Online games turn British man into hero Whenever anyone goes crazy with a gun, the press are usually quick to blame video and computer games for the young person's violence. So we're grateful to one Reg reader for bringing the following to our attention - a man whose brain was so addled by the filth of online, and LAN gaming that he stepped in to try and stop an …
"He went to help the guards and was shot in the chest by one of the men. The robbers got away with the cash box. Security firm Loomis is offering a £25,000 reward for information leading to their capture."
This bloke helped the security guards, police are calling him a hero and he should get a reward.
Uh-huh.
An unarmed man challenges armed robbers and takes a near-fatal shot to the chest.
Please enlighten me as to why we should applaud this.
Did he make anyone safer? Probably not. Most armed robbers will not shoot unless they're threatened. Very few security guards are foolhardy enough to challenge an armed man. When this man got involved, he became a "threat" and the robbers responded with decisive, potentially lethal, action.
Don't confuse bravery (a virtue) with lack of fear (not necessarily a good thing). Remember that money is only money, but a life is irreplaceable.
(A former security guard.)
I really do applaud Adam for trying to do the right thing and foil the robbery but it wasn't really very clever was it. All these gamers are saying "so much for games being a bad influence" but actually I think they might have influenced him to make the wrong choice here.
The woman he was "saving" was a paid, uniformed security guard in the process of being robbed by two armed criminals. She and her colleague (where was he?) were filling an ATM machine when the crooks appeared. She had not been shot, she was probably just going to let them have the cash and let the insurance company pay out. Nobody gets hurt and hopefully the police catch the crooks soon enough anyway and justice can be served. But then this have-a-go-hero decides to tackle the armed robbers and nearly loses his life in the process.
Isn't it possible that this guy's experience with shoot-em-ups (of which I am a huge fan) had given him a sense of over-confidence and led him to recklessly endanger himself when he need not have done so? Isn't it possible that he thought "I've done this before, I'll just disarm the guy and point his own gun at him" when what he really should have done and what the security guards had been trained to do was to comply with the robber's requests and try very hard not to get shot?
What kind of moron takes on armed gunmen after some security guards cash?!
Its not your money, the security guards get danger pay for this kind of thing so can get shot should they feel the need, so screw em.
Plus he wasn't carrying any weaponry himself so its not like he sniped em or took em out with a cunning shotgun blast. Sounds more like this wannabe-hero had been watching too many Steven Segal classics.
"Is it me, or does anybody else not actually see the connection between his playing the game and his helping out?"
That is the entire point of the article, there is no connection, just like there's no connection between people playing games and running around shooting people. Just in that case being a gamer is bought out and paraded in a bad light, whereas here, it's ignored.
There is next to no play in Counter-Strike: Source that is unarmed. From a technical perspective, it seems this particular game can have no bearing on his actions.
Unless he was trying to defuse a bomb or rescue hostages, I suppose; those actions are conducted without the direct use of weapons, but no CT (counter-terrorist; the one of the two teams in the game who rescues hosties or defuses) would undertake these actions in the direct presence of an enemy unless he (or she) had lots of cover and little time, or was so desperate that being killed seemed an acceptable likelihood (since once the bomb or round timer runs out, you'd lose anyway).
Now, if the guy had shot the robbers in the head with a pistol or slit their throats from behind, that would point to Counter-Strike: Source.
(My apologies if this guy plays the older classic Counter-Strike, the details of which I am not intiminate familiar with.)
Perhaps Adam was unprepared, but he is a hero all the same. Anytime someone goes out of his way to help others at risk to his or her own life, I call that heroism.
Forgive a damn yankee for offering this secondary comment, but consider this:
If you were in the same predicament, wouldn't you welcome some help? Regardless of the source?
Armed robbery is technically a victimless crime. The companies involved are certainly fully insured for things like this happening, and had this guy not intervened there would have been little fallout from this.
If Adam had stepped up in a situation where there was a genuine risk to life then he would definitely be considered a "have a go hero", but the fact is his actions could've made the situation much more worse than it ended up. What if the robbers paniced and started firing their guns indiscriminately? What if they'd fatally injured the guy?
