Well some people are already trying to spin the 71 yr old as the dangerous one.

I had already seen the vid and read a different reporters take on it. To me the sad part of that others piece was he spent most of the article interviewing the two robbers. http://www.theblaze.com/stories/surveillance-vid-shows-71-year-old-concealed-carry-holder-opening-fire-on-would-be-robbers/

to quote part of their anti gun hatchet job:
" The gun was broken and rusty and wasn't loaded. Nobody was going to get hurt, he said, standing with crutches.

And even though Henderson seems to be carrying some remorse, he still has a bone to pick with Williams, the elderly man who shot him, for firing while he was on the ground.
'I was down and I'm not going to continue to shoot you,'he said. "

So it shows the power of reporters to spin a story the way they want it to. Surprised they didn't call him a racist, yet. I guess the vid and many witnesses and his age may protect him from the slanted press.

Statistically, aren't these types of crimes normally non-violent? The teenagers were going to rob everyone and leave.

The old guy could have accidentally shot another patron, or caused one of the robbers to panic and do it. Would he be a hero then?

Unfortunately there's been a new trend among ghetto thugs, that is to freak out, kick and beat people in the heads..yeah this looks like a garden variety robbery, but had I been there I couldn't have been sure how wired up these guys were and how crazy they would get.

So I would have reacted like Williams, had I been carrying. Shoot at their feet to make sure they keep running away. And I would stress the uncertainty factor to the cops afterward.

I wouldn't be willing to bet my life on the benign intentions of two armed thugs. There is no way to know what other delights, besides armed robbery, these two sweeties had in mind for their victims.

Note to thugs: When you try to commit armed robbery, and one of your presumed victims turns out to also be armed, the shooting is over when he says it's over. Don't like it? Cry me a freakin' river.

The only thing I find disturbing about this story is the display of shitty marksmanship. That guy needs to get hisself to the range more often.

As I said elsewhere, he's obviously not Raylan Givens...

So I would have reacted like Williams, had I been carrying. Shoot at their feet to make sure they keep running away.

You shouldn't carry, or perhaps even own a gun. This is wisdom my father passed on down to me:

Never point a gun at some thing unless you intend to shoot it. Never point a gun at a person unless you intend to kill them.

That impressed upon me the serious nature of owning a firearm. The whole notion of "shoot to wound" is nonsense, and will get you killed.

"Statistically, aren't these types of crimes normally non-violent? The teenagers were going to rob everyone and leave."

Are you freakin' kidding me??? Armed robery, WITH A WEAPON VISIBLE (a violent crime!), is a felony. You CANNOT assume the gun is unloaded or non-functional. You assume it's loaded and that you are going to be shot. You defend yourself by disabling the shooter, preferably between the eyes.

Oh, excuse me. I forgot, non-violent. Yeah. One has a gun he's pointing at people, the other is swinging a large club (baseball bat). Very non-violent. Until YOU get shot by one of these non-violent criminals. GROW UP!

I saw the video, and one commenter stated that from the man's stance he appeared to know what he was doing. I personally am all for him.

Ever since the first time I read about a convenience store robbery where the non-resisting clerks were taken to a back room, tied up and shot, I did a complete reversal on the let-them-have-what-they-want line of thought. Now they take what they want and hurt or kill you anyway.

I am totally against the firing of clerks and delivery men who stand up for themselves. If you want to have them sign a disclaimer against suing the company, fine, but I applaud all people who stand up for themselves and others against this shit, even if "it isn't their money".

Got to agree with those who support the man who shot at them. The fact that the gun is non-functional is irrelevant. Obviously, they had intended the patrons would assumed it was working and loaded, otherwise, they wouldn't have used it. The only way that the gun's non-functioning nature would have any bearing at all is if the patron who opened fire could have known that the gun wasn't working. What do you expect him to do? Walk over to the thug and ask him?

So, two armed thugs come into the internet cafe and presume to demand everyone's money and valuables and God knows what else. Grandpa exercised his right to defend himself and everyone else in the store from imminment bodily harm. Case closed.

By the way, the video says he's sixty-three, but the article says he's seventy-one. I would say that article is probably closer. The video was from Fox. That's Fox News for you.

