Now they target customers at the counter

D

Deaf Smith

New member
In Lufkin Texas again!

"Just before 10:00 p.m. on Friday, Kindle entered the Dollar General store in the 1400 block of Kurth Drive. While he was standing in line at the checkout counter, the robber came in and stood behind him. When Kindle turned around to look at the person he was shot at close range.

The gunman began demanding money from the clerk, and placed a shopping cart at the entrance to keep the automatic doors from shutting. He seemed to fumble with his weapon while pointing it at the clerk before jumping on top of the counter.

After jumping down, the man rummaged through Kindle's pockets before running from the store into a wooded area toward Loop 287. It is unknown if the man took anything from Kindle. He did not get any money from the store."

http://www.easttexasmatters.com/news/local-news/customer-killed-at-lufkin-dollar-general/851000300

Beware!

Deaf
 
Not an unknown tactic, establishing control by harming or killing one or more individuals in order to convince the rest who have what you are there to get.
 
I have known a few bad guys (usually they were in jail at the time) and, contrary to the usual left wing blather, most never even considered the possibility that they would be captured, brought to trial or imprisoned. They just thought about what they would buy with the stolen money, or whatever they assumed they would get out of their actions. Mostly, those who thought about their motive at all really believed they were victims and that "someone" owed them and they were just collecting what was due them.

That is one reason I have long advocated the shortest possible time between arrest and prison time. It does no good to tell some punk that if he robs a store he may be arrested in a month or so, brought to trial in two or three years (out on bail in the meantime) then appeal for another four or five years, with his lawyer paid by the taxpayers (us). Tell him that if he is caught robbing a store on Tuesday he can forget about that hot date on Friday night because he will be serving the start of a five year sentence with no parole, and you will make an impression.

Jim
 
Little story. Saturday night I was in a restaurant that I happen to enjoy going to that is not in the greatest area. Not a place I avoid and I had taken my kids. I'm at the counter paying and one person is asking the waitress to use a phone due to car problems. Another is standing by the doorway and a third one is asking about getting a refund from the machine that ate his dollar. This is all while I am at the counter paying. I'm standing sideways to the counter because I don't like standing with my back to the doorway or crowd. I moved away from the counter, a couple steps back, and made small talk about how much car trouble sucks with the one while moving my head between all three.

Where they up to something? I have no idea. It seemed odd but the hostess could have been easily distracted by the amount going on. She must have figured something was off too because she had called a manager up and he had had server go get the gentleman asking for a phone the phone.

While I have little doubt some people may not consider the long term consequences most of the time they are looking for the easiest target. Endeavor to be alert. Carry yourself in a manner that those seeking the easiest available target will know that you are not it. You are likely to save yourself from getting into at least some of, if not a lot of, the issues that may otherwise impact your life.
 
James K wrote:
I have known a few bad guys ... They just thought about what they would buy with the stolen money,...
Click to expand...

Agreed.

If they "shoot first and rob later" then you're in trouble.

But, if they're part of the 75% who hesitate to pull the trigger, my father has had good results engaging muggers verbally. He starts by slowly producing a little bit of cash or a valuable, one by one, from every pocket in his clothes using deliberate, repeated hand gestures while handing the item over to draw focus to himself and asking the robber what they are going to do with the money. And if they respond, he develops the conversation focusing on "What did you plan to do today when you woke up?" Nobody has ever said, "Do an armed robbery". By engaging the rational part of the brain and getting it to over rule the limbic system, he has successfully talked his way out of every encounter with a mugger, armed robber, or hard-headed trespasser, since I was a child.

On the other hand, I've managed to do that once. The other two times, I had go go for my gun and the thief decided he'd rather be someplace else.
 
Agreed.

If they "shoot first and rob later" then you're in trouble.

But, if they're part of the 75% who hesitate to pull the trigger, my father has had good results engaging muggers verbally. He starts by slowly producing a little bit of cash or a valuable, one by one, from every pocket in his clothes using deliberate, repeated hand gestures while handing the item over to draw focus to himself and asking the robber what they are going to do with the money. And if they respond, he develops the conversation focusing on "What did you plan to do today when you woke up?" Nobody has ever said, "Do an armed robbery". By engaging the rational part of the brain and getting it to over rule the limbic system, he has successfully talked his way out of every encounter with a mugger, armed robber, or hard-headed trespasser, since I was a child.

On the other hand, I've managed to do that once. The other two times, I had go go for my gun and the thief decided he'd rather be someplace else.
Click to expand...

From my understanding from years of working (driving trucks) through neighborhoods and cities with pandemic drug problems, the very, very few percentage of armed robbers who intentionally kill their targets, especially "shoot first then rob" are ones who are going through the initial throes of drug withdrawal and they know that they need the money right away for their next fix, or they are going to literally go to hell. For them, it is do or die. There was a guy named David Laffer in Long Island, NY, who a few years ago massacred 5 people inside a CVS Pharmacy to raid it's register and it's supply of oxycodone pills. Shot them in cold blood because he didn't want to leave any witnesses. There was also another one who tried to remove a gold ring from the finger of a NYC bus driver, and when he couldn't, he nonchalantly sliced off her finger with a hunting knife to pawn the ring and buy speed.