It would seem on the balance of the information available thus far that if anything the fascination with Counter-Strike (online game) resulted a dangerously inappropriate reaction to a situation that could've ended up so much worse. We shouldn't be applauding the guy for taking his life and others into his own hands.
Games (violent or no) neither make a person a hero or a psycho. They do not make someone take a chance they might not have otherwise taken. I believe it was a UK politician that recently (last couple of months or so) claimed that a troubled young adult playing GTA and smoking some "super skunk" somehow caused a psychotic break from reality and he went on the town wreaking havoc. Somehow in the story the game and the herb were to blame...not the fact the guy had a case of schizophrenia and was also on some powerful anti-psychotics...but yeah...blame the game. Rubbish. If a person is crazy and likely to hurt or worse kill...a game will not be the catalyst to cause him to go nuts anymore than a movie, or a book or a song would. That line was crossed long before in his own mind. Some folks (for good like Adam) or ill (like GTA weedboy) are just plain stupid (like Adam) or crazy (like GTAboy) or worse they are both.
"Armed robbery is technically a victimless crime"
Oh really? Tell that to the person looking down the end of a shotgun wondering if they are shortly going to be blown away. Witness them traumatised for weeks if not months afterwards.
And don't give me any crap about being paid to do that type of work. Nobody deserves to be treated like that.
I've always thought that games should be more realistic - ie when you get shot dead you can't play the game anymore, ever. Or if you're shot and wounded then you have to wait 3 months before you can play again & then only with one arm / leg or blind or whatever. That way the game play would be much more true to life without people running round shooting stuff up willy-nilly.
Anybody remember how much more satifying it was to complete one of the old-skool platform games before they started letting you save your progress? Going back to the begining each time you made a mistake certainly instilled some caution when it came to judging your next move...
"Oh really? Tell that to the person looking down the end of a shotgun wondering if they are shortly going to be blown away. Witness them traumatised for weeks if not months afterwards.
And don't give me any crap about being paid to do that type of work. Nobody deserves to be treated like that."
So what do YOU expect when you take on a job like that? What should a bodyguard expect when they take on the job of protecting a high-profile individual? It's called hazard pay for a reason.
Fair enough situations like this can result in psychological trauma which is why these companies have councillors on the payroll, but it's *part of the job*. If you're contracted to carry around vast quantities on cash in public then it's a reasonable expectation that they could be robbed, if anything it's a significantly higher risk than an actual bank teller.
Armed robbers are after the cash, they're not looking to take hostages or kill anyone (why would they want to triple their jail sentences?) - so long as the people involved keep their head and comply with the demands they'll come away unscathed.
Anyone commenting that there is no connection, as the article draws, between his gaming habits and his will to get involved in that situation obviously isn't very well versed in detecting sarcasm.
And anyone commenting that he was an idiot to get involved probably knows more about the situation than I do - for example the answer to the question if the gun was visible when he decided to help out.
And that is not to say that the majority would get involved if there was no gun involved - a salute to all those who will drive on when a car crashes right in front of them - it just might be staged and they'll rob you, eh?
I can't believe the comments made by people on this post! It may have been foolhardy for him to tackle the armed criminals, but at least he was prepared to stand up for what he believed in and say no! Just suppose the robbers had been armed with fake weapons - it might have been the actions of this brave man that turned a robbery into an attempted robbery!
How many times have the people who posted the negative comments on this article been witness to a crime (no matter how minor) and just crossed to the other side of the street or turned a blind eye? Just imagine that rather than a security van delivering cash to a faceless ATM that this was a woman about to be raped or a young person having his mobile phone stolen. No one wants to get involved and yet we're the first to say that this nation is going to ruin - take some responsibility you f*ck!ng cowards and stand up for what you believe in!
It makes me sick when I think back to my youth and the personal freedoms I enjoyed and how today I wouldn't let my children out on the streets for fear of their safety. This nation is what it is because of the people in it - if you want it to be a better place you have to help make it a better place. Grow some b@lls!
There have been plenty armed robberies where the criminal- all 'logic' aside- shoots/assaults/kidnaps a fully complying victim who had just handed over cash/car keys/etc. It happens in enough of these cases to be considered uncommon but not exceptional.
