Ace of Spades HQ

September 17, 2013

In France, Outrage Grows Over Jeweler Charged in Killing of Lawless Thug
— Ace

@comradearthur notes that the voyou had 14 charges to his name, and I think he was only 19 years old. He says that that should put him in a special legal class -- "Outlaw."

I kind of like that idea, except for the drawback that people might start shooting in more gray-area situations figuring, "Hey, maybe I'll get lucky and it'll turn out this guy is officially Outlaw."

Anyway, here's AP's story (in English).

Jewelers in southern France say they're being targeted as never before and lack the resources to protect themselves.
"It was a difficult situation. I don't know how I would have reacted myself. I don't endorse what he did, but he had been beaten and threatened with death," Yan Turk, the son of the jeweler, told the Nice Matin paper. "We've had it with being targeted by robbers."
The young man killed, 19-year-old Anthony Asli, had been in trouble as a juvenile and was freed about a month ago from his most recent stint in detention, shedding his own electronic bracelet and moving in with a longtime girlfriend who is pregnant with their child. Asli's family described him as impressionable and immature.
"The family's not condoning the robbery. They're not condoning it and they're not excusing it. It was Anthony's fault. But did he deserve to die in these conditions?" their lawyer, Olivier Castellacci, said Tuesday. "We don't have, in France, the notion of taking justice into your own hands. The family is revolted by that."
But France has seen a spate of high-profile jewelry thefts lately, and Castellacci said the mobilization in support of the jeweler is a reflection of unease with increasing violence.
The robbery was carried out with a shotgun, he said. It wasn't clear whether Asli and the accomplice both had firearms.

Yeah the family is going on a press tour saying how terrible it is that the jeweler isn't behind bars yet (he's under house arrest, with electronic surveillance).

I guess I understand that... as it's their family they're talking about. But there is an awful lot of anger at the jeweler for, let's face it, taking care of a problem of a longstanding and chronic nature.

The article mentions another jewelry heist that took place this past summer, in Cannes. That robbery was more successful and lucrative -- to the tune of $136 million.

A state prosecutor says the organizer of a diamond exhibit and sale has more than doubled the estimated value of diamond jewelry stolen in a brazen weekend heist at a luxury hotel on the French Riviera Â— to some $136 million.
The elevated value of the jewels taken has caused some in the French press to dub it the "Heist of the Century."
Police had previously said Sunday's theft at the Carlton Intercontinental Hotel had netted euro40 million ($53 million) in loot Â— even at that level, one of biggest jewelry heists in recent years.
Assistant prosecutor Philippe Vique said the Dubai-based organizer of the diamond show has raised the value based on a more complete inventory.

Mm-hm.

Not only that, but earlier, during the actual Cannes film festival, thieves stole over $1 million in jewelry intended to be worn by visiting celebrities from a hotel safe.

There's even a gang of East Europeans called the Pink Panther gang stealing gems left and right.

So it's open season on French jewelers. But then someone painted a sign that said "Thug Season" and everyone goes crazy over it.

The odd thing is that these cases always seem to attract too much prosecutorial attention and interest. If there had been no shooting, and if the thugs were simply caught, they probably would have been jailed for like six months.

And the jeweler knows this. And he's watching his money go riding down the street on a scooter.

So he shoots the punk, to keep his money from being stolen, and now he's facing the kissing cousin of a murder rap.

Personally I think fleeing this sort of crime constitutes a continuation of the crime and the law of self-defense should continue to apply. It's silly to think that people will not shoot a fleeing robber escaping with their hard earned money-- especially after that robber just used a shotgun to force the victim to open a safe.

Laws should be written in comportment with human behavior. It is normal human behavior to shoot a fleeing punk in this situation. The law should therefore bless it.

The law should not be an ass.

The law should be written to make sense to the common man, not the exceptional one. Perhaps an exceptional man places so much value on the life of the man who just beat him, threatened him with a shotgun, and stole his fortune that he would rather let a fleeing robber escape than fire a shot at him.

But the common man doesn't feel this way. And the law should demand a basic level of good behavior, not a heroic level.

Posted by: Ace at 03:09 PM | Comments (159)
Post contains 858 words, total size 5 kb.

1 Da Bears are 2-0

Posted by: navycopjoe at September 17, 2013 03:11 PM (vJL//)

2 sigh...at least france is on the right side of this issue.....

Posted by: phoenixgirl @phxazgrl at September 17, 2013 03:11 PM (8JJ6O)

the frogs are fighting back?

good on them

Posted by: navycopjoe at September 17, 2013 03:12 PM (vJL//)

4 Those shotguns sure do get around.
Joe Biden approves.

Posted by: Bertram Cabot Jr. at September 17, 2013 03:12 PM (CWLFZ)

5 We don't have, in France, the notion of taking justice into your own hands.

Posted by: Lawyerese - The Universal Language at September 17, 2013 03:12 PM (EZl54)

6 >>> The robbery was carried out with a shotgun BLAM!!! Don't screw with me, Fella!

Posted by: f at September 17, 2013 03:13 PM (ZNrhs)

7 So it's open season on French jewelers. Finally! *exasperated eye roll*

Posted by: bonhomme at September 17, 2013 03:13 PM (yETln)

8 >>> Don't screw with me, Fella! You suck at sock-puppeting.

Posted by: Joey Buckshot at September 17, 2013 03:13 PM (ZNrhs)

19-year-old Anthony Asli

looks likes some cars are going to be burning soon

Posted by: navycopjoe at September 17, 2013 03:14 PM (vJL//)

10 Ace,

That revaluation of the stolen jewels in Cannes sounds like bullshit to me.

I used to work for a high-value shipper that moved diamonds and jewels all over the world for this kind of stuff, and the inventories were airtight. Down to the tiniest earring, and which container each piece was in.They had to be, for the insurance.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at September 17, 2013 03:15 PM (gqgiP)

11 >>> Da Bears are 2-0 Have they questioned your intentions as a hunter?

Posted by: fluffy at September 17, 2013 03:15 PM (ZNrhs)

12 We don't have, in France, the notion of taking justice into your own hands. Violence should only be done under the official color of state.

Posted by: Stalin at September 17, 2013 03:15 PM (yETln)

13 does French jewelry also smell like cigarettes and stale beer?