"Statistically, aren't these types of crimes normally non-violent?"

It's obviously a big misunderstanding. They were probably out collecting for UNICEF with a chocolate revolver and a bubble-gum bat on their way to bibble study.

I side with the elderly guy. He was fully within his rights to defend others against bodily harm.

I was instructed in my concealed carry class that if other people are around that you should aim low/downward when you shoot to minimize the risks of hitting someone else if you miss your target.

I suspect people would be less likely to side with him if he'd taken out an innocent bystander or two. Dumb luck counts for a lot.

Nothing like Zimmerman. All evidence is that he chased Mrtin down, got out of his car, started an altercation with him, and then killed him. If he'd minded his own business the kid would be alive. In Florida's idiot legal system, Zimmerman probably isn't guilty of a crime. But under that same law, any young black man in Zimmerman's presence can probably kill him on sight.

Is there a fund out there to buy the patriot Samuel Williams some more rounds and laser targeting system?

Here's how I see it:
1) The old man was a terrible shot. His first shot should have killed that guy, not winged him and possibly hit an innocent bystander. If you are going to shoot, shoot center mass and make sure of the final destination of your bullet. Hell, he should never have even taken his last shot IMO.

2) It doesn't matter if the gun carried by the criminal was old and rusty, or brand-spanking new. You always assume that the gun pointed at you is loaded and dangerous. Period. It is never acceptable to say "I didn't think it would fire." at someone's funeral.

3) Sorry, Crs, this is more like the Zimmerman case, because not only did George Zimmerman *not* pursue Trayvon Martin, as the MSM has claimed, he specifically told the dispatcher he was returning to the street corner in order to get the correct street address for the officers that were in route. Martin doubled back and confronted Zimmerman, and then attacked him, breaking his nose, and knocking him to the ground, where he pinned him and continued to attack. George Zimmerman had no where to escape, and every reason to fear for his life. The old man in the Internet Cafe demonstrably follows, and shoots at (and misses) perps that are actively fleeing, indeed, falling all over each other in their haste.

So, if the Old man is right, which I'm not saying he is or he isn't, Why is he, and how is he right and George Zimmerman is wrong when you compare the facts?

Nonsense, Kat. Zimmerman pursued Martin in his car, disregarded the dispatcher who told him not to, and then got out of his car and confronted Martin. At which point, he started to get his ass kicked. Which he deserved. Then he killed Martin. If Zimmerman hadn't pursued Martin and fucked with him, nothing would have happened. Hell, if someone has been following me in his truck, then gets out and confronts me, I think I'd be inclined to feel threatened, too. Truth is, Martin was standing his ground as much as Zimmerman. He just didn't have the gun.

Old man didn't create the situation. Zimmerman did.

Zimmerman pursued Martin in his car, disregarded the dispatcher who told him not to, and then got out of his car and confronted Martin.

Bullshit. He did nothing of the sort.

And even if he did those things, it is not illegal to pursue someone.

It is not illegal to disregard the suggestion of a dispatcher.

It is not illegal to get out of one's car.

It is not illegal to ask a strange person what the hell they're doing wandering around a neighborhood that's been hit with a rash of burglaries.

It IS illegal to attempt to kick the shit out of someone in response to those lawful actions.

Good gawd, what the fuck is wrong with people like you?

"Statistically, aren't these types of crimes normally non-violent? The teenagers were going to rob everyone and leave."

How do you know they were just going to rob everyone and then leave? Because that's what they're saying now, after they f*'d up and got caught? And even if it's so, why should anyone else be required to allow that to happen?

If they didn't intend to shoot or harm anyone in the cafe, it was obvious by their actions that they intended for the victims to believe that they were willing to shoot or harm them. And it worked. They fooled everyone.

If the robbers didn't want the victims to believe their lives were in danger they should have left the bat outside, and as soon as they walked through the door, before demanding any money, they should have assumed a non-threatening demeanor, explained to their intended victims that the gun was not functional, and that under no circumstances would anyone be harmed in any way. But the robbers failed to do that. In fact, they went to considerable drama to give the completely opposite impression. Big error in judgment on their part. It's entirely their fault that they got shot.