Basically, trying what that dude in the story did was crazy. If he knew that the criminals had a gun, that makes him double-crazy. But since the people he was trying to protect lived, at some level it must have worked. For all we know his sudden appearance, or the criminals' fear that the shot fired may have been heard by the cops, spooked the bandits enough that they decided to flee rather than try to murder the other witnesses.
And that's why I like to carry gadgets like expandable batons on my commute. Enough stuff happens on the public transit here that its advantageous to have something that will put a troublemaker down five times faster than empty hands alone, but still not legally be considered "lethal force".
Des, your comments are completely stupid. Have I ever been involved in witnessing a crime of that sort? Nope. Instead I've served in the military and been involved in operations in the Middle East.
Let me tell you, if you decide you're going to rush an armed opponent unarmed and unarmored then you're foolish and suicidal. Nothing was gained from this and he made himself into worse then a victim, he made himself into a potential hostage for the gunman and endangered others in the line of their jobs. He didn't help things at all, only hindered them.
The man is no hero at all. He's the worst type of person to be in such a dangerous situation: an amatuer. He interefered in an operation, putting himself into danger, giving the criminal even more leverage and hindered the security detail because they then had to worry about some dumb civilian stuck in the middle of it, infinitely increasing the danger level and complication of the events.
The man was full of false bravado and stupidity. Truthfully if there was justice in this world the man would be dead for his stupidity. But maybe this way he'll learn a valuable lesson. Don't get into a situation you aren't trained or paid to handle. There are professionals for this reason.
Oh, and I love your comparison of the crimes of a woman being raped and some young man's cellphone being stolen. I'm glad you valuable your cell enough to even present the crime in the same sentance as the rape of a woman. It's stupidity like yours that has made this country what it is...
"He could have saved a lot of time and pain if he had just gone about his business."
He took it upon himself to attempt to do a good deed, and got himself injured. I'm sure he knew that was a possibility going in.
Why is everyone criticizing him for it? Who cares if it was $25k, $2, or a candy bar. Have people been so beaten into passivity that they're unable to stand up to criminals any more? Isn't there any worth in saying "no, that's not ok and we're not going to stand for it?"
It's not about whether it was worth getting hurt; that's entirely up to him alone, not a bunch of Internet commentators stating that they don't feel it's worth /their/ time to stand up to criminals. It's about the precedent set by saying "go ahead and rob us, we're not going to do anything." Armed robbery a victimless crime? Even if it's simply from the perspective of being insured, that doesn't mean the money just magically comes out of nowhere. Insurance premiums go up and people end up paying one way or another. When you simply let criminals go about their business unhindered everyone becomes a victim. It's great that people here might be too cowardly to do their bit to make the world a better place, but the pure audacity to criticize those try to is disgusting.
Adam, your action - while not being entirely sensible - pretty much fit the definition of "hero". I'll raise a glass in your honour!
People - the point of this story, like others have picked up on, is that usually we get "playing FPS games makes you a homicidal killer". But here's an example of a gamer doing something noble, and guess what, no tabloid headlines about "CS l33t has a go" etc - double standards eh!
What sickens me is the folk posting that he should of just put his head down and walked past - NO! Okay, I'd be the first to agree that he should have dialed 999/911 and got the police on the case, but from what I've read he didn't see a gun and just reacted to the cries for help from the guards - perfectly understandable.
Meanwhile, anyone know where "Darren Coleman" lives. We'll go round with a "piece" ("heater" in the UK) tie him up and ransack his house before stealing his car. After all, he's probably insured, so not a victim. Or maybe we should go to where he works and steal the payroll, after all he'd not be a victim then either*.
(* before someone has a go at me - the paragraph above is said with tongue very firmly in cheek. I'm still shocked that anyone can consider theft a "victimless crime".)
I bet he wishes he hadn't done it considering the pain he'll now be in. I bet he's in hospital thinking how stupid he's been.
Despite all this, what he did at the time was the right thing. If more people challenged criminal and anti-social behaviour we'd be living in a much safer country.
The poster who reckons he should have just gone about his own business is merely trying to hide the fact that he knows that, faced with such a situation, he'd have run off, not helped. Cowardly to criticise for what you could not have done.
