Guard killed

[bliink]

DOZENS of shoppers watched in horror as a masked gunman chased and gunned down a security guard during a robbery outside a Melbourne bank today.
Witnesses said one of two masked gunmen chased and took aim at the security guard's head, shooting him dead after he tripped and fell to the ground.

The guard, described by police as a family man in his 50s, was shot outside the Commonwealth Bank at the North Blackburn Shopping Centre in Springfield Road, in the city's east, about 12.30pm (AEDT) today.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,12480224-2,00.html

Yikes. Really makes you think about the kind of people who are out there.
I used to work in that industry and it makes me shiver reading about stuff like that.

 

[CREMATOR666]

Reminds me of Barney ;( This is sad...

 

[Danimal]

I am surprised I haven't seen this on the channel 9 news. I heard about an injured chubb officer though.

 

[bliink]

What sucks is that they shot him after he fell over and while he was complying- theres always an assumption that if you comply, you'll be ok.

There was a whole thing over here with security guards being attacked not to steal cash but rather, to steal their guns, which didn't happen in this case... that only makes it more pointless

 

[Danimal]

I heard a person bashed an old women for 10 cents a while ago. :|

 

[RRunner]

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,12480224-2,00.html

Yikes. Really makes you think about the kind of people who are out there.
I used to work in that industry and it makes me shiver reading about stuff like that.

Dunno if you gotta make the big one so ur set for life, why not go the whole 9 yards?
if its for small change, well more like over reacting methinks.

 

[bliink]

Dunno if you gotta make the big one so ur set for life, why not go the whole 9 yards?
if its for small change, well more like over reacting methinks.

A security guard won't try and stop you if you have a gun.

It was a cash transfer at a bank, so it wouldn't have been the amount to "set you up for life"

 

[short recoil]

Idiotic thiefs if you ask me, if they would have left the guy alone then they would be more likely to get away, now they have shot a bloke they will be hunted down, the police more desperate to catch a murderer.

 

[RRunner]

A security guard won't try and stop you if you have a gun.

It was a cash transfer at a bank, so it wouldn't have been the amount to "set you up for life"

Then i would consider it to be an IQ drop.....The world is turning desperat isent it....

 

[Ranga]

stupid robber.... he's a disappointment to all his kind... bastard, i'd "bash his braaaaaayyyynnnzz out" [/steve irwin accent] if i got the chance...

 

[The Dark Elf]

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,12480224-2,00.html

Yikes. Really makes you think about the kind of people who are out there.
I used to work in that industry and it makes me shiver reading about stuff like that.

hmm, I didn't realise it had got to you so bad while talking to you just now (I only just noticed this thread) glad what I said helped then.

 

[bliink]

hmm, I didn't realise it had got to you so bad while talking to you just now (I only just noticed this thread) glad what I said helped then.

meh.. its just weird.. you'd think you were safe and stuff like that would never happen; then it does.
bah.. glad i work in IT now.

 

[RRunner]

Im applying for a new job next month, gonna be a prison guard if they´ll take me. gonna see alot of suckers like this i guess, perhaps even some old friends lol.

Bah Bliink dont let it get to you...you know 14 million kids starve to death every year, this is just 1 guard...cheer up the world is worse then this

 

[bliink]

Bah Bliink dont let it get to you...you know 14 million kids starve to death every year, this is just 1 guard...cheer up the world is worse then this

Its just has a little more impact with me cos I used to be one.

 

[VirusType2]

.cut...now they have shot a bloke they will be hunted down, the police more desperate to catch a murderer.

Exactly dude. Hope they catch them and hit them with life in prison where they play the part of a vagina and get ****ed.

by the way what is a balaclavas? Is that something like a bandana or what?

 

[bliink]

by the way what is a balaclavas? Is that something like a bandana or what?

ski mask

 

[RRunner]

Its just has a little more impact with me cos I used to be one.

yeah i know, just wanted to throw a little perspective your way

 

[The Dark Elf]

meh.. its just weird.. you'd think you were safe and stuff like that would never happen; then it does.
bah.. glad i work in IT now.

Yeah. Your in a safe(ish hehe) job now. Try not to let it get to you too much. Like I said earlier, it was good to have got that experience in the industry, your going out and trying new things, you were a security guard for quite a while too right? Try think of the fun times you had doing it. All those nights thinking you were in a Doom game

 

[burnzie]

Its an horrific thing that happend.