Posted by: navycopjoe at September 17, 2013 03:16 PM (vJL//)

14 Turks killing mooselimps. Fry the sucker.

Posted by: Boss Moss former editor of the Harvard Law Review at September 17, 2013 03:16 PM (0axsw)

15 You're already late, navycopjob.

Posted by: French Muslim Youth at September 17, 2013 03:16 PM (yETln)

16 No matter how screwed up we become in the States, we'll always have the French to laugh at. We got that going for us.

Posted by: dfbaskwill at September 17, 2013 03:17 PM (ndlFj)

17 What does French outrage look like?

Posted by: le soothsayier (the french version) at September 17, 2013 03:17 PM (ziPqS)

18 "It was a difficult situation. I don't know how I would have reacted myself. I don't endorse what he did, but he had been beaten and threatened with death," Yan Turk, the son of the jeweler, told the Nice Matin paper. "We've had it with being targeted by robbers." "I don't endorse what he did" "he had been beaten and threatened with death." These two phrases do not make sense to me when juxtaposed against each other. I read them together and it's like a black hole sucks the words away.

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit Chelsea [/i][/s][/b][/u] at September 17, 2013 03:17 PM (CA2NO)

19 >>>
That revaluation of the stolen jewels in Cannes sounds like bullshit to me.

They stole $136 million and, oh yeah, my Ph.D.

yeah that sounds a little fishy. But then, they stole so much, it would take a while to inventory everything that was gone.

Posted by: ace at September 17, 2013 03:18 PM (/IWYB)

20 >>I kind of like that idea, except for the drawback that people might start shooting in more gray-area situations figuring, "Hey, maybe I'll get lucky and it'll turn out this guy is officially Outlaw.">> I doubt most people will risk hard time on "maybe I'll get lucky."

Posted by: gm at September 17, 2013 03:20 PM (/kBoL)

21 *

Posted by: An Outraged Mime at September 17, 2013 03:20 PM (A7zvX)

22 Actually they do have the notion of taking justice into your own hands. That's what the robbers did. Mind you, they were strangling it to enrich themselves. If I were the family I imagine I would STFU as far as accusing other people. The "we don't condone the robbery" thing is transparently a hollow excuse. People forget there are more than two kinds of homicide in the US. It may vary by jurisdiction but in addition to Murder and Justifiable Homicide, here there are negligent and excusable. Then again half the times juries are bloody-minded or wonko, so who knows what would happen. Or you get court officers like a certain recent Florida case.

Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith [/i] [/b] [/s] [/u] at September 17, 2013 03:20 PM (qyfb5)

23 The law is not an ass. More like anal for law-abiding Frenchmen.

Posted by: Beagle at September 17, 2013 03:20 PM (sOtz/)

24 "Laws should be written in comportment with human behavior."

Laws should not however justify our base instincts. And shooting a fleeing criminal seems to be on the edge of vengeance.

I do get your point, but reductio ad absurdum makes me wonder why the 12-year-old was just shot for shoplifting a pack of gum and a condom.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at September 17, 2013 03:21 PM (gqgiP)

25
He protected himself from both the thugs that robbed him, and the govt that failed to protect him. But I repeat myself.

That's why he's being prosecuted. They're one and the same. It cuts down on welfare paperwork when the 'customer' interfaces directly with the 'supplier'. France is saving just scads of money now that they've cut out the middle man.

Posted by: Sticky Wicket at September 17, 2013 03:21 PM (sCynV)

26 Ace, did you ever see REVOLVER (2005); it's a Guy Ritchie flick. If not, you might like it.

Posted by: le soothsayier (the french version) at September 17, 2013 03:21 PM (ziPqS)

27 This isn't completely surprising to me. The French take a lot of shit for how they got steamrollered by the nazis but they were far from the only country to suffer that treatment. They aren't nearly the pushovers that the caricatures indicate.

Posted by: Captain Hate on his iPhone at September 17, 2013 03:21 PM (+7PlU)

28 I doubt most people will risk hard time on "maybe I'll get lucky." Posted by: gm at September 17, 2013 07:20 PM (/kBoL) Or people who would do that would do it anyway, regardless of the change.

Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith [/i] [/b] [/s] [/u] at September 17, 2013 03:21 PM (qyfb5)

29 Enjoy it while it lasts NCJ.

Posted by: steevy at September 17, 2013 03:22 PM (9XBK2)

30 Is it just me, or does this post feel... familiar?

Posted by: Hollowpoint at September 17, 2013 03:22 PM (X9Mnx)

31
Laws should not however justify our base instincts. And shooting a fleeing criminal seems to be on the edge of vengeance.

After being robbed a few times, and the govt you pay for does nothing to help, dropping the next robber like a sack of fermented shit is not vengeance....it's survival.

Posted by: Sticky Wicket at September 17, 2013 03:23 PM (sCynV)

32 Who saw that crappy movie "Felon." This sounds something like happened in that movie. And in, my opinion no way would that guy have done any time whatsoever.

Posted by: gm at September 17, 2013 03:23 PM (/kBoL)

Unfortunate.

Free the jeweller. He is not a threat to society.

Posted by: Meremortal at September 17, 2013 03:23 PM (1Y+hH)

34 In Texas taking someones stuff and running is a continuation of the crime. And you can get shot for it.

Posted by: Joethefatman™ (@joethefatman1) at September 17, 2013 03:23 PM (MnSla)

35 The governing class likes to use the criminal class to keep the productive class in line. If the productive class instead takes care of the issue well then how does that help the governing class?

Posted by: 18-1 at September 17, 2013 03:24 PM (zPVBH)

36 It's the scooters. Sensible scooter control is long overdue.

Posted by: Cicero (@cicero) at September 17, 2013 03:24 PM (A7zvX)

37 Posted by: Sticky Wicket at September 17, 2013 07:23 PM (sCynV)

I agree with the general sentiment about this case, but the precedent is a difficult one.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at September 17, 2013 03:24 PM (gqgiP)

38 24 I do get your point, but reductio ad absurdum makes me wonder why the 12-year-old was just shot for shoplifting a pack of gum and a condom. Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at September 17, 2013 07:21 PM (gqgiP) Really? I expect better from you. No one is even trying to compare the idea of a 12 yr old shoplifting to armed robbery. That's just silly.