I'm sure that everyone criticising the guy would be the first to call foul if they were held up at gunpoint and nobody tried to help.
Indeed what he did was obviously ill-planned as he got himself shot - he must have dived right in without giving a moment to consider how to approach the situation (i.e maybe come from behind and deliver two swift nut-breaking kicks) - in situations like this you can end up getting in the way of the guards and that's how someone gets shot.
But yeah, having a shot at him (no pun) because he got himself shot is not nice. He did try to help and that was brave. Its easy to take the scenario to pieces after the fact and say oh he should have done this or that but if you were there, as an untrained and unexpectant joe public, your mind would have already made a split-second decision about whether to jump in or walk away before you even knew about it. Fight or Flight, remember?
Believe me, if you ever chance across a situation like this (and I'm not talking about people who have been trained for this kind of thing) you will get such a shot of adrenaline you won't know left from right...
Anyway I hope he gets better. And I hope we start seeing more like him,albeit without the getting wounded part...a few weeks ago, I was walking home from work past my local park in Limerick. As I passed the park, which is overlooked by several apartment blocks, I heard someone screaming from an open window "I'm going to kill you...I'm going to kill you ALL! You f***ers! I'm going to kill you all!"...now this guy was really loud, and in fact as I passed I saw several people stop and look up at the source of the noise.
Not a single person reached for their phone and rang the police. I did, and waited for 10 minutes for them to arrive (that's another story for another day - there is a police station about 500 yards from this location but they insisted on transferring my call to the one that's a mile down the road)...anyway in that time there must have been about 50 people walked past, looked up at the noise, and walked on, heads down, absorbed in their little worlds.
Eventually the cops came and to be honest I did not stick around....but you know what, even if I was sure what apartment this guy was in, and the door was open, no way woud have gone near it. I don't want to get shot and I certainly do not want to die at the moment. But was I going to assume that someone else would take care of this? What if I had walked away and the guy had started shooting people? Sure, he was probably just drunk and having a bad day, but what if?
So really, when you come across a situation like our gamer did, you have to do *something* about it..and personally I think he should get a medal for his bravery.
We need more people, fool-hardy or otherwise, who have a sense of justice and will not stand idly by when coming across something like this.
The population as a whole seems to be developing more and more of a "it's not my problem" attitude. This is, of course, the same population who then bitch and moan about rising crime rates, bullying, kids showing no respect to their elders (Who can blame them?) and yobs.
To all those who thought Adam should have done nothing: stop being so pathetic and grow a spine.
In France you have to come to the assistance of someone in trouble. Thats because they recognise this thing called fraternity.
Of course he should have come to the aid of a fellow citizen. There is a moral lack in the UK, especially in London where people walk by as their fellows are raped on the tube. Head down, none of my business. Sad fucks.
"Seems like someone made a huge mistake giving out all those VCs and Purple Hearts. Those guys weren’t being brave charging machine guns single-handed; they were being stupid. I am very sure a number of sensible readers here could explain to them where they went wrong."
Let's just get some thing straight here. The Purple Heart is not awarded for bravery. It is awarded for being injured or killed in combat (or subsequently dying as a result of it), regardless of whether you are charging machine guns or making a can of coffee in your tent.
As for the crime being "victimless" - oh, well that's all right then, you armed robbers just carry on...
Scottie you said "Don't get into a situation you aren't trained or paid to handle. There are professionals for this reason."
While that's true, the problem is, just in this situation, there weren't any professionals around. I agree, if there are professionals then leave it to them, but the reason criminals have such an easy time in this country is that no one stands up to them. Whether it be armed robbers or a bunch of teenagers causing grief.
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."
I'm impressed with the equal-opportunities security firm for employing people of multiple gender. I'd like to see pictures and/or video of the hermaphrodite grappling with villans. Could someone post it to alt.bin.scampy.get.on.msn.i.need.to.talk.to.you.about.stu please?
Yes what he did was foolish. Yes he paid a rather high price for it. Yes, he should have probably contented himself with just stopping a bit farther down and calling the cops while keeping an eye on the situation.
Yet he did try to help. And he most probably knew that there was a gun involved. I'll be d a m n e d if I call a guy who does his best to do the right thing an idiot.