Some people think that if a criminal decides to rob you he should be able to do so without risk of being seriously harmed in the process. They think it's a tragedy if a criminal gets maimed or killed while robbing or assaulting someone.

Some people think that when confronted by a criminal who threatens to harm or kill, the right thing to do is try to gain the criminal's favor by pissing yourself, groveling like a scared dog, and giving him anything he demands, including your balls in a baggie if he wants them.

These are the type of people who think the government should disarm law abiding citizens, whom they see as "dangerous", and punish victims who harm the criminals who attack them. There is nothing a coward hates more than someone who stands their ground and fights back.

Unfortunately, since they were not killed, the two teenage robbers will probably go on to rob, assault, rape and/or kill other innocent victims in the future. They, like Trayvon Martin, already have a solid, early start in that direction.

So, if what you are saying is true,(it isn't, but lets just roll with this for the giggles for half a sec) I would be within my rights to backhand every single man that let his gaze linger on me for what I felt was too long, and if they made me feel "threatened" well hell yeah, I get to kick their ass!

George Zimmerman had an absolute right to be where he was, Trayvon Martin did not. He was a guest and therefore present because someone else vouched for him. That person took a share of the responsibility for Trayvons actions in doing so, just as all parents share responsibiliy for their spawns mistakes. Knowing that Trayvon was a thug, the family should never allowed him to be unsupervised. Period.

Have you ever wondered why we haven't seen tons of weepy interviews with the poor deceased child's BFF's? I will venture a guess and say that those friends would shock middle America because sweet-faced 12 yr olds They Aren't! They probably look like Travon did the day he attacked George Zimmerman, hoodie, gold grill, tattoos and attitude of hate in his eyes.

I felt sympathy for his parents at first, the first day, they were well and truly clobbered, just trying to proccess the horror. I know, I lost a child, there is no greater pain in the world as a parent. Then the lawyers started whispering into the parents ears, and things changed.

The very first day, they listened to the 911 tape with the voice screaming for help in the background and both said it WAS NOT Trayvon. 24 hours later, they are changing their story, and saying oh, wait, no, it is him, we just made a mistake!

I don't know about you, but as a parent I would know my children's voices if you ran them thru a chipper/shredder, recorded them backwards on vinyl backwards along with a Pink Floyd song played entirely on tubas. They changed their story because someone waved dollar signs in their face, and they are trying to completely and totally ruin the man that their son tried to kill, but failed. I can understand wanting "Justice" but at some point, even as a parent, you have to say, "Yeah, he was my kid, and I loved him, but he fucked up, and brought this on himself."

All of this "Not my Lttle Skittle Angel!" is making me want to hurl.

Zimmerman caused the altercation. Escalated the altercation. Then killed the kid when was getting his ass kicked. If he would have let Martin walk home unmolested, nothing would have happened. But give a pussy a gun and people get killed, needlessly. And knowing what he did to Martin, no black man is safe in his presence. They'd be justified to shoot him on sight.

"It IS illegal to attempt to kick the shit out of someone in response to those lawful actions."

Based upon your assertions, it's clear Martin was just standing his ground, defending himself. Zimmerman's behavior would reasonably be construed as a threat, and Martin had the right to defend himself. The only problem was he didn't have a gun.

All of you apparent eyewitnesses to the Martin/Zimmerman incident either need to get your ass to Sanford and testify, or else STFU.
If you weren't there, you DON'T KNOW WHAT HAPPENED.

'I was down and I'm not going to continue to shoot you,'he said. "

The check is in the mail. This won't hurt.....other good ones.

I'm not comfortable with guns but I will always respect people who are. These guys didn't wait until the store was closed and break in when empty. They went in with masks and weapons and customers and employees present. Its rob at your own risk.

"Statistically, aren't these types of crimes normally non-violent? The teenagers were going to rob everyone and leave"

They used to tell us, "Go along with the hijackers. They just want a ride to Cuba."

Crs:

Considering only one thing you say can be backed up factually, why are you here (and that doesn't support your stance.)

Zimmerman caused the altercation.

Nope.

Escalated the altercation.

Nope.

Then killed the kid when was getting his ass kicked.