Posted by: BCochran1981 at September 17, 2013 03:25 PM (GEICT)

39 When I was 19 my dad let me borrow his car, my shit box was acting shit boxy, and a buddy and I went into the Big City for the night where the car was promptly stolen. The cops caught the guy while still in the car. He had already done a bunch of damage including stealing the stereo (what a cliche) and running into a fire hydrant cause he was drunk. I had to go to court to tell the judge I had not given him permission to take the car. The judge went on this long winded spiel about how this wasn't his first grand theft arrest, it was his 4th, and how he clearly wasn't learning his lesson so he was going to have to throw the book at him. Gave him 6 months probation. I got $15 dollars for my trouble and the bill from my dad to fix the car. Shoot him again.

Posted by: JackStraw at September 17, 2013 03:25 PM (g1DWB)

40 They aren't nearly the pushovers that the caricatures indicate.

Posted by: Captain Hate on his iPhone at September 17, 2013 07:21 PM (+7PlU)

That's because they didn't need to be pushed over.

More Frenchmen fought for the Nazis than against them.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at September 17, 2013 03:26 PM (gqgiP)

41 France is about the same size as Texas. Without le grande testicles.

Posted by: Schrödinger's cat [/i] at September 17, 2013 03:26 PM (U2UQk)

42 I've rethought my anger at thieves...

I figure they are more honorable than politicians at any rate.

Posted by: sven10077 at September 17, 2013 03:26 PM (9jfyN)

43 Dumkopfs, the whole idea here is to dispel the notion of private property. That's why the Left hates the so-called Castle Doctrine laws.

Posted by: le soothsayier (the french version) at September 17, 2013 03:26 PM (ziPqS)

44 I would just like to note that the recitivism rate among criminals shot dead in the commission of a crime is significantly lower than that generated by the 'justice' system.

Posted by: Methos at September 17, 2013 03:26 PM (hO9ad)

45 " In Texas taking someones stuff and running is a continuation of the crime. And you can get shot for it." God bless Texas.

Posted by: Lauren at September 17, 2013 03:26 PM (ELdpj)

46 I spent years studying criminal behavior in French society. Trust me on this one.

Posted by: Fakey O'Bagy, Ph.D. Aspirant at September 17, 2013 03:26 PM (A7zvX)

47 For all the bad press it's received, violent crime in California HAS decreased since the 3 strikes law started. Bad guys in prison don't bother people outside prison.

Posted by: Comrade Arthur at September 17, 2013 03:27 PM (83xuc)

48 >>>No one is even trying to compare the idea of a 12 yr old shoplifting to armed robbery.

you miss his point. he's saying once you accept the principle of shooting a criminal in flight, what exactly is the limiting principle?

Though I suppose there might be two: Stolen property in excess of $100 and the use of force or arms in committing the crime.

Still he makes a good point.

Posted by: ace at September 17, 2013 03:27 PM (/IWYB)

49 >>>And the jeweler knows this. And he's watching his money go riding down the street on a scooter.

Well, I think I see the first problem right there.

Posted by: Dr. Getawaydriver, PhD at September 17, 2013 03:27 PM (+UaC7)

50 The Left will kill you before birth, or Liverpool Pathway you when you are sick. But do not dare to touch a precious armed robber with a long rap sheet.

Posted by: Beagle at September 17, 2013 03:28 PM (sOtz/)

51 I shot the criminal and all I got was this lousy ankle bracelet that I threw over the fence at my government.

Posted by: J Clod Kerrii at September 17, 2013 03:28 PM (u6lBN)

52 That's just silly.

Posted by: BCochran1981 at September 17, 2013 07:25 PM (GEICT)

Learn Latin, Blue-boy, and then get back to me.

This is more your speed anyway.....

http://tinyurl.com/n8k5v4t

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at September 17, 2013 03:28 PM (gqgiP)

53

Free the jeweller. He is not a threat to society.

A few more shootings like this, and the crime rate in Nice would fall rather dramatically.

Posted by: Sticky Wicket at September 17, 2013 03:29 PM (sCynV)

54 Bad guys in prison don't bother people outside prison.

Posted by: Comrade Arthur at September 17, 2013 07:27 PM (83xuc)

How many prisons and inmates are there in Cali? I bet they drop some serious coin on housing all the gangsters

Posted by: Red Shirt at September 17, 2013 03:29 PM (J3fGN)

55 >>you miss his point. he's saying once you accept the principle of shooting a criminal in flight, what exactly is the limiting principle?

You failed to consider the "scooter factor" in this non-tragedy.

Posted by: Dr Spank at September 17, 2013 03:29 PM (9jLim)

56
>>For all the bad press it's received, violent crime in California HAS decreased since the 3 strikes law started<<

Because all the 2 strike thugs move to neighboring states.

Posted by: NIMBY at September 17, 2013 03:29 PM (bkTIc)

57 "The family's not condoning the robbery. They're not condoning it and they're not excusing it. It was Anthony's fault. But did he deserve to die in these conditions?" their lawyer, Olivier Castellacci, said Tuesday.

Yes. FYNQ.

Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD, you taunty bitch. at September 17, 2013 03:30 PM (Gk3SS)

58 I shot a man in Lyon. Just to steal his beret and striped dirt.

Posted by: Jean des Cash at September 17, 2013 03:30 PM (A7zvX)

59 I remember reading that the jeweler had to go to the hospital for --IIRC--a CAT scan--because he had been assaulted.

Posted by: tasker at September 17, 2013 03:31 PM (r2PLg)

60 Plus as garret pointed out, the dead guy was riding bitch which basically means he was asking for it.

Posted by: Dr Spank at September 17, 2013 03:31 PM (9jLim)

61 In Ft. Worth, the jeweler would have received a medal

Posted by: phreshone at September 17, 2013 03:31 PM (Pr6hk)

62 58...threadwinner

Posted by: billygoat at September 17, 2013 03:31 PM (hBJpV)

63 Robbing and shooting people is not Nice.

Posted by: Boss Moss former editor of the Harvard Law Review at September 17, 2013 03:32 PM (0axsw)

64 Was it a high powered Ak-15 black scooter, 'cause those are bad?

Posted by: Peirced Morgan[/i] at September 17, 2013 03:32 PM (U2UQk)

65 /sock off my surrender monkey sock.

Posted by: t-dubya-d at September 17, 2013 03:32 PM (u6lBN)

66 sigh...at least france is on the right side of this issue..... *** Which French? The citizens or the laws?

