Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Man, just a little too late for a nice "lookoutwegotabadass.jpeg"...

BeAfraid wrote:

Eventually, I put a stop to their attacks by shooting two of them.

You post some weird gak, dude.

As to the hoax thing, maybe. An aquaintence once said he was beaten and robbed when he went downstairs in his apartment complex to a soda machine. For months, he said he had no memory of the attack, just that he came to sitting on the stairs. It turned out he was lying and trying to cover up some misdeeds of his own and the consequence he reaped.
Also, we have cases like Tawana Brawley, where the "victim" jacked themselves up to make it look like they were attacked.
The guy lived in this town his whole life and nothing remotely like this happened to him, and as I said, in small towns out in the willies, everyone knows everyone else's business.
On the other hand, there are some truly repulsive people out there in the world that think nothing of doing crap like this to the point that they believe they are actually performing a public service. At this time, I don't see the guy's percentage in mutilating himself and robbing his own place of business.

Agreed.

There is no way this wasn't all staged. You don't make someone drink bleach and carve gak into their arms only then go spray paint their garage door. It's a completely illogical progression.

This is supposedly the damage from the "Molotov cocktail".



I think it's only a matter of time before it's revealed he did this for attention.

Looks like someone cut the carpet away.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

BeAfraid wrote:

Eventually, I put a stop to their attacks by shooting two of them.

Wait, what?
How come you are not in prison?

The first rule of Internet Fight Club is one does not mention internet fight club!

So true, but not sure it applies here.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 sebster wrote:
I saw this thread title and thought I’d be getting a sad story of persecution. I had no idea I’d get to read about the brutal world of pizza store wars and another story about this dude who totally shot two homophobes this one time, honestly it really happened.

Days like this I really love dakka.

Dakka is like a river to its people.

Could be real, could be false (always good to be suspicious).
There would probably be corraborating witnesses to the attempted firebombing and the how the money was stolen.

As to Austin murders in the 80s. Um ok...what? Huh?

I never said I killed the guys. It is possible to shoot people without killing them. In one case, I could have killed the guy, and the fact I didn't caused me all manner of grief (the cops were even pissed off about it - turns out it created a lot of grief for them as well).

People's imaginations run wild on things like this, when they don't stop to think about the fact that there could be a long, long history that led to the situation in question.

Have a look at the History of the Confederate Hammerskins in Texas.

Prior to the founding of the Hammerskins, I used to ferry the founding members to Punk Shows at the Twilite Room, or Theatre Gallery in downtown Dallas.

After the Founding of the Hammerskins, we drifted apart, but tried to remain civil to each other.

Around late 1986, a substantial number of skinheads from California and Colorado (including Terry Bash, the head of the BASH Boys - Bay Area Skin Heads, from the SF Bay Area, and Mark Dagger, a notorious Skinhead from Los Angeles) moved to Texas.

These new Skinheads has no prior history of relationship with me, and refused to tolerate the truce in existence between the group of people I typically hung out with (the first Generation of Texas Deathrockers and Goths), and the Confederate Hammers (which was a rocky truce due to sexual politics involving a substantial number of punk girls who wound up dating members of both groups, producing more than a little jealousy).

So, when I was in Austin (where My family owned a house, and I spent roughly half my time in Texas), two of the Colorado skinheads decided to try to break into my house to do some sort of bodily harm to me (later, one of my friends among the Skins told me they actually intended to kill me, despite what they claimed after I shot them - the plan I was told was that they intended to kill me and make it look like I was killed in the process of walking in on a burglary by a minority - everything was always about making it look like minorities did everything; that whole "trying to start a race-war" thing with them). One of them was actually inside my house when I shot him (in the left pelvis, breaking his ilium and dislocating the joint between the ilium and femur - the ball joint at our hip) and the other was fleeing (I don't recall whether he made it through the window before I shot him or not - but I caught him in the right chest/shoulder. His wounds were technically much more serious).The one inside could not move, and the one outside was caught a few blocks away, staggering along an alley.

That is basically the details of the events. I made it clear to the kid in my house, as did the police later, that I could have killed him without a worry in the world, and that his friend might well be just as dead with only slightly more hassle since he wasn't wholly inside my house (Stand your ground laws were not as rigid then as they are now).

The Austin American Statesman ran a story about it the next day. I don't recall the exact dates, but it was sometime in late-86/early-87 if I remember correctly.

Most kids today have a hard time relating to life in a fringe subculture that existed in the 60s - 80s. They all became "mainstream" in the 1990s/00s.

