See what manners can get you!
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/5/20110209/tod-so-sorry-polite-robber-caught-on-cam-870a197.html
Thistle
Thread
Posts in chronological order
The Real Wizard
The unemployment rate is at 9%, yet they have trillions of dollars to spend on wars before they can take care of their own citizens. Welcome to America in 2011, where robbery is the last resort for guys like this.
Thistle
Sir GH wrote: The unemployment rate is at 9%, yet they have trillions of dollars to spend on wars before they can take care of their own citizens. Welcome to America in 2011, where robbery is the last resort for guys like this.
============================================================================================
Spot on. It really is sad, but oh so true. Not just for the USA, but here in the UK too (although unemployment is higher).
I actually couldn't help but feel for the guy - and the shopkeeper was so gracious about it, it was touching. The guy does have previous for it though, but the way he said "if I get back on my feet, I'll bring it back to you" would have brought a tear to a glass eye.
============================================================================================
Spot on. It really is sad, but oh so true. Not just for the USA, but here in the UK too (although unemployment is higher).
I actually couldn't help but feel for the guy - and the shopkeeper was so gracious about it, it was touching. The guy does have previous for it though, but the way he said "if I get back on my feet, I'll bring it back to you" would have brought a tear to a glass eye.
GratefulFan
'Guys like this'? As in guys with a record that includes fraud, who rob gas stations while on probation for bank robbery? The polite guy routine is as likely to be a tool of a 65 year old main to gain cooperation as it is to be anything else. I find myself with some curiousity about how old his hungry kids are as well. At best, it's about what this guys wants to think about himself. Because he's certainly not thinking about his victims in any meaningful way.
user name
Seriously, it looks like some of you guys need to pull the wool out from over your eyes.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/theblotter/2014162297_polite_robber_suspect_once_kno.html
"In 2003, Hess pleaded guilty to robbery after he was arrested in connection with a string of heists."
"The Seattle man had quit his job at a Starbucks in Madison Park before Christmas, and he was sure his unemployment benefits would dry up any day, according to charges filed in U.S. District Court in Seattle."
Also, he more likely than not has no children (or family), as I have heard from multiple (albeit unverified) sources.
It's rather silly to give an armed robber the benefit of the doubt in any scenario, no matter how "polite" (I guess you must have missed that part about the robbery) he is. He is presumptively a deplorable, amoral degenerate unless it has been proven that there are mitigating circumstances that may or may not at least partially excuse his actions - however, we shouldn't make up these circumstances for him.
Furthermore, while armed robbery is perhaps the "last resort," that doesn't excuse skipping every other resort before the last. For us to even consider whether armed robbery is even somewhat excusable - for us to consider that this felon is not a deplorable, amoral degenerate - he must not have forgone any employment opportunities, no matter how undesirable. He must have attempted to sell or pawn off all of his possessions that are not absolutely necessary for survival. He must have explored and attempted to procure welfare, and failed. He must have explored and attempted to otherwise seek the benefits of the generosity of others (e.g., panhandling), and failed. He must have explored and attempted nonviolent means of theft, and failed. Furthermore, the lives of his loved ones must be immediately threatened, and he must have genuinely been acting exclusively in their favor. And he must not take any more than the bare minimum that he needs.
In short, not only must the robbery be absolutely necessary, not only must the robbery be limited to that which is absolutely necessary, but he must have explored every other possible opportunity conceivable before actively infringing upon the rights of others.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/theblotter/2014162297_polite_robber_suspect_once_kno.html
"In 2003, Hess pleaded guilty to robbery after he was arrested in connection with a string of heists."
"The Seattle man had quit his job at a Starbucks in Madison Park before Christmas, and he was sure his unemployment benefits would dry up any day, according to charges filed in U.S. District Court in Seattle."
Also, he more likely than not has no children (or family), as I have heard from multiple (albeit unverified) sources.
It's rather silly to give an armed robber the benefit of the doubt in any scenario, no matter how "polite" (I guess you must have missed that part about the robbery) he is. He is presumptively a deplorable, amoral degenerate unless it has been proven that there are mitigating circumstances that may or may not at least partially excuse his actions - however, we shouldn't make up these circumstances for him.
Furthermore, while armed robbery is perhaps the "last resort," that doesn't excuse skipping every other resort before the last. For us to even consider whether armed robbery is even somewhat excusable - for us to consider that this felon is not a deplorable, amoral degenerate - he must not have forgone any employment opportunities, no matter how undesirable. He must have attempted to sell or pawn off all of his possessions that are not absolutely necessary for survival. He must have explored and attempted to procure welfare, and failed. He must have explored and attempted to otherwise seek the benefits of the generosity of others (e.g., panhandling), and failed. He must have explored and attempted nonviolent means of theft, and failed. Furthermore, the lives of his loved ones must be immediately threatened, and he must have genuinely been acting exclusively in their favor. And he must not take any more than the bare minimum that he needs.