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at September 17, 2013 03:32 PM (DmNpO)

67 @48 ace In this case the principle is he shot an armed robber, not an unarmed shoplifting tween. You pull a gun to rob and you take your chances with another's self defense. Versus the no danger gum and condom scenario.

Posted by: Beagle at September 17, 2013 03:33 PM (sOtz/)

68 I didn't phrase that properly.

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at September 17, 2013 03:33 PM (DmNpO)

69 "The family's not condoning the robbery. They're not condoning it and they're not excusing it. It was Anthony's fault. But did he deserve to die in these conditions?" You're all misinterpreting the quote. The law-talking-guy is suggesting that the street wasn't clean enough to die on.

Posted by: bonhomme at September 17, 2013 03:34 PM (yETln)

70 Free the jeweller. He is not a threat to society.

A few more shootings like this, and the crime rate in Nice would fall rather dramatically.

Posted by: Sticky Wicket at September 17, 2013 07:29 PM (sCynV)

Police union officials find that falling crime rates ARE a threat to society

Posted by: phreshone at September 17, 2013 03:34 PM (Pr6hk)

71 Did the kid flee with the aforementioned shotgun? Then he might have been coming back when he ran low on funds.

Posted by: t-bird at September 17, 2013 03:35 PM (FcR7P)

72 Just to back up what I posted at #34

From Anderw Brankas book Law of Self Defence

Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY.

A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:

3) he reasonably believes that:

(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or

(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

http://tinyurl.com/l9e5ohu

Posted by: Joethefatman™ (@joethefatman1) at September 17, 2013 03:35 PM (MnSla)

73 In this case the principle is he shot an armed robber, not an unarmed shoplifting tween. You pull a gun to rob and you take your chances with another's self defense. Versus the no danger gum and condom scenario. In this scenario the thug was on a scooter in flight. The scenario is closer than you think.

Posted by: bonhomme at September 17, 2013 03:36 PM (yETln)

74 you miss his point. he's saying once you accept the principle of shooting a criminal in flight, what exactly is the limiting principle? Though I suppose there might be two: Stolen property in excess of $100 and the use of force or arms in committing the crime. Still he makes a good point. Posted by: ace at September 17, 2013 07:27 PM (/IWYB) No, actually, I don't. My point is that the point is absurd. The idea that it is legally justifiable to shoot a fleeing felon, who committed assault with a deadly weapon, will lead to the legally justified shooting of a 12 year old who committed misdemeanor shoplifting is itself reductio ad absurdum. And yes CBD, I know some latin. Law school is good for that if nothing else. Proffering that kind of argument is...silly.

Posted by: BCochran1981 - Credible Hulk at September 17, 2013 03:36 PM (GEICT)

75 "A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property: 3)he reasonably believes that: (A)the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or (B)the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury. (C) He needed killin'"

Posted by: Lauren at September 17, 2013 03:37 PM (ELdpj)

76 1 Da Bears are 2-0 Posted by: navycopjoe at September 17, 2013 07:11 PM

So are Da Seahawks. Whoda thunk it?

Posted by: Jeff Weimer, fairweather Seahawks fan at September 17, 2013 03:37 PM (ylG8S)

Bring back the old distinction between felony and misdemeanor. The former gets you hung. The latter gets you time in the stocks as an object of public ridicule.

We would need far fewer felonies (and that's OK!).

Posted by: Revenant at September 17, 2013 03:38 PM (9wUYb)

78 I'm confused. It sounds like he shot at the thief while he was fleeing and outdoors. That's not self-defense. You can't use deadly force to protect property. Not in America.

"Personally I think fleeing this sort of crime constitutes a continuation of the crime and the law of self-defense should continue to apply. It's silly to think that people will not shoot a fleeing robber escaping with their hard earned money-- especially after that robber just used a shotgun to force the victim to open a safe."

Sorry, Ace, but that's a dangerous notion. Self-defense has nothing to do with a crime in progress and everything to do with a reasonable belief that your life is in danger at the time you use the deadly force. If someone steals your wallet and runs away, you can't pull out a gun and shoot him in the back. The only place in American law you might get close to using deadly force without your life being in actual/apparent danger is under the Castle Doctrine, particularly as used in Texas (see Joe Horn). The home is deemed special and we give a special protection for it.

A shop owner does not get legal privilege to shoot after fleeing robbers, no matter how scared he happens to be. The fear has to be for his life at the time he acts. It's simply not legally reasonable when the perpetrators are fleeing.

I understand sympathy for anyone who shoots out of fear (or was it anger?) following a crime. But the law is supposed to rule, rather than vigilantism.

Posted by: Crispian at September 17, 2013 03:38 PM (+qU9V)

"And the law should demand a basic level of good behavior, not a heroic level."

Geez. The law seems a little b!tchy.

Posted by: meh at September 17, 2013 03:38 PM (W2qJe)

80 In the states where it's legal to shoot a criminal in flight, isn't the limiting factor the degree of the crime? A violent felony is OK to shoot. A non-violent felony or lesser crime is not.

Posted by: bonhomme at September 17, 2013 03:38 PM (yETln)

81 Wow. Brainstorm (or brainfart... I can never tell the difference)! At some level of repeated lawlessness, an individual should be officially declared outlaw, then indelibly and obviously marked as such. If that individual later commits any crime, anyone may, without legal reprisal, terminate that individual.

I'm sure there are lots of unintended bad consequences there, but I'm seeing only the upside.

Posted by: jwpaine @PirateBallerina at September 17, 2013 03:38 PM (/lWM8)

82 @73 Still an armed robber. Self defense of another could be in play depending on whether the shotgun was being brandished. As usual, nitpicky facts we do not know can be very legally significant.

Posted by: Beagle at September 17, 2013 03:39 PM (sOtz/)

83 They should make the jeweler a General in the French Army

Posted by: Nevergiveup at September 17, 2013 03:39 PM (9Xc5j)

84 fuck 'um, let it burn, more jewelers for us....

Posted by: Sergio Safety Risk at September 17, 2013 03:39 PM (i9tfZ)

Thank you, thank you Ace for this post. It's nice to be reminded that not every person right-of-center in this country is suffering from a feeling of loving kindness toward the criminal element and obsessed with their well being. When criminal scum use force or the threat of force to take what they want, that is officially a violent encounter. To assume it's "HANDS OFF!" when the purp moves to flee the scene is beyond stupid. That womanish attitude does nothing but encourage criminals to try their hand with relative impunity, and laugh at the foolish, legally-constrained victim. The criminal comes to the party with the element of surprise on his side - and moderns put the burden of self restraint on the crime victim. It's folly of the worst kind. It might not have been so bad in the days when criminals had to actually suffer for their crimes with serious punishment, but in these days of slaps on the wrist for any crime not affecting the State, that approach is especially toxic.