Yes. This is the only thing you have right.

If he would have let Martin walk home unmolested, nothing would have happened.

He didn't "molest" or detain Martin under any sort of concept.

But give a pussy a gun and people get killed, needlessly. And knowing what he did to Martin, no black man [sitting on his chest, beating his head into the ground, and threatening to kill him while he screams for help] is safe in his presence.

There, fixed that for you.

"Zimmerman caused the altercation.

Nope.

-- Yes. He followed him in his car.

Escalated the altercation.

Nope.

-- Yes. Got out of his car. And confronted him.

He didn't "molest" or detain Martin under any sort of concept.

-- If following someone around in a car, then getting out and fucking with him isn't molesting him, I don't know is. Zimmerman minds his own business, there's no fight, no death.

Crs:

No, you "don't know is".

Zimmerman saw something suspicious, called the police, reported it, and tried to give them enough information to deal with it.

Martin confronted Zimmerman - what we know to the best of the information available - and took exception, started the fight, and more importantly, took it to lethal levels.

Nothing you say makes any sort of common sense, so why exactly are you here?

Zimmerman called for the cops to check on suspicious activity.

Why do you think that's worthy of getting his head bashed in?

Why are you supporting the attacker?

There's nothing I've read to support your assertions. Zimmerman saw a black kid in a hoodie walking in his neighborhood; Zimmerman is a man known for making many nuisance calls to 911. This was nothing different, except he had a gun and was willing to make a scene. Zimmerman, as was clear from the dispatch call, pursues this hoodie-wearing young black man, despite being told not to do so by police dispatch. He got out of his truck and confronted that young black man, who, when confronted, defended himself. In the ensuing altercation, Zimmerman, the pussy, pulled his gun and killed the young black man.

If Zimmerman went home and did not start trouble as the police dispatcher asked, no one would have been harmed.

Like so many pussies, Zimmerman got a gun and thought he was a tough guy. He went out looking for trouble, and found it. And someone died unecessarily because of it.

All he needed to do was go the fuck home and leave Martin alone. But he chose to follow him in his car, carrying a gun, get out of his car, and confront him. The law won't find him guilty, because Florida is rapidly becoming a feudal backwater. But it should.

There's nothing I've read to support your assertions.

Then you need to read more, and write a lot less.

But even that's not true, because you contradict yourself.

Zimmerman is a man known for making many nuisance calls to 911.

False.

But even if it were true, it makes no sense. Your own logic is lacking massively. So he decided to "make a scene", but called the police first? Really?

This was nothing different, except he had a gun and was willing to make a scene.

Total invention by yourself.

Zimmerman, as was clear from the dispatch call, pursues this hoodie-wearing young black man,

So he's calling the police to investigate suspicious activity, something you keep ignoring, and when he does so, Martin runs away and hides. Zimmerman, responding to inquiries from the 911 dispatch, attempts to answer them, and keep Martin in sight.

despite being told not to do so by police dispatch.

So?

He got out of his truck and confronted that young black man, who, when confronted, defended himself.

Nothing in any testimony presented defends this position. Nothing.

Zimmerman, having lost sight of Martin, was returning to his truck, and the confrontation was initated by Martin.

And so far, everybody's in the "right". Zimmerman has the right to walk on the street. So did Martin. Martin started a fight, and came close to killing Zimmerman with his bare hands. Only then - after sustaining injuries that could have killed him, did Zimmerman fire.

In the ensuing altercation, Zimmerman, the pussy, pulled his gun and killed the young black man.

Crs, why are you here? You're spreading intentional lies and falsehoods, to defend the man who attacked another.

He went out looking for trouble, and found it. And someone died unecessarily because of it.

Totally false. Zimmerman was driving down the street and saw something suspicious. Enough that he wanted to get the cops there right away.

Zimmerman has that right. I have that right, and your lies you can shove right in your ear, I do not have to cower in my house, or dash to my car, and try and avoid the public.

All he needed to do was go the fuck home and leave Martin alone.

Oh, so if you leave the thugs alone, they won't kill you?

Bullshit. Whatever Somalia-like utopia you imagine, you can fuck that concept right in the ear. I have the right to walk in public. Call the cops if I want to, and ask them to come and investigate.