I couldn't care less that he wasn't a pro, if everyone ALWAYS stood up against crime, whatever the odds, the criminals would soon learn that they simply cannot win.
Yes, it is certainly foolish to throw oneself bare-handed against someone with a firearm, but when nobody does anything you get girls gang-raped in trains packed with people.
This guy reacted against impossible odds, which earns immense respect from me, and he survived, which makes him lucky and earns even more respect. He showed those criminals that they just can't expect everything to go as planned, and more importantly, he showed those criminals that they cannot count on the guards being the only people involved in the heist. That probably unnerved them enough to foil their escape, and that is a good thing.
The sum total is that he did a Good Deed, and one worthy of praise. Yes it was idiotic, foolish, almost certain death was involved, but he tried. It is all the people who never try that make our society dangerous.
So stop with the sheep mentality already !
The comments in this thread reveal much about the readers of The Register, and little of it is positive.
Many are so detached from reality they think it amusing to make in-game jokes, about a man being shot.
Others are so far removed from humanity they adopt an assumed moral high-ground in relation to someone who wasn't prepared to stand back and let it happen.
I am small minded enough to congratulate the guy for having the moral fibre to get involved, and to wish the people who belittle his actions the pleasure of being robbed in the strret - especially the person who described this as being victimless.
Probably, especially if the definition of hero is 'someone who gets other people killed'.
I've actually been in a situation like this (not guns though, knives) and as someone rightly pointed out the shot of adrenaline kicks in like nothing else I've ever experienced. It is at exactly this point that you're true character shines through (most especially if you don't have trained reflexes that kick in here).
Now this guy hits this moment and he finds out he'd rather risk death than let someone get away with hurting someone else. There is an argument that would suggest that had the armed robbers been professional they would have followed up the shot to the chest with one to the head, then a double strike on the guards to eliminate the witnesses.
However, in order to think of this his reactions would had to have been trained so that his rational mind took over again fairly quickly to stop him diving in. He wasn't trained (as far as I'm aware) so he did the only thing he could - he had a go.
That makes him a hero. For all I know he's a complete a-hole to his wife/kids etc. but probably not - he's made of the right stuff at least.
@Dax's "Assist a fellow citizen"... Wake up please ! There's a difference between assisting and stupidly taking their place, for one thing, and for another assisting dumbly is much worse (as undoubtedly any person who's had an incompetent co-worker knows by now) than not assisting at all.
As several people pointed out, calling the police would have been one sensible thing to do. I'm sure security guards can fend for themselves -- and if they cannot, it's certainly not John Doe, unarmed, untrained and unarmoured, who's going to save the day... not by throwing himself in anyway.
What sort of a world is it that we live in when a guy tries to help, gets hurt and gets scorn and ridicule from the pasty nerds that read this site.
Anyone that walks past a fellow human in desperate need of help deserves to be locked up in chokey, spending 5 -10 years as a fat man's sex dolly.
Do nothing, walk on by and the scum will inherit the Earth. Good on you, IT Support dude.
I'm surprised it even registered.
Anyway, yes a bit foolhardy to intervene but at least it's a refreshing change to see someone with unselfish instincts.
And re computer games can/can't influence - saying they definitely can't is no more intelligent than saying they definitely can. In some people things influence to a different extent than in others; using as proof of its influence a case where a computer game seems to have influenced is no more stupid than providing a case where a computer game did /not/ influence someone to "prove" the opposite.
Anyway, back to work.
the police and the insurance companies advise people to NOT attempt to tackle robbers because it would be stupid to do so. The man made a stupid decision and suffered for it. The sensible thing to do would to note as much information about the scene and the robbers as possible without interfering, and be on hand to help when they have fled. Yes robbers MAY shoot someone anyway, but they tend not to want to get caught and WILL do anything in their power to prevent that. The criticism of this individual is well justified if theres the slightest chance others will not repeat his stupidity.
I cant believe Michael H who cites "insurance premiums going up" as if people paying more is somehow worse than someone getting shot. Personally, Ill be happy to pay an extra 0001p on a premium to save someones life even if Michael isn't.