But it was dangerous in many of them, as we were constantly threatened by mainstream society, and particularly the more conservative and redneck elements. These two skinheads were hardly the only people I shot or shot at, nor am I alone in having something like that happen in the Punk-related subcultures of the time. And people killing each other in the Hardcore and Skinhead scenes was something that occurred with unsettling frequency (several of us are starting to write books about the experiences).

Also, drugs, and hard drugs, were much more common in those scenes than they are today.

Nearly everyone in the Goth scene in Texas and California did heroin, many of us died from that. Real meth (not that pseudo-ephedrine crap that exists now) was also common. Two very good friends of mine were killed due to Meth, shot by a paranoid cook while they slept.

And the Skinhead scene was positively awash in PCP, which made them even more dangerous.

So... Pardon that you have lived such a sheltered life that you cannot cope with others who lived very much on, or beyond, the edge as they could.

MB

If he was was fleeing and you shot him thats murder.

While I am not representing you legally, I'd suggest you employ you right against self incrimination. Note there is no statute of limitation on murder in Texas.

The rest of that...wait I thought we were talking about pizza. I'm confused.

Well, not if he didn't actually kill him, surely?

 Frazzled wrote:
If he was was fleeing and you shot him thats murder.

Technically, no.

And, obviously you did not read what happened.

I suppose the guy is alive and well someplace, in his late-40s/early-50s now (now that I think about it, he may still be in prison for someting he did later while on parole for yet another crime).

If someone is inside your house in the State of Texas, without your permission (in fact, this is the case in almost all 50 states), then you are free to kill them.

If someone is on your property (but not immediately inside your house), then killing them is permissible if they present what is considered an immediate/obvious threat.

The guy who fled ditched the weapons he had, so there was a little bit of a question over whether he presented such a threat, but the fact he was a skinhead, and had a rather substantial record of assault, and that he had been thrown out of another state for such acts of violence worked in my favor to avoid any charges (which would have amounted to little more than a "discharging a weapon" given the situation.

Also, even if I had killed him, it would not have been "murder," it would have been a justified self-defense, since he would be laying right next to, or draped over, my window, and the weapons he was carrying would have made clear his intentions.

MB


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled....

You live in Texas and you don't know this stuff???

MB

.

If it was presumably you would easily be able to find the proofs.

If someone is inside your house in the State of Texas, without your permission (in fact, this is the case in almost all 50 states), then you are free to kill them.

NO. It means you have no duty to retreat. You are not "free to kill him."

If they are not in your house juries will not typically find them to an immediate obvious threat. Now if you disagree fine, I could epically care less. But I'm familiar with the jury trials here and this is bad advice to anyone who doesn't want to go to prison or get a needle.

Here, to give you the actual Laws:

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/txstatutes/PE/2/9/C/9.31

TEX PENAL CODE ANN. § 9.31 : Texas Statutes - Section 9.31: SELF-DEFENSE

(a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force. The actor's belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:

(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force was used:

(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;
(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or
(C) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;

I have highlighted the relevant sections of the Texas Penal Code detailing the legality of what transpired, and that I would have been fully justified to actually kill the two.


to continue with the Penal Code § 9.31

(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and

(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.

(b) The use of force against another is not justified:

(1) in response to verbal provocation alone;

(2) to resist an arrest or search that the actor knows is being made by a peace officer, or by a person acting in a peace officer's presence and at his direction, even though the arrest or search is unlawful, unless the resistance is justified under Subsection (c);

(3) if the actor consented to the exact force used or attempted by the other;

(4) if the actor provoked the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force, unless:

(A) the actor abandons the encounter, or clearly communicates to the other his intent to do so reasonably believing he cannot safely abandon the encounter; and
(B) the other nevertheless continues or attempts to use unlawful force against the actor; or

(5) if the actor sought an explanation from or discussion with the other person concerning the actor's differences with the other person while the actor was:

(A) carrying a weapon in violation of Section 46.02; or
(B) possessing or transporting a weapon in violation of Section 46.05.
(c) The use of force to resist an arrest or search is justified:

(1) if, before the actor offers any resistance, the peace officer (or person acting at his direction) uses or attempts to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest or search; and

(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the peace officer's (or other person's) use or attempted use of greater force than necessary.

(d) The use of deadly force is not justified under this subchapter except as provided in Sections 9.32, 9.33, and 9.34.

(e) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the force is used is not required to retreat before using force as described by this section.

(f) For purposes of Subsection (a), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (e) reasonably believed that the use of force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.

The point where I had difficulties in this case was with (b)(4)(A), where it was not clear if the actor who provoked a use of force clearly communicated their intent to retreat. Considering his compatriot was clearly inside my house, and in possession of weapons, and that the other was inside the house when the confrontation began, and also had weapons (the police believed this to be the case given the possession of weapons by the first), and both had lengthy records of assault, and suspicion in the commission of murder against minorities in the state of Colorado, the Police and DA felt that no further investigation was needed, and that I acted entirely within my rights.