Posted by: Reactionary at September 17, 2013 03:39 PM (jfeoD)

86 serious, you guys, why are you so knee-jerkedly against diversity? thieves have a place in society, too, you know

Posted by: le soothsayier (the french version) at September 17, 2013 03:40 PM (ziPqS)

"We don't have, in France, the notion of taking justice into your own hands."

They have the notion that one should be a meek and willing victim of crime.

RE TEXAS

By the way, in talking to current residents of Texas I was told recently:

In Texas it is a felony to fire a bullet that crosses a property line without express permission.

That's felony, as in serious.

Posted by: Meremortal at September 17, 2013 03:41 PM (1Y+hH)

88 @54 Redshirt.

How many prisons and inmates are there in Cali? I bet they drop some serious coin on housing all the gangsters.

Earlier today I was wondering why there are really no large scale white gangs on the streets of America. Other than the Arian Nation (Which is overblown IMO) I can't think of any that compares to the Bloods/Crips or MS13

Posted by: t-dubya-d at September 17, 2013 03:41 PM (u6lBN)

89
72 Just to back up what I posted at #34

Sounds to me like the shooting was justified.

Posted by: Sticky Wicket at September 17, 2013 03:41 PM (sCynV)

90
My vote is "using a firearm in commission of a crime is shoot-able offense as long as you are in eyesight (or close proximity) of the victim".

Oh crap, I am thinking like some of those Frogs.

Posted by: Guy Mohawk at September 17, 2013 03:41 PM (sj9LN)

91 SOL AKA Same old Lions 1-1

Posted by: Lafayette Coney Island Hot Dog at September 17, 2013 03:42 PM (3GuQx)

92 - "But the law is supposed to rule, rather than vigilantism." ------------------------ Then legalize vigilantism. I'm easy.

Posted by: irright at September 17, 2013 03:42 PM (DtNNC)

93 In all fairness, French thugs should be given the opportunity to test shop owners' marksmanship while running away, as a sort of French Combat Fitness Exam.

Posted by: ontherocks at September 17, 2013 03:42 PM (IokT4)

94 It's here: Stephan Turk, le bijoutier niÃ§ois qui a tuÃ© un braqueur mercredi, a Ã©tÃ© dÃ©fÃ©rÃ© ce vendredi matin, vers 11h40, au palais de justice de Nice. Le commerÃ§ant avait Ã©tÃ© hospitalisÃ© jeudi soir aux urgences aprÃ¨s avoir ressenti de fortes douleurs consÃ©cutives aux coups reÃ§us durant l'agression. La fin de sa garde Ã vue lui a Ã©tÃ© signifiÃ© ce vendredi matin Ã l'hÃ´pital par les enquÃªteurs. Il a ensuite subi un scanner. Les mÃ©decins ont donnÃ© leur feu vert pour son transfert au palais de justice. http://www.nicematin.com/nice/braqueur-tue-a- nice-le-bijoutier-hospitalise-puis-defere-au-palais- de-justice.1436818.html

Posted by: tasker at September 17, 2013 03:42 PM (r2PLg)

95 The law should not be an ass. I AM THE LAW!!!

Posted by: EC at September 17, 2013 03:42 PM (doBIb)

96 >>>Sounds to me like the shooting was justified.

Works for me.

Posted by: Raylan Givens at September 17, 2013 03:42 PM (+UaC7)

97 Tolerance of criminal behavior is not a civilized trait. The law was designed to settle deputes between civilized men who show up for court. Someone like a Zimmerman. Outlaws like the common criminal is have always been people that were dealt with outside of the law on a personal basis. The law interfering with such cases is quite stupid.

Posted by: Johnbrovo at September 17, 2013 03:43 PM (7us0J)

The judge that gets this case if it goes that far in court needs to severely slap that jewelers wrist and tell him in no uncertain terms to try not to do this kind of thing again to any future armed robbers that rob him.

90 days in the clink! Suspended!

Go on your way good sir.

Justice is served.

Posted by: Some Guy in Wisconsin at September 17, 2013 03:43 PM (fdfY2)

99 In France only the strong and quick have a right to kill others. Defending yourself is just wrong. And we still have a sale going! 400,000 WWII weapons available. All are clean and have been dropped only once.

Posted by: France at September 17, 2013 03:43 PM (gWHwW)

100 #86
thieves have a place in prison society, too, you know

le soothsayier (the french version)

I think that's better

Posted by: Joethefatman™ (@joethefatman1) at September 17, 2013 03:43 PM (MnSla)

101 I'm just including the above because the fact that he was assaulted seems to be left out of the story stateside. Not posting it in regard to the justification or legal arguments.

Posted by: tasker at September 17, 2013 03:45 PM (r2PLg)

102 I hate this shit that every life has value. It doesn't. The people who squeal about some rapist/murderer getting executed will claim that the thug could find a cure for cancer some day and in the next breath claim the same thug murderer is retarded and cant' be executed under the law.

Posted by: Jesse Pinkman at September 17, 2013 03:45 PM (T0Pku)

103 C'est la vie.

Posted by: Boss Moss former editor of the Harvard Law Review at September 17, 2013 03:45 PM (0axsw)

104 On a totally unrelated note, has anyone started playing Grand Theft Auto V yet?

Posted by: Methos at September 17, 2013 03:47 PM (hO9ad)

105 No, he didn't deserve to die. He deserved to have his balls chopped off and stapled to his forehead, and a sign hung around his neck that reads "Dickhead! I steal other people's stuff because I am a lazy turn!" Oh, wait. He stuck a shotgun into the shop owner's face. Yes, he deserved to die. Fuck him.

Posted by: Sharkman at September 17, 2013 03:47 PM (xl9E+)

106

A shop owner does not get legal privilege to shoot after fleeing robbers, no matter how scared he happens to be. The fear has to be for his life at the time he acts. It's simply not legally reasonable when the perpetrators are fleeing.