""" He's the worst type of person to be in such a dangerous situation: an amatuer.[sic] """
Remember: Amateurs built the Ark, professionals built the Titanic.
Just another damn yank chiming in, but if there were more guys like this (unarmed but willing to rush armed people) then maybe on our side of the pond, just maybe 9/11 wouldn't have happened.
IMHO, and all that jazz... but I still think the guy's a hero (maybe not the smartest on the block, but nonetheless...) and should be applauded for his efforts.
Scottie, I disagree that my comments are completely stupid although I confess to feeling outraged at the flaming this young man was receiving for being brave (or stupid) enough to stand up for what he thought was right and put his life on the line to come to the aid of others.
To respond to your comments; I have not witnessed an armed robbery, but I have witnessed and assisted with the prevention of a petty crime - I happened to be leaving a supermarket as a man ran out with over a hundred GBPs worth of meat. I ran to the assistance of the security guard as others just stood and watched. My wife provoked a couple of additional men to assist in preventing the theif from getting into a car and making a clean getaway, but otherwise they would have stood and watched! In this case the danger was limited; the theif may of had a knife, he may have got into his car and used that as a weapon, but in the end he was apprended and he didn't get away with his crime. The victim here might have been a faceless corporation that makes huge profits but the fact remains that the theif was attempting to commit a crime and I believe that by standing by and spectating I would have been supporting him in his criminal activities!
I have also been in the military, and my reasons for being in the armed forces didn't start out as noble ones, but merely because I sought out employment and the military offered me a stepping stone into a career that provided me with training and made me the man I am today. In no way did it make me feel that I had become different from the rest of society and in no way did I presume that I had joined a small elite force of protectors of society! Just because we have police and military personnel does not mean that we give up any responsibility, that only serves to support the ideas that you seem so set on. For me, the police are too small a resource to be able to deal with all crime and need all the help they can get. Your language (cellphone) suggests that you may not be a UK resident(?), but in the UK there are people who give up their free time as Police Community Support Officers (http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/police/recruitment/community-support-officer/). They work with the police in their local communities because they want to make a difference, not disappear into the background in the hope that criminals won't notice them.
I had a discussion with a co-worker about this topic and he seemed to suggest that he would only stand up against crime if it was an individual that was being attacked. How do you judge whether or not to stand up against crime? Do you ask the victim if they can afford the loss? Do you make an arbitrary decision based upon their personal wealth? If you were the victim of a criminal act (if someone was stealing your mobile phone or if you were being assaulted) how would you feel if the people who witnessed the crime turned their back on you? The police are a stretched resource and cannot be depended upon, this country is the way it is today because too many people turn their back on crime.
Just for the record I don't consider that a mobile phone is equivalent in any way to a woman being raped; my point was that crime is crime no matter how much monetary or personal value is affected by the crime.
adam did got shot yes! but its a risK! better that one guy get shot and survives then 2 people gets killed. the robbers would a shot to kill if he hadent showed up anyways! dont go aboutn and call that man a stupid man couse his not! i would a done the same, trying to help someone isent stupid its what a hero does! a coword like some of you guys who just watches! and mine your own buisness! /CHIKEN! IS ALL I GOT 2 SAY 2 U NOOBS!
OK, so a guy acts to prevent a crime, gets shot and people say he's stupid? So whats next? See a mugger, walk on by. Let the person get mugged and hope the police catch them? After all, not your problem is it? What next? Expect the police to walk on by too cos they're not armed either?
I'm actually saddened that people can criticise a man who at least was bo***cks enough to stand up to thieves. We should be applauding him not mocking.
There's a difference between helping somebody who's being mugged and intervening in a robbery. The guards are professionals who were trained what to do: Hand the cash box over and don't antagonise them. When nobody is in direct danger, the only people who should be confronting armed criminals is armed police.
This post has been deleted by its author
In most situations, it's easy for a bystander to get into a position where he can subdue the criminal without exposing himself to significant harm. Just come up behind the criminal and kick him/her in the back of the knee/reproductive organ. Drop yourself, elbow first, on the criminal as soon as he/she starts falling. Unless you weigh next to nothing, that'll put them on the ground, knock the wind out of them and leave you on top.
