adding Subdivisions (4) and (5) to read as follows:
(4) âHabitationâ has the meaning assigned by Section 30.01.
(5) âVehicleâ has the meaning assigned by Section 30.01.
SECTION 2. Section 9.31, Penal Code, is amended by amending Subsection (a) and adding Subsections (e) and (f) to read as follows:
(a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor [he] reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor [himself] against the otherâs use or attempted use of unlawful force. The actorâs belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:
(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force was used:
(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actorâs occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;
(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actorâs habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or
(C) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;
(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and
(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.
(e) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the force is used is not required to retreat before using force as described by this section.
(f) For purposes of Subsection (a), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (e) reasonably believed that the use of force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.
SECTION 3. Section 9.32, Penal Code, is amended to read as follows:
Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:
(1) if the actor [he] would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and
(2) [if a reasonable person in the actor's situation would not have retreated; and
[(3)] when and to the degree the actor [he] reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to protect the actor [himself] against the otherâs use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or
(B) to prevent the otherâs imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.
(b) The actorâs belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:
(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was used:
(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actorâs occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;
(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actorâs habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or
(C) was committing or attempting to commit an offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(B);
(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and
(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used [requirement imposed by Subsection (a)(2) does not apply to an actor who uses force against a person who is at the time of the use of force committing an offense of unlawful entry in the habitation of the actor].
(c) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this section.
(d) For purposes of Subsection (a)(2), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (c) reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.
SECTION 4. Section 83.001, Civil Practice and Remedies Code, is amended to read as follows:
Sec. 83.001. CIVIL IMMUNITY [AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE]. A [It is an affirmative defense to a civil action for damages for personal injury or death that the] defendant who uses force or[, at the time the cause of action arose, was justified in using] deadly force that is justified under Chapter 9 [Section 9.32], Penal Code, is immune from civil liability for personal injury or death that results from the defendantâs [against a person who at the time of the] use of force or deadly force, as applicable [was committing an offense of unlawful entry in the habitation of the defendant].
SECTION 5. (a) Sections 9.31 and 9.32, Penal Code, as amended by this Act, apply only to an offense committed on or after the effective date of this Act. An offense committed before the effective date of this Act is covered by the law in effect when the offense was committed, and the former law is continued in effect for this purpose. For the purposes of this subsection, an offense is committed before the effective date of this Act if any element of the offense occurs before the effective date.
(b) Section 83.001, Civil Practice and Remedies Code, as amended by this Act, applies only to a cause of action that accrues on or after the effective date of this Act. An action that accrued before the effective date of this Act is governed by the law in effect at the time the action accrued, and that law is continued in effect for that purpose.
SECTION 6. This Act takes effect September 1, 2007.
IQ 47 pearl of the week: What's the safest place in a store during a robbery?
By the register, of course
By the register, of course
Eventually the mob might have went for the register but fact is while he was there they didn't.I said he should have went to the stores office and called the police not take a permanent position behind the register and definitely not get in the middle of the crowd and try to stop them
I'm not sure he could have starting shooting them before they attacked or threatened him.Technically they were shoplifting it wasn't robbery or arm robbery.The event takes place in Texas so he might have gotten away with it but in most states clerks wont get away with shooting someone for shoplifting
Quote from Artful D0dger:
IQ 47 pearl of the week: What's the safest place in a store during a robbery?
By the register, of course
No,re read my posts I stated he should have went to the stores office(where they keep the safe) where it is usually pretty secure
Well what about it mr. sassy britches? I answered your questions. You said 'this is going to be good', but no one has even responded. Guess they weren't what you were expecting? 