Posted by: Crispian at September 17, 2013 07:38 PM (+qU9V) ---------

I assume this statement is aimed at the legalities of the situation rather than the rightness or wrongness, but it illustrates perfectly the worst defects of modern Western culture. Excessive, self-destructive restraint practiced in the name of misplaced feelings of "humanity." This is the attitude that prevents us from bringing sufficient violence to win wars, punishing crime appropriately, dealing with the underclass scum, resisting socialism/communism. It's weakness and folly. We put the wellbeing of enemies and evil people ahead of the wellbeing, prosperity, and safety of the just. It's sick.

Posted by: Reactionary at September 17, 2013 03:47 PM (jfeoD)

107 This reminds me of the great line from Game of Thrones: "Now we only have the unknown thieves to worry about."

Posted by: Beagle at September 17, 2013 03:47 PM (sOtz/)

108 104 On a totally unrelated note, has anyone started playing Grand Theft Auto V yet? Posted by: Methos at September 17, 2013 07:47 PM (hO9ad) A moron horde game, if there ever was one.

Posted by: EC at September 17, 2013 03:48 PM (doBIb)

109

OK, went and read the entire article (I know, I know). The shooter could have a problem, depending on various factors, such as reaonable fear of use of the gun by the perp holding it. A probationary slap on the wrist could be in order.

Being a jeweler is dangerous, and so is being a banker. By banker I mean someone who actually works daily at a bank, especially in a high position.

Pawn shop workers are a bit safer, as everybody knows they'll pull and shoot at the slightest provocation.

Posted by: Meremortal at September 17, 2013 03:48 PM (1Y+hH)

110 I for one am glad he's dead.

Posted by: Boss Moss former editor of the Harvard Law Review at September 17, 2013 03:48 PM (0axsw)

111 It used to be that when a tribe of barbarians moved close to civilized people and started to raid and murder, the civilized people would form up and burn down the barbarians and run them off. I think it time that we admit to ourselves that people choosing to be barbarians instead of citizens need a good visit from an angry mob of villagers with the modern eqivalent of pitchforks and torches.

Posted by: civilization at September 17, 2013 03:49 PM (eVeX/)

112 thieves have a place in society, too, you know

Posted by: le soothsayier

Yeah. 6 feet under the city graveyard.

Posted by: weft cut-loop [/i] [/b] at September 17, 2013 03:49 PM (AJ1u5)

113

14 charges in 19 years? There's your problem right there.

Posted by: TVland at September 17, 2013 03:49 PM (/EkKm)

114 This thing about gun control is so prejudicial against the poor, women, and the elderly. Rich people have expensive security systems, body guards, private patrols, and better response from the cops because they pay a fortune in property taxes. The politicians get all that shit for free because the taxpayer is footing the bill for them. If a bad guy breaks into a woman or old person's house, are they suppose to fend them off with a knife? A lamp? Even with out guns, bad guys can easily beat, rape, kill you. The left hates women, the poor, and the elderly..

Posted by: Jesse Pinkman at September 17, 2013 03:50 PM (T0Pku)

115 "you miss his point. he's saying once you accept the principle of shooting a criminal in flight, what exactly is the limiting principle? "

     The limiting principle is ; are you holding a short barrel pistol, shot gun, or rifle.

      More seriously, although charlie browns vagina may not like it, if the victim tells the perp to halt or drop the goods and he does not, let the shooting commence. And if the victim can live with the fact that he may not have hollered quite loud enough, or even quite soon enough, I can live with it and wont lose one wink of sleep about it.

    You want a limiting fucking principle, dont steal shit!

Posted by: Sergio Safety Risk at September 17, 2013 03:50 PM (i9tfZ)

116 The problem with Vigilance Committees was the fact that they prosecuted summary judgment on caught criminals. The problem I have with people using phrases like vigilante and "took the law into their hands" is that in those situations the criminal is almost universally not caught or subdued. If the criminal is caught, then by all means let the legal system work. If the criminal is in flight from a violent felony and capture is not likely without great personal risk, and there is a clear shot, shoot.

Posted by: bonhomme at September 17, 2013 03:50 PM (yETln)

117 speaking of gratuitous violence, Sons Of Anarchy, you guys?

Posted by: le soothsayier (the french version) at September 17, 2013 03:51 PM (ziPqS)

118 off topic but wanted to be shareful (posted at gateway pundit, from daily caller):

The Ohio State University Department of Public Safety has acquired an armored military vehicle that looks like it belongs in Iraq or Afghanistan.

Gary Lewis, a senior director of media relations at OSU, told The Daily Caller via email that the Â“unique, special-purpose vehicle is a replacementÂ” for the Â“police fleet.Â” He called the armored jalopy Â“an all-hazard, all-purpose, public safety-response vehicleÂ” with Â“obviously enhanced capabilities.Â”

- See more at: http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/#sthash.Phgsw2DN.dpuf

The Ohio State University Department of Public Safety has acquired an armored military vehicle that looks like it belongs in Iraq or Afghanistan.

- See more at: http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/#sthash.Phgsw2DN.dpufThe Ohio State University Department of Public Safety has acquired an armored military vehicle that looks like it belongs in Iraq or Afghanistan. - See more at: http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/#sthash.rrZtMGEB.dpufThe Ohio State University Department of Public Safety has acquired an armored military vehicle that looks like it belongs in Iraq or Afghanistan.

Gary Lewis, a senior director of media relations at OSU, told The Daily Caller via email that the Â“unique, special-purpose vehicle is a replacementÂ” for the Â“police fleet.Â” He called the armored jalopy Â“an all-hazard, all-purpose, public safety-response vehicleÂ” with Â“obviously enhanced capabilities.Â”

The Ohio State University Department of Public Safety has acquired an armored military vehicle that looks like it belongs in Iraq or Afghanistan.

- See more at: http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/#sthash.Phgsw2DN.dpuf

The Ohio State University Department of Public Safety has acquired an armored military vehicle that looks like it belongs in Iraq or Afghanistan.

Posted by: Mallfly at September 17, 2013 03:51 PM (bJm7W)

119

One dead criminal.

What's le problem?

Posted by: garrett at September 17, 2013 03:52 PM (WkTnS)

120 oh geez where did all that stuff come from? I wanted to only post the text.

I'm a baaaaad boy...

