Anybody Else Watching NBC 10?

[LisaA]

Originally Posted by Kodiak

... Wouldnt back down = dead.

Agree with this one hundred percent!

[JoeWilliams]

Originally Posted by granuale

I'm all for punishing him for the robberies, I just like to point out that government coercion restricting liberty has a strong nexus here.

Oh ok. I can see your point. That explains why the legality of things like beer, money, food, tv's, ipods, etc., prevents their being stolen.

Sorry... the government doesn't bear any blame for the choices made by that criminal. Druggies, just like alcoholics, would still steal to support their habits. Simply because drugs are legal doesn't mean those who abuse them would be any less prone to becoming brain dead zombies incapable of productivity or holding down a job.

[granuale]

Originally Posted by adymond

The problem with your argument is that you are assuming that should drugs be more readilly available or cheaper this man would have resorted to gainful employment rather than armed robbery.

Originally Posted by JoeWilliams

Druggies, just like alcoholics, would still steal to support their habits. Simply because drugs are legal doesn't mean those who abuse them would be any less prone to becoming brain dead zombies incapable of productivity or holding down a job.

If crack or heroin were legal, the cost per dose would be so small the guy could panhandle or recycle cans for his fix. Hell it would be cheaper than the box cutters he used.

[autotech6506]

I don't think she hesitated. I think she probably knew that if she had shot him at that point she would be in the wrong. now if he was climbing over the counter, thats another story.

[JoeWilliams]

Originally Posted by CommonHighrise

Theory;

Bad guy has two box cutters. On other side of a chest-high counter, woman draws down firearm. Man with box cutters refuses to leave, and woman holds her fire.

In this situation, while many will say she hesitated, and while hesitation can get you killed, hypothetically her hesitation was warranted. It would all depend on just what was between her and the attacker.

A counter/desk, like I've seen in every single vet office I've been to, would keep the BG from having all the key elements necessary fer her to have a justified shoot. While he had ability to do her harm, and intent, any furniture between an attacker with a knife and armed woman would, arguably, prevent him from having opportunity.

Maybe the woman had drawn her personal line, as many of us talk about doing, at that counter. Any attempt to come over or around it would have her put him down.

Also, there might have been people downrange of the target at her current position, making it even more important to hold her fire until the BG offered no alternative.

Drawn in this context, the woman not only acted appropriately, but very intelligently, by keeping her legal liabilities to a minimum without making any sacrifices towards her own safety.

Again, this is only a theory based on incomplete news reports. Given blueprints and photos of the scene, as well as video footage from different angles, showing the whole are, one can make a more exact summation.

Climbing over the counter would be my line in the sand. Just as it was when I worked in a convenience store.

[adymond]

Originally Posted by granuale

If crack or heroin were legal, the cost per dose would be so small the guy could panhandle or recycle cans for his fix. Hell it would be cheaper than the box cutters he used.

Sorry, but that is one of the dumbest things I have EVER heard in an argument in support of something I agree with. How do you know how cheap crack or heroin would be? We are also talking about a person with a significant habbit. Hell smoking cigs is still legal and it is getting to the point were people are going to start to steal to support that habbit. Sin taxes are just as abhorent as outright prohibition.

Just because the cost of a habit is less does not mean one who is motivated to break the law for personal gain will not break the law for personal gain.

Originally Posted by autotech6506

I don't think she hesitated. I think she probably knew that if she had shot him at that point she would be in the wrong. now if he was climbing over the counter, thats another story.

Actually it would seem to me the whole shouting "Help me! Help me!" would justify the claim that she seems to have hesitated. I also get the impression that he was already behind the counter back in the treatment area based off the LEO saying the guy walked back behind a closed door into the treatment area.

[granuale]

Originally Posted by adymond

Sorry, but that is one of the dumbest things I have EVER heard in an argument in support of something I agree with. How do you know how cheap crack or heroin would be? We are also talking about a person with a significant habbit. Hell smoking cigs is still legal and it is getting to the point were people are going to start to steal to support that habbit. Sin taxes are just as abhorent as outright prohibition.

Just because the cost of a habit is less does not mean one who is motivated to break the law for personal gain will not break the law for personal gain.

As it was made first by the likes of Milton Friedman and followed by William F. Buckley, you'll forgive me if I follow their considered arguments rather than yours.

This is Buckley in '96

This is perhaps the moment to note that the pharmaceutical cost of cocaine and heroin is approximately 2 per cent of the street price of those drugs. Since a cocaine addict can spend as much as $1,000 per week to sustain his habit, he would need to come up with that $1,000. The approximate fencing cost of stolen goods is 80 per cent, so that to come up with $1,000 can require stealing $5,000 worth of jewels, cars, whatever. We can see that at free-market rates, $20 per week would provide the addict with the cocaine which, in this wartime drug situation, requires of him $1,000.