In this particular case, two against one, armed robbery of a money transport, it's better not to intervene. The criminals are getting away with nothing of use (The money boxes are all trapped) and they are, as said before, unlikely to harm anybody if you let them get away.
What part of
"saw a male and female security guard struggling with two men. He went to help the guards"
Did you people not get?
Bravery \Brav"er*y\, n. [Cf. F. braverie.]
1. The quality of being brave; fearless; intrepidity.
[1913 Webster]
and
n 1: a quality of spirit that enables you to face danger of pain
without showing fear.
How is coming to the aid of the good in an ongoing situation which had the potential for bad prevailing anything but bravery?
Out of all these comments, it disgusts me how overwhelmingly prevailant the lack of any moral compass is.
Shame on you cowards.
It's funny how the armchair warriors come out in force to describe how they could've tackled TWO armed men and come out of it unscathed.
Also, there is a HUGE difference between making a stand when it's a personal attack, and making a ultimately pointless stand in a commercial robbery. The armed robbers weren't robbing the security guards, the security guards came out of it completely unscathed IN SPITE OF (certainly not thanks to) this guys actions. In case I need to repeat that for the cheap seats - no ones personal liberties were being comprimised here. If this guy had got stuck in when someone was *personally* being robbed, mugged, raped or whatever then he'd quite rightly be the hero of the hour, but this wasn't one of those cases.
Arguing about moral compasses and bringing up hypothetical situations of PEOPLE being robbed is a straw-man argument. This guy intervened in a situation where under normal circumstances (as normal as robberies get) the security guards would have been in no danger at all. It was good fortune that the robbers didn't panic and shoot everyone dead there and then.
The security firm would have had insurance, the place the guards were taking the money from would have insurance. Let's get some perspective and stop comparing this to personal robberies eh?
'I cant believe Michael H who cites "insurance premiums going up" as if people paying more is somehow worse than someone getting shot. Personally, Ill be happy to pay an extra 0001p on a premium to save someones life even if Michael isn't.'
The point here was not to equate the value of a life against a rise in insurance premium, but to highlight the fact that a victimless crime does not exist. It's an excuse created by spineless people to defend their failure to act. 'Oh don't worry, nobody lost anything' etc.etc.
Whilst the politicians and police have a lot to answer for in the rising crime rates in our country, without doubt the failure of the population to back the police and fight crime themselves is an equal if not bigger factor. You can't expect the police to be everywhere all the time.
Des, you say "Just because we have police and military personnel does not mean that we give up any responsibility" (...)
It may be that a good number is willing to, judging by how readily they succumb to more and more surveillance and control, as long as they are promised safety in exchange.
Darren Coleman is trying to differentiate between commercial and personal robbery. Because it was commercial, he argues, it's alright then. Insurance pays out, who cares. Well, I don't know about anyone else, but I care. Commercial robberies can easily turn personal against the security guards and there are plenty of cases in this country where security guards have been hurt (to various degrees) during 'commercial' robberies. Additionally, if you read the reports, it would appear the security guard(s) were resisting the robbery. Presumably, they are dumb as well? Anyone declaring that people rarely get hurt in these sorts of 'commercial' robberies is making a gross generalisation that is far from true. Similarly, one could argue that guns used in many robberies are actually fakes or BB guns and therefore the hero could have made that generalisation as well.
The reality is that many (possibly most) people in this country now walk on past regardless of the incident, whether commercial or personal etc.etc. and then go on to make up excuses afterwards. If more people acted, yes some would get hurt and possibly die, but pretty soon criminals would realise being a criminal is no longer worth it and overall, injuries would go down as criminal behaviour goes down. Of course, the courts need to do their bit as well and use stiff sentences to leave criminals in no doubt their behaviour is unacceptable. On the BBC today, someone has just got 4 years in a young offenders institute for killing a young lad. He'll probably be out in 1. What sort of message does that send? He knew any sentence would be light and knew most people would walk on by even if they witnessed the act. They'd call the police and then wash their hands of it.
And we wonder why criminals are taking over this country!! Until the population realise the police can't do it by themselves, we aren't going to make any progress.
This post has been deleted by its author
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