I hope justice prevailes, but in all honesty they guy will be out a few years after... the system is ****ed. People are ****ed. Everything is ****ed.

This dissapoints me.

I'm gonna go get a sandwich.

 

[VirusType2]

laff :smoking:

Is the justice that bad in Australia? You can waste a rent-a-cop, comit armed robbery, and be out of jail in a few years?!

you are exagerating, get out a here really its that bad?

 

[el Chi]

Dunno if you gotta make the big one so ur set for life, why not go the whole 9 yards?

That's the most skewed logic I've heard for a while.
"You've stolen some money, you may as well kill an innocent person who's not really in your way!"

 

[pr0nking]

Reminds me of Barney ;( This is sad...

I know this is a HL2 fansite and everything but do people always have to bring stupid ****ing gay Half Life 2 things into real life situations...Its so fu cking annoying.

 

[Tr0n]

I know this is a HL2 fansite and everything but do people always have to bring stupid ****ing gay Half Life 2 things into real life situations...Its so fu cking annoying.

Well you pretty much answered your own question.

It's an HL2 fansite...if you don't like it then go kill yourself.

 

[RRunner]

That's the most skewed logic I've heard for a while.
"You've stolen some money, you may as well kill an innocent person who's not really in your way!"

Dont think so, if you going to do somn that can set u up for good, you might aswell go all the way. Perhaps killing some1 so that others wouldent try to stop you?
Doing this for a small ammount of money is just plain stupid, but the big one, why not?

 

[el Chi]

Dont think so, if you going to do somn that can set u up for good, you might aswell go all the way. Perhaps killing some1 so that others wouldent try to stop you?
Doing this for a small ammount of money is just plain stupid, but the big one, why not?

Again: The most skewed logic I've heard for a long time.

 

[burnzie]

Dont think so, if you going to do somn that can set u up for good, you might aswell go all the way. Perhaps killing some1 so that others wouldent try to stop you?
Doing this for a small ammount of money is just plain stupid, but the big one, why not?

WRONG.

:|

 

[RRunner]

Again: The most skewed logic I've heard for a long time.

if you going to do somn that can set u up for good (P), you might aswell go all the way(Q). Perhaps killing some1 so that others wouldent try to stop you?
Doing this for a small ammount of money is just plain stupid, but the big one, why not?

So if not Q then not P, not skewed it works rather fine logicaly.

Wether this is the right thing to do morally, well... that can be discussed.

 

[el Chi]

if you going to do somn that can set u up for good (P), you might aswell go all the way(Q). Perhaps killing some1 so that others wouldent try to stop you?
Doing this for a small ammount of money is just plain stupid, but the big one, why not?

So if not Q then not P, not skewed it works rather fine logicaly.

Wether this is the right thing to do morally, well... that can be discussed.

No, that really does not work logically.
1. Robbery will not necessarily get you a life sentence. Murder will.
2. You've robbed a bank; that doesn't make you a psychopath with an itchy trigger finger and a penchant for killing helpless people (remember, this guard had run away and was shot whilst he was on the floor).

By the way, you got your clever little equation the wrong way around. You meant: If p then why not q.
No matter - it's still nonsensical.

p: You have commited a crime not worthy of a life sentence.
q: You can secure yourself a life sentence by killing someone who is not endangering you.
q does not follow on, logically, from p
And it most certainly is not morally correct.

 

[pr0nking]

Well you pretty much answered your own question.

It's an HL2 fansite...if you don't like it then go kill yourself.

I know, its just people saying stupid things like

"Reminds me of barney"

How the hell does a guard being killed in real life, in cold blood have to do with barney...its just completly insensitive and un needed.

 

[Razor]

Bliink, i didn't know you were a security guard, i thought you were still at school or college :s. You just didn't look that old .

 

[Top Secret]

You fellas ever seen Heat? At the start with the armoured car? They got mad at the guy for killing the guard. Because they felt it was morally wrong? No. Because of the attention that will recieve.

Any smart Robber would go for the big heist, only do it once, and not kill anyone.

 

[RRunner]

No, that really does not work logically.
1. Robbery will not necessarily get you a life sentence. Murder will.
2. You've robbed a bank; that doesn't make you a psychopath with an itchy trigger finger and a penchant for killing helpless people (remember, this guard had run away and was shot whilst he was on the floor).