Posted by: Mallfly at September 17, 2013 03:52 PM (bJm7W)

121 That's almost a barreling there!

Posted by: EC at September 17, 2013 03:53 PM (doBIb)

122 One dead criminal. What's le problem? Lawyers.

Posted by: bonhomme at September 17, 2013 03:53 PM (yETln)

123 Ask not for whom the barrel tolls. It tolls for thee, Mallfly.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at September 17, 2013 03:54 PM (X9Mnx)

124 justifiable homicide

God blessed Texas.

Posted by: troll feeder at September 17, 2013 03:54 PM (Clz1p)

125 Probably not a barreling offense, but the next round is on Mallfly.

Posted by: garrett at September 17, 2013 03:54 PM (WkTnS)

126

Actually, think about armed robbery for a minute. It's an inherently dangerous activity, or at least IT SHOULD BE. Now imagine the same kid died doing something else dangerous, say, skateboarding, or parkour, or drinking, or preferably all three at once. We'd say he died from a dangerous lifestyle choice, and move on.

Getting killed after commiting 14 acts of theft and robbery is death by crappy lifestyle choice, with the jewler being merely a witness to the punk's demise. We should tut tut and move on.

Posted by: TVland at September 17, 2013 03:54 PM (/EkKm)

127 Crispian That is legally wrong. How you are fleeing is important. Fleeing is not dispositive on anything. Fleeing while brandishing a weapon is an ongoing threat of death to everyone nearby. Even a vehicle can be used as a deadly weapon which justifies self defense. Cops deal with this frequently.

Posted by: Beagle at September 17, 2013 03:55 PM (sOtz/)

128 But, your Honor, I make amour to my moaney every night. Eet's so beautiful, so exciting. So you see, you Honor, theese was a crime of PASSION!

Posted by: Plausible defense [/i] [/b] at September 17, 2013 03:56 PM (AJ1u5)

129 The left hates women, the poor, and the elderly..

Posted by: Jesse Pinkman at September 17, 2013 07:50 PM (T0Pku)

God made Man.

Colt made them equal.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at September 17, 2013 03:56 PM (gqgiP)

130 @122 "Lawyers" Except the ones on your side. Usually half.

Posted by: Beagle at September 17, 2013 03:57 PM (sOtz/)

131 First rule of French armed robbery : Don't ride bitch on the getaway scooter.

Posted by: garrett at September 17, 2013 03:57 PM (WkTnS)

132 By the by, having been to France (Paris) recently I have to say I have never, including LA and New York, felt less safe than I do there. There was just a sense that the police were not going to do crap to help you. Just a zoo. I went 12 years ago and it was not at all like that.

Posted by: TVland at September 17, 2013 03:59 PM (/EkKm)

133 The law in this case sounds like the doctrine of liberal Protestant Christianity. If someone slaps one on the cheek, he was disadvantaged and oppressed.

Posted by: Meekle at September 17, 2013 03:59 PM (Lmi6z)

134 I assume this statement is aimed at the legalities of the situation rather than the rightness or wrongness, but it illustrates perfectly the worst defects of modern Western culture. Excessive, self-destructive restraint practiced in the name of misplaced feelings of "humanity." This is the attitude that prevents us from bringing sufficient violence to win wars, punishing crime appropriately, dealing with the underclass scum, resisting socialism/communism. It's weakness and folly. We put the wellbeing of enemies and evil people ahead of the wellbeing, prosperity, and safety of the just. It's sick.

Posted by: Reactionary at September 17, 2013 07:47 PM (jfeoD)

You assume correctly. But the argument that unless we permit shooting people in the back if they've threatened us and stole from us then we will put up with anything is entirely wrong. You might think the facts of this case are pretty straightforward, or you think killing should be permitted if we've been severely wronged, but as a matter of legal principle, killing is outlawed. I think that's a really good legal principle. We should offer defenses and exceptions sparingly. A narrow exception for your life reasonably being in danger makes lots of sense. The violation of your home is another. That you were severely wronged? No. Shooting a man when you walk in on him having sex with your wife might be allowed. Shooting him after he has dressed - even in your home - is not allowed. The exceptions are narrow in order to not let people get away with murder under other pretenses. A good argument can be made that the jeweler was angry, frustrated, feeling wronged...that should not be enough as a matter of principle for killing.

Posted by: Crispian at September 17, 2013 04:00 PM (+qU9V)

135 I assume this statement is aimed at the legalities of the situation rather than the rightness or wrongness, but it illustrates perfectly the worst defects of modern Western culture. Excessive, self-destructive restraint practiced in the name of misplaced feelings of "humanity." This is the attitude that prevents us from bringing sufficient violence to win wars, punishing crime appropriately, dealing with the underclass scum, resisting socialism/communism. It's weakness and folly. We put the wellbeing of enemies and evil people ahead of the wellbeing, prosperity, and safety of the just. It's sick. *** Where do I send my check for the subscription?

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at September 17, 2013 04:00 PM (DmNpO)

136 Except the ones on your side. Usually half. If Lawyers are noble, why do they take such a high percentage of any judgment?

Posted by: bonhomme at September 17, 2013 04:00 PM (yETln)

137 All Internet bravado aside, don't shoot someone as they're fleeing. The price you'll end up paying will almost certainly exceed what was taken. The jeweler broke the law, likely out of anger rather than any real principle. I hope he gets a lenient sentence, but he should've let the police and insurance company handle it. Now had he shot the fucker while being robbed, I'd say name a street in his honor.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at September 17, 2013 04:00 PM (X9Mnx)

138 That is legally wrong. How you are fleeing is important. Fleeing is not dispositive on anything. Fleeing while brandishing a weapon is an ongoing threat of death to everyone nearby. Even a vehicle can be used as a deadly weapon which justifies self defense.

Cops deal with this frequently.

Posted by: Beagle at September 17, 2013 07:55 PM (sOtz/)

He was apparently running to his scooter. Fleeing is not always dispositive...but unless there are facts showing why the jeweler felt his life was in danger at the time he shot, there is no reason to assume them or make them up.

Posted by: Crispian at September 17, 2013 04:01 PM (+qU9V)

139 "We don't have, in France, the notion of taking justice into your own hands. The family is revolted by that."

Appropriating the property of others via force apparently NOT meeting the family's interpretation of 'taking justice into your own hands.'

These people need to a) apologize for their miscreant spawn, b) hang their heads in shame, and c) STFFU (shut their French faces up.)

Posted by: ThomasD at September 17, 2013 04:03 PM (eh28l)

140 For everything there is a season.

Posted by: Meekle at September 17, 2013 04:03 PM (Lmi6z)

141

This is getting familiar.