Your usual CCW course, martial arts lesson or defensive handgun course deals with armed holdups where the perp is probably more scared ****less than you are, probably don't even intend to use the gun or knife, or may even be holding a fake weapon. There is very little you can do against someone who would ambush and kill first, and then loot your corpse. There is something about drugs and addiction which would drive a certain percentage of criminals into committing the most vile acts. Or religious/ethnic hatred.

We are both fortunate and unfortunate that these people exist in far fewer numbers than your ordinary snatch and grab mugger. Fortunate in that running into a truly cold blooded psycho is relatively rare unless you live a high risk lifestyle, but unfortunate in that they are purely random, and no one knows where one will strike. Remember, even the Vikings tried to bargain with the villages that they raided and tried to negotiate ransom before they broke out the sharp pointy things.
 
...so we're supposed to throw due process out the window?
Click to expand...
"Due Process" mean nothing more/less than simple application of Law -- instead of Red Queen summary judgement and execution by arbitrary denial of life, liberty, or property by the government outside the sanction of that Law.

That there are now exponentially increasing impediments to swift and clean prosecution of justice is JamesK's point.

...and that justice indeterminably delayed is not only justice denied, but neither deterrent nor resolution to career criminals,
 
James K said:
I have known a few bad guys (usually they were in jail at the time) and, contrary to the usual left wing blather, most never even considered the possibility that they would be captured, brought to trial or imprisoned. They just thought about what they would buy with the stolen money, or whatever they assumed they would get out of their actions. Mostly, those who thought about their motive at all really believed they were victims and that "someone" owed them and they were just collecting what was due them.

That is one reason I have long advocated the shortest possible time between arrest and prison time. It does no good to tell some punk that if he robs a store he may be arrested in a month or so, brought to trial in two or three years (out on bail in the meantime) then appeal for another four or five years, with his lawyer paid by the taxpayers (us). Tell him that if he is caught robbing a store on Tuesday he can forget about that hot date on Friday night because he will be serving the start of a five year sentence with no parole, and you will make an impression.

Jim
Click to expand...


Keeping in mind there will always be a certain level of criminal activity, if the punishment for a particular crime isn't enough to deter someone from committing that crime, assuming there is adequate enforcement, then the punishment needs to be increased until the problem is eliminated.
 
I think James K has a pretty good point here. Credit companies have known it for years. Think of the "no payments until ______" lines. A lot of people are not good at considering long term consequences.
 
Due process should mean enough time to obtain counsel and be prepared for trial. It should not mean months, even years, of bail time while the legal eagle uses every delaying tactic he/she can think of so the accused will have time to steal enough money to pay the "counsel".

Jim
 
And who exactly gets to decide how much time is enough time to prepare for trial? Decisions such as that are already being made by judges. Defendants have the right to bail. They have the right to negotiate plea deals. They have the right to go over all the evidence against them and devise a defense. Going through all the steps courts go through takes time--months--even longer.

I just spent the last 16 months waiting for a trial against someone I almost shot to go through the courts. Everything took time. I had to wait for the attorneys to go back and forth on a plea deal. I had to wait for the probation department to get its reports together. I had to wait for pre-sentencing and post conviction reports. Every single step towards him going to prison took time. Did I like it? Hell no! He was guilty, everyone involved in the case knew it, and it was for much worse than stealing. But that's our system. He had rights that had to be honored, and I wouldn't have it any other way. In the end, he got 9 well deserved years.

Our system is based on the premise that the accused is innocent until proven guilty. That's why court cases take as long as they do to get resolved. Even the obviously guilty have rights. I don't want to trade that premise for expediency.
 
SonOfScubaDiver said:
Our system is based on the premise that the accused is innocent until proven guilty. That's why court cases take as long as they do to get resolved. Even the obviously guilty have rights. I don't want to trade that premise for expediency.
Click to expand...

I agree with the concept that everyone is innocent until proven guilty and that everyone has legal rights. What I don't agree with is that the process can't be sped up without sacrificing someone's legal rights.
 
Our system is based on the premise that the accused is innocent until proven guilty. That's why court cases take as long as they do to get resolved. Even the obviously guilty have rights. I don't want to trade that premise for expediency.
Click to expand...
So...
If you have nine witnesses, clear surveillance footage, an admission from the accused, and six pieces of physical evidence that cannot be discounted, you still think it should take six to forty months for a conviction - all the while, having the accused out on bail, doing more stupid stuff because he knows he's going to jail anyway?
 
A speedy trial is important to the innocent as well. Granted that time must be made for reasonable discovery and a defense but imagine the weight that hangs over your head as you wait for a trial to protest your innocence.
 
Some old behaviorist analyses of prison and punishment as behavior changes indicated that unless punishment was applied very quickly after the offense it had no effect in preventing future actions. A shorter and less severe punishment that was applied quickly was better than a more severe but delayed punishment.

In any case, punishment in general wasn't that useful as a behavior changer as people and lab animals just tried to figure out how to avoid the punishment.

Changing the motivation was more successful. How we do that in our justice system - well, folks have been talking about that for a long time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top