In short, not only must the robbery be absolutely necessary, not only must the robbery be limited to that which is absolutely necessary, but he must have explored every other possible opportunity conceivable before actively infringing upon the rights of others.
Amazon
While I don't agree with user name (kinda like having password as your password :P) that the robber is a 'deplorable, amoral degenerate', I do agree that we shouldn't act as if he is doing what he is doing because he has no choice. No matter his situation, it does not justify his threatening someone with a loaded gun.
The Real Wizard
Hmm, why is it always that people who aren't destitute are the first to judge those who are destitute? Everyone seems to be an expert on everything they don't understand..
lifetimefanofqueen
he obviously didnt want to be violant because he saw the old lady who beat up the robbers in the streets on TV
Sebastian
> Everyone seems to be an expert on everything they don't understand..
It's called humanity. Want some proof? Pick any thread on this forum.
It's called humanity. Want some proof? Pick any thread on this forum.
GratefulFan
Sir GH wrote:
Everyone seems to be an expert on everything they don't understand..
==================================
You mean like weaving a whole fairytale around an armed robber because he said please and thank-you? Google is full of polite thief stories. Of course good people can do bad things, and it's not enough to point out that not every person who finds themselves chronically short of cash resorts to sticking up banks and gas stations. That said, we can have as much empathy for this guy as a person as we like, but as a society we still have to deal with his behaviour as criminal. I think people are a bit too willing to romanticize felony robbery.
Everyone seems to be an expert on everything they don't understand..
==================================
You mean like weaving a whole fairytale around an armed robber because he said please and thank-you? Google is full of polite thief stories. Of course good people can do bad things, and it's not enough to point out that not every person who finds themselves chronically short of cash resorts to sticking up banks and gas stations. That said, we can have as much empathy for this guy as a person as we like, but as a society we still have to deal with his behaviour as criminal. I think people are a bit too willing to romanticize felony robbery.
-fatty- 2850
It could so easily gone the other way had the store-keeper not handed over the cash.
"I'm really sorry about this but I'm going to have to put some bullets in your body. You might want to put your fingers in your ears as this gun is a tad on the loud side."
BLAM, BLAM,BLAM!
"I'm so sorry that I had to shoot in the chest just then. I sincerely hope that you survive your wounds and make a full recovery."
fatty.
"I'm really sorry about this but I'm going to have to put some bullets in your body. You might want to put your fingers in your ears as this gun is a tad on the loud side."
BLAM, BLAM,BLAM!
"I'm so sorry that I had to shoot in the chest just then. I sincerely hope that you survive your wounds and make a full recovery."
fatty.
Amazon
Sir GH wrote: "Hmm, why is it always that people who aren't destitute are the first to judge those who are destitute?"
Please, it's not about judging anyone, although I should point out that you do your fair bit of judging. It is about how no matter how poor one may be, it does not justify pointing a gun at someone.
This guy didn't just rob a house; he pointed a (presumably) loaded gun at someone. Nothing justifies that, and perhaps instead of bemoaning the fact that some people do not consider this guy to be a victim, maybe you can think about the real victim? That is the guy who had a gun pointed at him. What if this guy said no? Would the polite robber be so polite? How would the guy be coping with the fact that he was robbed at gun point? What this robber did was terrible, and his being destitute can certainly be brought up as a mitigating factor in the sentencing hearing, however I do not believe that it can in any way be used to justify or explain away what this guy did.
"Everyone seems to be an expert on everything they don't understand.."
You don't know what we do or do not understand. Regardless, it's irrelevent; the robber committed a serious crime.
BTW, I could say the same to you. You seem to be an expert on armed robbery yet presumably you've never been a victim of one.
Please, it's not about judging anyone, although I should point out that you do your fair bit of judging. It is about how no matter how poor one may be, it does not justify pointing a gun at someone.
This guy didn't just rob a house; he pointed a (presumably) loaded gun at someone. Nothing justifies that, and perhaps instead of bemoaning the fact that some people do not consider this guy to be a victim, maybe you can think about the real victim? That is the guy who had a gun pointed at him. What if this guy said no? Would the polite robber be so polite? How would the guy be coping with the fact that he was robbed at gun point? What this robber did was terrible, and his being destitute can certainly be brought up as a mitigating factor in the sentencing hearing, however I do not believe that it can in any way be used to justify or explain away what this guy did.
