Pathetic robber

[Grenadier]

Who in his right mind tries to rob an Alcoholics Anonymous meeting?

http://www.wltx.com:80/news/story.aspx?storyid=72491&catid=2

He deserved what he got:

They say he demanded two people empty their pockets. That's when police say a person with a concealed weapons permit shot the man in his chest.

Dead robber, no charges filed against the good Samaritan.

 

[Omar B]

Hilarious. When will these people learn? You can't always pick out the victim in the crowd, you never know who's armed, who can kick you a## or who's nearby. But I guess that's why they are criminals, they don't realize it's a loosing game.

 

[Guardian]

Hard way to learn a lesson, but maybe something good will come out of this, others will learn from this and not make the same mistake as this idiot did.

 

[Flea]

That's just plain embarrassing. Obviously he doesn't know his audience. How many recovering addicts are flush with cash?! The divine irony is that he was probably cruising for drug money.

I feel terrible for the meeting participants who were subjected to that. Hell of an inducement to hit the bottle.

 

[Deaf Smith]

I think he felt since it was for chemicaly dependent people, that by law cannot posess firearms, then they would all be unarmed. Sort of a 'gun free' zone you might say.

Well I guess it wasn't as gun free as he thought.

Deaf

 

[Flea]

chemicaly dependent people, that by law cannot posess firearms

That's a new one on me. Where do you get that?

 

[Gordon Nore]

I've been digging around on this story because the idea of robbing a meeting didn't make any real sense, not that it has to. The perpetrator obviously wasn't in the best frame of mind. The site of the robbery and shooting appears to be a club of sorts in which AA meetings can be held. Found this picture...

Story: http://www.thestate.com/154/story/747468.html

You'll notice a sign on the door, indicating that money is not kept on the premises overnight. The person who held the place up was very foolish or very disturbed indeed.

 

[grydth]

Who in his right mind tries to rob an Alcoholics Anonymous meeting?

Indeed - he may well have had better luck trying to pull a heist at a meeting of Handgun Control, Inc!

 

[Deaf Smith]

That's a new one on me. Where do you get that?

Texas penal code. It's a fancy way of saying drug addict.

http://www.state.tx.us/txdps/chl/qualifyInfo.html

Deaf

 

[MA-Caver]

That's just plain embarrassing. Obviously he doesn't know his audience. How many recovering addicts are flush with cash?! The divine irony is that he was probably cruising for drug money.

I feel terrible for the meeting participants who were subjected to that. Hell of an inducement to hit the bottle.

Maybe, but then again they all got something to laugh about later on. Hell, we do.

 

[Flea]

Thanks for the link, Deaf. I knew a lot of states like that had such laws on the books, but I hadn't seen them.

Not that the laws necessarily prevent someone from getting a gun in practice. I have very mixed feelings about this issue. Yes, "keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill" is a nice simplistic solution. But how many people who use guns in crimes actually have a diagnosis, before or after the fact? Not many, I'm guessing.

Also these laws (or at least the one you linked to) have an oversimplified understanding of mental illness. There are different types of bipolar and schiz, for instance, with radically different symptoms. And I have no idea why dissociative identity disorder made the list. I think a lot of this is based in stereotypes. I don't disagree with all the criteria - dementia is a great category for not-gun-having. And if someone has a criminal history related to addictive behavior, then yes. But again, for this law to apply to a person they have to have been "noticed" in an official capacity. It's not the mentally ill person in treatment you have to worry about. It's the one who's never been diagnosed, and therefore has no problem getting a gun anyway.

:soapbox: (Sorry ...)

 

[chinto]

sounds like an armed citizen did what needed to be done. I am sorry he had to take a life, but I think it was the correct action to take.

I really hope that no legal repercussions come to him at all!! but, unfortunately you just know some liberal lawyer who does not like guns will sue him for the relatives of the robber.

 

[Deaf Smith]

Flea,

Being chemically dependant is not the same as mentally ill. To lose ones rights to guns requires you to be a danger if you are mentally ill. A doctor has to certify you are mentally ill and a danger to yourself and/or others.

Actually they say everyone is mentally ill to a degree. Which is true enough since no one is perfectly physically healthy either. Look long and hard enough and one can find something wrong with any person.

But I'm sane, it's just everyone else that's crazy.

Deaf