The answer is: We don't know enough at this time to make a proper judgment.

Next.

Posted by: Meremortal at September 17, 2013 04:04 PM (1Y+hH)

142 I think he should get a marksmanship medal. Unlike the NYPD where they shot two bystanders recently, he only hit the robber.

My dad tells a story about Larkin Smith, a local head cop and county sheriff before being elected to the House (and then killed in a plane crash a few month later in 1989). A little old lady, living alone out in the boonies got the ole banging on the door at 2 am trick, with this guy hollering that he needs to use the phone.

The LOL offers to call the cops for him, through the door, when he then begins making threats about breaking down the door, raping her, etc. So she unloaded on him through the door. It was a terminal experience for the young lad, who happened to have an extensive rap sheet (go figure).

During Larkin's press conference, he was asked whether any charges would be filed. He laughed and said "I want to give her a marksmanship award. No charges will be filed."

PS I think this is a classic case of Stand Your Ground.

Posted by: GnuBreed at September 17, 2013 04:05 PM (wNF3N)

143 Next time I'm fucking someone's wife I'm keeping my pants on.

Posted by: garrett at September 17, 2013 04:05 PM (WkTnS)

144 To those that say it isn't worth taking a life over some property, I say that a good portion of my life was spent working to aquire said property. So the shitbag is, for all intents and purposes, stealing at least a portion of my life. Also, to steal a quote from one of my favorite childhood cartoon charactors, Super Chicken, "You knew the job was dangerous when you took it Fred".

Posted by: Scont at September 17, 2013 04:16 PM (pCuII)

145 @138 crispian I did not make up anything. The media does not report relevant facts in nearly every story. At some point they were brandishing a shotgun. Did they dump it? I doubt it.

Posted by: MSM at September 17, 2013 04:16 PM (sOtz/)

146 Who is to say the next time the robber needed money, he would not be back to rob the jeweler at gunpoint again? The jeweler was justified in killing the criminal. He did society a favor.

Posted by: Nanny Hag at September 17, 2013 04:17 PM (39IHH)

147 love all the internet lawyers.... he shouldnt have killed him out of feelings of anger and veangence maw maw maw oh, you may want to learn a latin like me so you can credibly discuss this on my oooohhhhh sooo intellllllectual comment board...maw maw maw

vomit

Posted by: Sergio Safety Risk at September 17, 2013 04:18 PM (i9tfZ)

148 Sock fail.

Posted by: Beagle at September 17, 2013 04:21 PM (sOtz/)

149 For all we know the dude is moving some mobsters wife's bling that is uninsured and a rival tipped the thief to hit him, and the jeweler knew if it left his sight he was a dead man, so the punk fleeing is a threat to the jewel's life.... how is that for retardio ad abductio

Posted by: Jackie Chiles at September 17, 2013 04:23 PM (i9tfZ)

150 @136 The percentage only seems high in cases with big settlements. I know an attorney who just did a complex complaint for about ten bucks an hour. The biggest problem I have seen in civil law (totally off topic, btw) is clients who fake injuries and otherwise commit fraud or perjury.

Posted by: Beagle at September 17, 2013 04:29 PM (sOtz/)

151 #57

Bingo.

Posted by: Epobirs at September 17, 2013 04:36 PM (kcfmt)

152 Texas Penal Code Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. (NOTE: I'm not quoting the actual statute, I'm summarizing, actual statute can be read here: http://is.gd/xYBMLr) Deadly force can be used in defense of personal property under the following circumstances: (1) It was nighttime. (2) You would have been entitled to use non-deadly force to defend the property. (3) You reasonably believe your actions were immediately necessary to prevent theft, criminal mischief, or a more serious crime (such as arson or burglary), OR to prevent someone who has just committed a theft from escaping with the property; and (4) You reasonably believe EITHER that the property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means OR anything less than deadly force on your part would expose you to a substantial risk of serious bodily injury. (All this and much, much more covered in Law of Self Defense Seminars, http://is.gd/D3EZgO). --Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

Posted by: Law of Self Defense at September 17, 2013 04:39 PM (AgiEl)

153

<blockquote>"The family's not condoning the robbery. They're not condoning it and they're not excusing it. It was Anthony's fault. But did he deserve to die in these conditions?" their lawyer, Olivier Castellacci, said Tuesday. </blockquote>

You goddamned right he deserved to die.

Posted by: pendejo grande at September 17, 2013 04:45 PM (OZW5B)

154 88 @54 Redshirt. ....... Earlier today I was wondering why there are really no large scale white gangs on the streets of America. Other than the Arian Nation (Which is overblown IMO) I can't think of any that compares to the Bloods/Crips or MS13 Posted by: t-dubya-d at September 17, 2013 07:41 PM (u6lBN) Hell's Angels perhaps?

Posted by: The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth at September 17, 2013 04:53 PM (Hsgnv)

155 La Cosa Nostra? They're not white hispanics or anything are they?

Posted by: [/i][/b][/s]akula51 at September 17, 2013 05:00 PM (4p5/2)

156 Baiser indignation, en anglais, en franÃ§ais, ou quoi que ce soit d'autre. FUBAR est universellement compris.

Posted by: angel with a sword at September 17, 2013 05:13 PM (hpgw1)

157 What are you implying using using terms such as Jeweler and Jewelry. Racist much?

Posted by: pc at September 17, 2013 06:12 PM (zeWyX)

158 154

Much as I dislike the OMGs, they really don't compare to the level of criminal enterprise of the Crips/Bloods et al. I know they are one of the originators of the meth epidemic as we know it (the cartels perfected it), and there are anecdotal references to other races having membership here and there (specifically Montreal, I think).

Short answer--the Hells Angels, Outlaws, Pagans etc are amateur criminals at best, the others listed see it as their profession.

Posted by: Xenophon at September 17, 2013 08:02 PM (JNMaY)

159 I am struck by the idea that someone can stick a shotgun in a persons face, do what they want and take what they want. Once done call kings-x no more violence no backsies. So start a violent confrontation and also decide when the encounter is all done. Good deal if you are a thug, or government bureaucrat.

Posted by: Ron at September 17, 2013 08:12 PM (lm6uZ)

Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.

162kb generated in CPU 0.1404, elapsed 0.3062 seconds.
64 queries taking 0.2649 seconds, 287 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.