"Everyone seems to be an expert on everything they don't understand.."
You don't know what we do or do not understand. Regardless, it's irrelevent; the robber committed a serious crime.
BTW, I could say the same to you. You seem to be an expert on armed robbery yet presumably you've never been a victim of one.
The Real Wizard
Amazon wrote:
BTW, I could say the same to you. You seem to be an expert on armed robbery yet presumably you've never been a victim of one.
====================================
Right, so I'm not going to assume that every human being in this world would react the same to being robbed. Maybe this clerk had a shred of humanity too, and knew the guy wasn't going to pull the trigger.
BTW, I could say the same to you. You seem to be an expert on armed robbery yet presumably you've never been a victim of one.
====================================
Right, so I'm not going to assume that every human being in this world would react the same to being robbed. Maybe this clerk had a shred of humanity too, and knew the guy wasn't going to pull the trigger.
Amazon
Sir GH wrote:"Right, so I'm not going to assume that every human being in this world would react the same to being robbed. Maybe this clerk had a shred of humanity too, and knew the guy wasn't going to pull the trigger."
Incredible. You actually think that if someone points a gun at you, and you don't know if they are going to pull the trigger, you don't have a 'shred of humanity'?
That is so ignorant it's not funny. For someone who has never been a victim of an armed robbery, that you would actually judge the victim and suggest that if he was afraid for his life (a natural reaction BTW) he does not have humanity, is incredible. This is truly taking arrogance and blindness to an entirely different level.
You're right, BTW. Not every human being would react the same way to being robbed. But no matter how they might react, it does not justify robbing them. If the robber had any shred of humanity, he wouldn't have gone into a store and pointed a gun at someone.
Robbing someone, in this way, doesn't simply take money from them. It also, in many cases, traumatizes them. But what would you care? Afterall, the victim had to know that the robber wouldn't actually pull the trigger; if the victim had refused, the robber was just going to apologise and walk away with the unfired gun.
Incredible. You actually think that if someone points a gun at you, and you don't know if they are going to pull the trigger, you don't have a 'shred of humanity'?
That is so ignorant it's not funny. For someone who has never been a victim of an armed robbery, that you would actually judge the victim and suggest that if he was afraid for his life (a natural reaction BTW) he does not have humanity, is incredible. This is truly taking arrogance and blindness to an entirely different level.
You're right, BTW. Not every human being would react the same way to being robbed. But no matter how they might react, it does not justify robbing them. If the robber had any shred of humanity, he wouldn't have gone into a store and pointed a gun at someone.
Robbing someone, in this way, doesn't simply take money from them. It also, in many cases, traumatizes them. But what would you care? Afterall, the victim had to know that the robber wouldn't actually pull the trigger; if the victim had refused, the robber was just going to apologise and walk away with the unfired gun.
Sebastian
I don't know what the hell is going on this year, but I actually agree with Amazon. Armed robbery is not a game. It's serious business with serious consequences, even if it doesn't end in homicide. There's some sort of balance between being an extremist 'he who steals a pen from work deserves the chair and has to burn in hell for eternity' and 'well... he's suffered a lot, the government's done this and that, he's been "forced" to do what he did'.
Because if you look at things like that, every single thief, hitman, gangster, rapist, genocide or off-pitch singer has a valid Freudian excuse for whatever they do. What if the person who got robbed (who was completely innocent, BTW) gets so traumatised he starts beating his wife? I'm sure that's OK, since he suffered a lot. And then his wife mistreats their kids because she needs to give vent to the anger and frustration she feels. And the kids become bullies. And one of the kids they bully winds up committing suicide, thus enabling their parents and loved ones to seek and destroy the bullies, one of which had a baby, who then grows up with all sorts of fears and becomes an underachiever, compulsive liar and outcast. And then, one day, he or she goes to a shop and robs it with a gun... but that's alright, as he/she went through a lot!
Because if you look at things like that, every single thief, hitman, gangster, rapist, genocide or off-pitch singer has a valid Freudian excuse for whatever they do. What if the person who got robbed (who was completely innocent, BTW) gets so traumatised he starts beating his wife? I'm sure that's OK, since he suffered a lot. And then his wife mistreats their kids because she needs to give vent to the anger and frustration she feels. And the kids become bullies. And one of the kids they bully winds up committing suicide, thus enabling their parents and loved ones to seek and destroy the bullies, one of which had a baby, who then grows up with all sorts of fears and becomes an underachiever, compulsive liar and outcast. And then, one day, he or she goes to a shop and robs it with a gun... but that's alright, as he/she went through a lot!