But he chose to follow him in his car, carrying a gun, get out of his car, and confront him.

Again, this is a lie.

No witness testimony backs that up. You invented it.

But even if it wasn't, Zimmerman has the right to do that. To ask someone why they're there, and what they're doing.

Martin doesn't have the right to try and kill him for asking, finding him suspicious, or much more likely, catching him in the act of breaking the law. Martin threw the first, second, third punches. Zimmerman fired and killed Martin only after he'd been attacked.

The law won't find him guilty, because Florida is rapidly becoming a feudal backwater. But it should.

The law won't find him guilty, because he's not.

Because I can walk on my street and ask someone "what are you doing", and if they attack me trying to kill me, I can shoot them.

Which is how it should be.

Nothing in your concocted version of events makes any sense, other than "Shut up, don't mind anybody, and if you see problems, run away, and there won't be a problem. If someone stronger wants something, GIVE IT TO THEM."

And you call Florida a Feudal Backwater?

Don't know what feudal means, do you?

Again, why are you here? Even your lies don't make sense, why are you here?

My account is consistent with that of the prosecution, while yours is a completely credulous regurgitation of Zimmerman's. My take is far more likely to be right, yours is wishful thinking.

Yes I know what feudal means. Wasn't referring to circumstances where serfs worked the lord's land but to where there was no legal authority and dueling was an acceptable means of dispute resolution. I'd be happy to school you on history, too though. Just let me know.

PS - I'm here to bring enlightenment to the benighted.

"Totally false. Zimmerman was driving down the street and saw something suspicious. Enough that he wanted to get the cops there right away."

A black boy walking through his gated community in Florida. Suspicious!

My account is consistent with that of the prosecution,

Your account isn't even consistent with itself. (Which also mars the prosecution's case).

Yes I know what feudal means. Wasn't referring to circumstances where serfs worked the lord's land but to where there was no legal authority and dueling was an acceptable means of dispute resolution.

That still doens't make sense. You're OK with Martin fighting Zimmerman hand to hand. That's dueling. You're fine with that. Just not with Martin losing.

I'd be happy to school you on history, too though. Just let me know.

I think you need to work on your current events more.

My account is entirely consistent. It's yours that beggars belief.

"That still doens't make sense. You're OK with Martin fighting Zimmerman hand to hand. That's dueling. You're fine with that. Just not with Martin losing."

I'm not OK with a law that condones vigilantes roaming around wih guns accosting and killing unarmed people.

A black boy walking through his gated community in Florida. Suspicious!

Maybe. Maybe something else.

Your outrage doesn't allow you to kill Zimmerman.

And then whine about "feudalism"

I'm not OK with a law that condones vigilantes roaming around wih guns accosting and killing unarmed people.

No, you're not even internally consistent.

Zimmerman has the right to exit his truck. Even follow Martin.

But right there. "Vigilante".

What's the definition of "vigilante?"

Someone who takes the law into their own hands.

What did Zimmerman do?

Called the police.. Thus making him the opposite of vigilante.

Then he was attacked. But even if you want to assign blame to both for that. Even if.

He was on his back, and had already sustained 3 blows that could have been fatal.

Before he shot.

There's no jurisdiction in this country - none - where being beaten to death requires you to fail to react.

(Not the case in the UK, but that's a different story).

Just as you frame things dishonestly - calling Zimmerman a "vigilante", saying that Martin has rights, but Zimmerman has none, and must run away - you're not here to attack "a law".

You're OK with Martin attacking Zimmerman.

I guess Kitty Genovese had it coming, the bitch, right?

Zimmerman called the police, as he had over 40 times in the recent past. http://www.wftv.com/videos/news/calls-zimmerman-made-to-sanford-police/vGbfd/ (Reasonable assumption: Zimmerman is a paranoid person of dubious judgement). Then ignored their requests, and followed Martin as he ran away, thus making him a vigilante. The lead investigator in the case stated that the encounter was avoidable by Zimmerman.