By the way, you got your clever little equation the wrong way around. You meant: If p then why not q.
No matter - it's still nonsensical.

p: You have commited a crime not worthy of a life sentence.
q: You can secure yourself a life sentence by killing someone who is not endangering you.
q does not follow on, logically, from p
And it most certainly is not morally correct.

not really, i was counting on Q being neccesary for P (scaring of wannabe heroes, to get away). (all though wrong, still nice of you to let me know what i intented to say)

Since he needs to kill a guard to scare off wannabe heroes, so he can get away. Wether this is a life sentence crime is besides the point. this is ofcourse all talk since non of us, knows what he was thinking, if he did it in cold blood, or just paniked.
I agree its not moraly correct, but that does not make illogical.
Would i do somn like this? i would think so (but only if i knew i could get away with it 100%, since that is not possible i wouldent do it), does that make me moraly incorrect ?

 

[SimonomiS]

You fellas ever seen Heat? At the start with the armoured car? They got mad at the guy for killing the guard. Because they felt it was morally wrong? No. Because of the attention that will recieve.

Any smart Robber would go for the big heist, only do it once, and not kill anyone.

Dont think that many thieves are too bright, I suppose for some organized crime you'd have to be, and if you were really smart, no-one would know.

Very stupid, very sad thing for someone to do. Mid 50's, on the floor, absolutely no need to shoot him.

EDIT: Scaring "wannabe hero's" wouldnt be needed unless you were some type of gangster or big in the crime world and wanted to prove that fact. Hence killing double-crossers, grasses and the like.

 

[el Chi]

not really, i was counting on Q being neccesary for P (scaring of wannabe heroes, to get away). (all though wrong, still nice of you to let me know what i intented to say)

Hmmm. Well, clearly I got a little confused along the way. Clearly.

Since he needs to kill a guard to scare off wannabe heroes, so he can get away.

He could have gotten away relatively easily, by the sounds of it: He chased the guard, remember.

Wether this is a life sentence crime is besides the point.

It really isn't. Given the choice between a life sentence or a shorter one, I think most people would call the latter decision the more logical choice, don't you?

this is ofcourse all talk since non of us, knows what he was thinking, if he did it in cold blood, or just paniked.

The first point it would appear we can agree on.

Would i do somn like this? i would think so (but only if i knew i could get away with it 100%, since that is not possible i wouldent do it), does that make me moraly incorrect ?

I agree its not moraly correct,

You would appear to have answered your own question.
By your reasoning, morality is not something to be upheld for its own sake, or for duty to the well-being of fellow human beings, but rather to avoid negative repercussions to yourself. I find that rather a depressing conclusion to draw.

 

[RRunner]

Now for a battle of words, started by 2 sides that misunderstod each other from the beginning.

"He could have gotten away relatively easily, by the sounds of it: He chased the guard, remember. "

Perhaps he thought, hey better make sure i control the situation be4 some1 tries any funny stuff.... (facked if i know)

"It really isn't. Given the choice between a life sentence or a shorter one, I think most people would call the latter decision the more logical choice, don't you?"

What makes you think he was planning on getting caught?


"You would appear to have answered your own question.
By your reasoning, morality is not something to be upheld for its own sake, or for duty to the well-being of fellow human beings, but rather to avoid negative repercussions to yourself. I find that rather a depressing conclusion to draw."

Yeah this one is abit unfair...just wanted to see where u where standing when it came to, thinking one is capable of doing contra actually doing it....
and shall we jump to Plato vs Thrasymachus on this latter one?

im alittle courious why do say morality for its own sake?
And what duty are you talking about?

 

[el Chi]

What makes you think he was planning on getting caught?

A fair point, but my point was that it just seems completely illogical and ridiculous to just think: "I'll up the stakes of this little escapade and kill someone for no very good reason."
Of course this is hypothetically speaking within our discussion. Like you said, Christ knows what ws going through his mind...

Yeah this one is abit unfair...just wanted to see where u where standing when it came to, thinking one is capable of doing contra actually doing it....
and shall we jump to Plato vs Thrasymachus on this latter one?

Well, there is always that part of a person that thinks of doing immoral things because of the fires of irrational emotions, but that doesn't mean we would do it.
As for Plato, never read much, not particularly a fan. Sad to say I've never heard of Thrasymachus... I'd look him up but as we speak I'm avoiding doing a theory of knowledge essay and my brains may be close to leaking

im alittle courious why do say morality for its own sake?
And what duty are you talking about?

