Good Samaritan shoots 2 armed teenage robbers in Cali.

[Guest CruiserZ31]

SALINAS, Calif. —

Two 17-year-old boys were holding restaurant customers at gunpoint and demanding money when a man walked into the Salinas restaurant and shot the teens in the chest -- killing one, and critically injuring the other.

Read more: http://www.ksbw.com/news/central-california/salinas/Two-teenage-robbers-shot-1-killed-in-Salinas-restaurant/-/5738906/16872940/-/dwbf5dz/-/index.html#ixzz28YseMdCK

I don't like where it says that they "got what they deserved". That seems ignorant to me, the guy knows nothing about these kids except for this situation. However, it was nice to see that the media refered to the gun owner as a good samaritan instead of something negative.

[Guest HillyKarma]

Any loss of a life, especially such young life, is always sad, but yes, it is good that for once the gun owner is refered to in manner that doesn't make him seem like a gun-toting maniac.

[DaveTN]

While suffering from life-threatening gunshot wounds, the two injured boys fled from the restaurant and were gone before emergency crews arrived, Lane said.

There’s a self-defense lesson to be learned there.

[Garufa]

Did the 36-year-old do the right thing by grabbing his own gun and taking action without calling 911?

Salinas police Cmdr. Dave Crabill said even though the 36-year-old killed a teenager, everything he did was legal.

I have some issues with these two quotes from the article. Why was quote #1 even in the piece and why are teenagers any more special than anyone else as implied in quote #2.

The punks got what they deserved. Hopefully the "good samaritan" will not be charged but this is California after all.

[Sam1]

The loss of an innocent life is what is a bad thing, these people were holding innocents at gunpoint, they will get no pity from this end.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[mikegideon]

what they deserved". That seems ignorant to me, the guy knows nothing about these kids except for this situation. However, it was nice to see that the media refered to the gun owner as a good samaritan instead of something negative.

Yes. It's an inaccurate statement. The one that died got what he deserved. The one that lived was an almost. They were threatening people's lives with guns. Getting shot in the chest is what is supposed to happen.

The shooter certainly shouldn't have had killing as his goal. But if you die in that situation, you have bought and paid for it.

[TripleDigitRide]

They got what they deserved. Kudos to the guy who smoked 'em.

[Smith]

I don't like where it says that they "got what they deserved". That seems ignorant to me, the guy knows nothing about these kids except for this situation. However, it was nice to see that the media refered to the gun owner as a good samaritan instead of something negative.[/background][/left][/color]

The only understanding needed was the one the good samaritan accurately responded to.

He isn't responsible for evaluating the armed robbers entire life before he responds.

They forced the issue.

They took the risk.

They made their decision.

It was their responsibility.

They got what they asked for.

[bubbiesdad]

I have some issues with these two quotes from the article. Why was quote #1 even in the piece and why are teenagers any more special than anyone else as implied in quote #2.

The punks got what they deserved. Hopefully the "good samaritan" will not be charged but this is California after all.

It would be nice if someone from the far left could explain how one is less injured or dead, because the attacker was a minor.

[Guest CruiserZ31]

I'm not saying that the good samaritan did anything wrong. I think that his reaction was fully warranted and justified. I just wouldn't go so far as to say that a 17 year old deserved to die over it. However, you make your bed...

Really, it's just nitpicking, I couldn't suggest any alternative action that would have resulted in a better ending. The good samaritan evaluated and reacted to the situation in a legal manner that didn't cause collateral damage.

[mikegideon]

However, you make your bed...

Yep. Threaten folks with a gun, and you might get shot center mass. I have no sympathy for armed thugs. I don't care how old they are.

[TMF]

Zero loss to society. Hopefully the other one dies and neither had the chance to pollute the gene pool.

[Guest Oaklands]

It is a shame to see anyone die but if you choose to play with fire you may get burned. This is the risk you take and losing your life is part of that risk.

Sent from my AT100 using Tapatalk 2

[Jesse]

I've come to the conclusion if the goverment would kill off all men from ages 16-45 the crime rate would drop to a record low.

if the world were just pre teens, women and old men, it would be a great place to live. lol

[Guest HillyKarma]

I have some issues with these two quotes from the article. Why was quote #1 even in the piece and why are teenagers any more special than anyone else as implied in quote #2.

The punks got what they deserved. Hopefully the "good samaritan" will not be charged but this is California after all.

Oh, you misunderstand Garufa.

I'm not saying that I pity them, I'm saying that the loss of young life is sad.

Obviously, the punks got their comeuppance in the end.

[Guest HillyKarma]

And also, when you see that they were threatening someones life with a firearm, I do say that they got what they deserved.

And TMF, you have no idea how fiercely I am for controlled breeding.

[mikegideon]

Zero loss to society. Hopefully the other one dies and neither had the chance to pollute the gene pool.

You're a mean man . Keep up the good work.

[jeepbus]

I applaud the citizen for what he did,who knows,he could have save countless lives. I have no sympathy what so ever for the live that was lost and damaged . If they were big boy enough the hold people at gunpoint then they can pay the price that comes with it. I'm glad no innocent live we're hurt or lost .

[DaveS]

A life lost and most likely some saved. I am however curious how the grand jury will look at the good samaritan's actions. I don't think this is going to be over yet...

Dave S

[mikegideon]

A life lost and most likely some saved. I am however curious how the grand jury will look at the good samaritan's actions. I don't think this is going to be over yet...

Dave S

It's Kalifornia, so who knows.

[Dennis1209]

Let's settle this loss of life question, shall we?

If you're at home, at Wally World, a restaurant, whatever, and someone is pointing a potentially deadly firearm at you in the commission of a felony.

Do you suppose their goal is not to kill you if the need, opportunity or hankering arrives?

Let's look at it tis way. If someone is committing a crime and pointing a deadly weapon at you, as far as you're concerned it's war, plain and simple. In war does any military simply shoot to stop the threat or shoot to permanently stop the threat?

There's goals and objectives in war, and staying alive and not worrying about any future threats is one of them.

[mikegideon]

There's goals and objectives in war, and staying alive and not worrying about any future threats is one of them.

How to wind up married to a large smelly black man. You shoot for the vitals because it's the most effective way to stop a threat. It can result in death. With that said, your intent better be stopping and not killing. That will land you in prison if they can prove it.

[DaveTN]

A life lost and most likely some saved. I am however curious how the grand jury will look at the good samaritan's actions. I don't think this is going to be over yet...

Dave S

The only reason they would take this to a Grand Jury is if they want a “No True Bill†to help the Good Samaritan in case there is a civil suit.

These guys were robbing people at gun point; a Grand Jury is not going to indict.

[DaveS]

The only reason they would take this to a Grand Jury is if they want a “No True Bill†to help the Good Samaritan in case there is a civil suit.

These guys were robbing people at gun point; a Grand Jury is not going to indict.

I would hope not. We'll see though.

Dave S