You assume Martin attacked Zimmerman, rather than Zimmerman initiating the confrontation, the only evidence for which is the testimony of Zimmerman. It is equally plausible – and seems more likely – that the armed man who pursued the other started that confrontation. And that Martin was defending himself when he began beating up Zimmerman. Yet you refuse to entertain that possibility, taking at his word known liar.

"I guess Kitty Genovese had it coming, the bitch, right?"

I suppose it's possible for you to be a bigger idiot. But I doubt it.

(Reasonable assumption: Zimmerman is a paranoid person of dubious judgement).

Hardly.

Nor does it justify your bloodlust or insults.

Then ignored their requests, and followed Martin as he ran away, thus making him a vigilante.

Nope. He was attempting to answer the questions asked by the dispatch. That's not Zimmerman's testimony, that's the 911 tapes.

Now, you were all frothing about rights. Zimmerman can get out of his truck. He has that right. The dispatch operator can suggest whatever they would like. It's their right.

Zimmerman has the right to walk in his neighborhood. He has the right to even investigate suspicious activity.

Martin has the same right to peacefully conduct his own business.

The lead investigator in the case stated that the encounter was avoidable by Zimmerman.

If he'd run away, as you think was required of him, yes. If he'd given up his natural rights, and fled.

You assume Martin attacked Zimmerman, rather than Zimmerman initiating the confrontation, the only evidence for which is the testimony of Zimmerman.

And others. As well as the physical evidence.

It is equally plausible – and seems more likely – that the armed man who pursued the other started that confrontation

It's highly unlikely. Even if it were the case, Zimmerman received deadly blows first. Hardly what you'd expect in someone initiating a confrontation, and obviously not initiating it with a gun.

I suppose it's possible for you to be a bigger idiot. But I doubt it.

(Even though it's a bad example, because the conventional wisdom is wrong, using the CW is handy.)

Everybody "Minded their own business." with the oft-told tale of Genovese.

Which is what you are on record of demanding. Mind your own business. Stay in your car. Don't call the police. See nothing, leave, and hope nobody attacks you.

And all of this before we get into the rest of the tangibles that have come out since with Martin. With nothing more than the "confrontation".

Your stance is as long as Zimmerman flees, and noone in the neighborhood looks out for each other, there's "no problem".

No, there's a lot bigger problem in that case.

And that Martin was defending himself when he began beating up Zimmerman.

Defending himself.. by sitting on top of him, smashing his head, and punching him.

And all of this, according to all evidence and witnesses, before a gun was presented.

No, the idiot here isn't I.

So what are white and hispanic males allowed to do in your world?

Genoese was In distress and no one did anything when she called for help. No one was in distress and Zimmerman followed someone and instigated a confrontation. These things are nothing alike.

No one knows exactly what went down except Zimmerman. But it's clear that had he heeded the police, and not gone after Martin, no one gets hurt.

And I think white men and Hispanic men have the same rights as anyone. And I think anyone who gets followed by a man with a gun is probably right to be afraid, and if that man confronts you, you're in your right to defend yourself.

I come back to where I started. Pussies running around with guns cause trouble.

And I think white men and Hispanic men have the same rights as anyone.

Apparently not.

Pussies running around with guns cause trouble.

Or stop it.

"Apparently not."

Yes.

But you chase a man down carrying a gun, and you better expect to defend yourself. Martin stood his ground, Zimmerman pulled a gun. It's far more plausible that the armed man initiated the conflict than the unarmed kid. But hey, as long as it's the black kid who's dead you're cool with it!

"Or stop it."

No, they cause it. I've shot guns nearly as long as I can remember. With guns, two types of people cause problems: people who don't know how to handle them, but think they do; and people who think carrying a gun makes them a real man, and use carrying to back up their lack of judgment and inability to handle themselves. It's kind of sexist, but it's also why I worry about female police officers. I suspect their inability to handle things physically leads them to use deadly force more often than necessary. Zimmerman started something, and when he was losing, pulled his gun and killed a young man. But he didn't need to start it.

A man with good judgment would not have gotten himself into this situation and killed anyone.

If that were true crs why do all reports indicate that the only injury on "the black kid" is a gunshot wound?

If Zimmereman suprise attacked him why arent there any contusions? A split lip? A black eye?