Rather than say: "I will not kill this person/rape this woman/ steal this car because if I am caught I will be punished"

Does one say: "I will notkill this person/rape this woman/steal this car because it is an immoral thing to do." ie: Morality for its own sake.

Or does one say: "I will not kill this person/rape this woman/steal this car because it will cause distress and harm to my fellow human beings who [let us assume] have not wronged me."
Even if they have wronged you, should one still ascribe to a live and let live principle? Well, that's a different argument altogether (prison sentencing, etc.)

 

[KoreBolteR]

reminds me of the terrorists in Iraq.
heartless killers. grr makes me mad

 

[RRunner]

Well, there is always that part of a person that thinks of doing immoral things because of the fires of irrational emotions, but that doesn't mean we would do it.
As for Plato, never read much, not particularly a fan. Sad to say I've never heard of Thrasymachus... I'd look him up but as we speak I'm avoiding doing a theory of knowledge essay and my brains may be close to leaking

Rather than say: "I will not kill this person/rape this woman/ steal this car because if I am caught I will be punished"

Does one say: "I will notkill this person/rape this woman/steal this car because it is an immoral thing to do." ie: Morality for its own sake.

Or does one say: "I will not kill this person/rape this woman/steal this car because it will cause distress and harm to my fellow human beings who [let us assume] have not wronged me."
Even if they have wronged you, should one still ascribe to a live and let live principle? Well, that's a different argument altogether (prison sentencing, etc.)

"a theory of knowledge essay" sounds like a headache to me

Well this actually the main reason why i decided to study phillosophy, no the only reason. I had this exact question on my mind, when applying to uni. But i must say i dint get any answers that made me happy. I think Kant came closest with his kategorical imperativ, but still it lacks a tiny fragment.

Help me out here.
I want to be rich, im too dumb and have a too high priorety when it comes to family time, to get there legaly.
Now what prevents me from going 1 block down, kick a door in and just steal what ever i can get (then becoming rich).
1. The police (as Hume says we need to protect property)
2. Moral duty (Kant: if i do this, it would be ok by me if others did the same to me).

So i cant legaly nor moraly do this, nor the other way around, hard work or a gadget that will make me rich. So basicly im poor what ever i do.

Plato through Aristoteles has a discussion with Thrasymachus about this (Thrasymachus is a sophist). Thrasymachus claims that the strongest should rule and Aristotelese goes blah( should 2 of your slaves whom are stronger then you, rule?) blah blah until Thrasymachus sees his own faults.

The point here if we should set the individual higher then society, or vice versa. now which is natural?

 

[Jangle]

this thread is turning into "The hl2.net Guide to Armed Robbery"

 

[el Chi]

"a theory of knowledge essay" sounds like a headache to me

Do sceptical challenges concerning the existence of an external world provide a real challenge which a theory of knowledge must defeat?
It's a barrel of laughs.

Well this actually the main reason why i decided to study phillosophy, no the only reason. I had this exact question on my mind, when applying to uni. But i must say i dint get any answers that made me happy. I think Kant came closest with his kategorical imperativ, but still it lacks a tiny fragment.

Help me out here.
I want to be rich, im too dumb and have a too high priorety when it comes to family time, to get there legaly.
Now what prevents me from going 1 block down, kick a door in and just steal what ever i can get (then becoming rich).
1. The police (as Hume says we need to protect property)
2. Moral duty (Kant: if i do this, it would be ok by me if others did the same to me).

So i cant legaly nor moraly do this, nor the other way around, hard work or a gadget that will make me rich. So basicly im poor what ever i do.

Well, I agree - to an extent - with Kant on this that we have a duty to do right by others, if you see what I mean. However I also accept that this is not always what is holding people back from comitting crimes, which I find rather sad, but that's the way life is, I suppose.
In the circumstances you describe, I have little sympathy for the protagonist if their choice is crime or a self-resignation to abject poverty. I don't like it when people insinuate that poor people are only poor because they're lazy, but in this situation it's essentially true.

Plato through Aristoteles has a discussion with Thrasymachus about this (Thrasymachus is a sophist). Thrasymachus claims that the strongest should rule and Aristotelese goes blah( should 2 of your slaves whom are stronger then you, rule?) blah blah until Thrasymachus sees his own faults.

This would be the second voice in Plato's books, then?

The point here if we should set the individual higher then society, or vice versa. now which is natural?

I think, without drowning the individuality of personalities or minds, we have to hold up some dignity for society. If all that falls apart, then we'd be in a sorry state of affairs.