3 little spinners trying to protect their M5 from douschecanoes at Vancouver Riot

Background looks like a warzone. Insane!

That scene would have been entirely different if the BMW owner was armed. Do you think the vandalism starts after she draws a gun?

You dont need a permit to carry a gun in your car in Texas. You can use lethal frorce to protect it as well. I dont think you would see all those punk kids so eager to contribute, or start for that matter.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/03/27/us-texas-deadlyforce-idUSN2721289620070327
 
chrisjr77 said:
you know if one of those guys would have stepped in and tried to help the girls he probably could of took all 3 home!!!! what a bunch of douch bags!!!!
Click to expand...

Or the flip side of that, The one guy that trys to step up and protect the girls and their car gets jumped and has his ass beat for being the one guy going against the angry mobb
 
FlyLike said:
That's really sad. At the same time though, those girls weren't very smart by parking their car at a place that was probably anticipated to be a riot scene.

The times I've gone to MSU / U of M knowing there could be stuff like that I parked in a safe place far away from the center of action.

Ultimately though, if that happened here in the US, let alone Detroit.... I'm sure there'd be some lead flyin'
Click to expand...

Seriously? Why would they have thought "Hmmm if I park here people may try to destroy my car".
 
2L8IWIN said:
Background looks like a warzone. Insane!

That scene would have been entirely different if the BMW owner was armed. Do you think the vandalism starts after she draws a gun?

You dont need a permit to carry a gun in your car in Texas. You can use lethal frorce to protect it as well. I dont think you would see all those punk kids so eager to contribute, or start for that matter.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/03/27/us-texas-deadlyforce-idUSN2721289620070327
Click to expand...

If she started firing into the crowd then she would be in jail. Plain and simple. Losing your life or taking someone else's life for your car is not justifiable.
 
who said anything about firing into a crowd? Really?

It may not be justifiable to you. But if someone is trying to enter your "safe place" (car/home) or trying to remove you from it you can use lethal force.

Furthermore you can use lethal force to protect your property if "the property cannot be protected by any other means".
 
2L8IWIN said:
who said anything about firing into a crowd? Really?

It may not be justifiable to you. But if someone is trying to enter your "safe place" (car/home) or trying to remove you from it you can use lethal force.

Furthermore you can use lethal force to protect your property if "the property cannot be protected by any other means".
Click to expand...

I didn't see anyone try to remove anyone from a car. The girls were out of the car and trying to protect the car. Not themselves. They could have easily ran into the mob and let them have the car. That's what they wanted. If the girls would have pulled a gun in that situation, they now escalated it into something completely different. As much as I would love to mow down these fucks...I'm pretty sure it would be against the law.
 
91trunk said:
Seriously? Why would they have thought "Hmmm if I park here people may try to destroy my car".
Click to expand...

Drunk people in a crowd tend to do stupid things. :dontknow:

I wasn't defending that what the people did to the car was right whatsoever, but to me it's just assumed that something like that will happen, unfortunately.
 
they did burn cop cars
ba-Stanley_Cup_V_0503634137.jpg
91Bird305 said:
If she started firing into the crowd then she would be in jail. Plain and simple. Losing your life or taking someone else's life for your car is not justifiable.
Click to expand...


LOL you guys talk about drawing guns....ITS CANADA our gun laws are not like the united states. we cant carry. legally


also if vancouver won or lost there was going to be a riot, everyone knew it, that city is fucking nuts. so they are dumb to bring there nice ass car down there. but if your going to point the blame at anyone the city is the one to blame. same thing happened in 94 when they lost to the rangers in the cup final.
 
Even verbal threats are not enough to give you lawful right to kill someone and I don't think lunging is either.

I believe the basic rule is that you must expend all possible scenarios to avoid the situation before pulling your firearm if you want to avoid trouble in court.
 
I believe this would fall under "criminal mischief during the nightime."



"A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect his property to the degree he reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, theft during the nighttime or criminal mischief during the nighttime, and he reasonably believes that the property cannot be protected by any other means."

"A person is justified in using deadly force against another to pervent the other who is fleeing after committing burglary, robbery, or theft during the nighttime, from escaping with the property and he reasonable believes that the property cannot be recovered by any other means; or, the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the property would expose him or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury. (Nighttime is defined as the period 30 minutes after sunset until 30 minutes before sunrise.)"

"A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect the property of a third person if he reasonably believes he would be justified to use similar force to protect his own property, and he reasonably believes that there existed an attempt or actual commission of the crime of theft or criminal mischief."

"Also, a person is justified in using force or deadly force if he reasonably believes that the third person has requested his protection of property; or he has a legal duty to protect the property; or the third person whose property he is protecting is his spouse, parent or child."

"It is not necessary that there should be actual danger, as a person has the right to defend his life and person from apparent danger as fully and to the same extent as he would have were the danger real, as it reasonably appeared to him from his standpoint at the time."

"In fact, Sec 9.31(a) [of the Penal Code] expressly provides that a person is justified in using deadly force against another when and to the degree he reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary."
 
Last edited:
So basically she, or anyone of her friends, could have shot dead anyone damaging that car. Extreme, sure, but i think it takes the edge of the idea "lets go break peoples shit" for all those punk rioters.
 
If this happened in Texas, yeah. I didn't know in Texas you can shoot people if they try to damage your car. That's pretty funny. Only in Texas... :lol:
 
2L8IWIN said:
So basically she, or anyone of her friends, could have shot dead anyone damaging that car. Extreme, sure, but i think it takes the edge of the idea "lets go break peoples shit" for all those punk rioters.
Click to expand...
Not as extreme as one would think. Mob mentality can make even "normal" people act crazy and crazy people have no limits. While it might not be a good idea to shoot someone for damaging your car, if you sat in the car and someone started trying to break the windows while you're pointing a gun at them, then I think that's going to hold up in court just fine. Just hope you brought a lot of mags.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top