MB

 Frazzled wrote:
If someone is inside your house in the State of Texas, without your permission (in fact, this is the case in almost all 50 states), then you are free to kill them.

NO. It means you have no duty to retreat. You are not "free to kill him."

If they are not in your house juries will not typically find them to an immediate obvious threat. Now if you disagree fine, I could epically care less. But I'm familiar with the jury trials here and this is bad advice to anyone who doesn't want to go to prison or get a needle.

Frazzled....

You live in Texas and you don't know this stuff???

Oh I know "this stuff." You've added facts now. but again, whatever, I'm not having this argument on Dakka. Do what you want to do, again I don't care.

Wow, Texas really sounds like some kind of Wild West where people have daily shootouts in the streets now.
With those subcultures, I am guessing there was some shady stuff going on?
There had to be something at stake, even the bratva doesn't start killing people just because they hate them.
I guess there is more reason for those guys breaking into your house than just them hating you.
But... Maybe we'd better not know. I highly doubt it is related to pizza anyway, and as Frazzled said, Dakka is not the kind of place for discussing this.

Edit: never mind.

Is Robert Dursting a thread now a thing?

 nels1031 wrote:
Is Robert Dursting a thread now a thing?

I do not think anyone has confessed to a murder here, nor to anything which is not already a matter of public record (as I pointed out in my own case, the event I was involved in was reported in at least one Texas Newspaper).

And I am not sure anything else applies to Durst's situation, either.... So... more than a little confused by the tangential reference.

MB

 nels1031 wrote:
Is Robert Dursting a thread now a thing?

What is Robert Dursting?

 Frazzled wrote:
Dakka is like a river to its people.

Awesome quote.

Could be real, could be false (always good to be suspicious).
There would probably be corraborating witnesses to the attempted firebombing and the how the money was stolen.

Yeah, I think there’s a difference between suspicion, which is good, and wild speculation. Suspicion would something along the lines of ‘let’s see how this plays out as police investigate’. What we’ve seen here, though, has been talk of rival pizza stores undertaking a brutal campaign, likely triggering the franchise wars in which only Taco Bell can emerge victorious.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

BeAfraid wrote:
I never said I killed the guys.

No, I know you didn't say you killed them. Even if if wasn't clear from what you wrote I would have assumed it, because when a kid decides to tell this story, which seems to happen about once every two years, they always wound the guy, and never kill them. I don't know why, I guess making it just a wounding makes them think their story is more believable.

If you would like to hear about the people I have killed, I could go into that.

There are people I intended to kill, and did kill. And some that I am not sure whether they are alive or dead, given the situation.

A few of them have caused quite severe PTSD, from the first time I was in Pakistan/Afghanistan in the 1980s.

You do realize that there are people in this world who have not lived what are typical lives?

As it stands, maybe I will see if I can dig up the Newspaper stories on the episode.

I know quite a few people who have shot other people (aside from military, in which case that raises the number significantly), or stabbed other people, or in a few cases, beat others to death.

Sometimes, people are payed to do dangerous things, or they simply fall in with a crowd that tends to be overly violent (or both).

MB


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 nels1031 wrote:
Is Robert Dursting a thread now a thing?

What is Robert Dursting?

Robert Durst is a millionaire who had this unfortunate tendency of having people around him die in unfortunate coincidences.

He always seemed to have a perfect alibi for these incidents, yet seemed to be considerably suspicious in each case (had motive).

They created a reality show centered on him, and during the filming of it, he went to the bathroom.

While he was peeing, he began to talk to himself, thinking that no one was listening, yet he had left on the wireless microphone used for the TV show, which recorded his conversation with himself.

That conversation implicated him in several of the murders for which he was considered a suspect:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Durst

I think someone had the mistaken impression that I was accidentally confessing to a crime I had committed. Just as a guess, since there is no real context, and more than a few people have questioned the events as being murder (jumping to conclusions came to mind).

Of course, it could also apply to the owner of the Pizza Shop, trying to fake a crime against himself (as this was a ploy Durst used in one of the murders to gain an alibi). But, again, no context.


MB

Well this thread got stupid.

 Jihadin wrote:
Well this thread got stupid.

Only just now? But seriously guys, you are about as far off topic as you can be, so less of the Rambo III and more of the pizza topic, or we'll just have to lock it up and move on

Looks like a couple hundred people drove down to Delta for openers on a show of support for the family:

http://www.good4utah.com/story/d/story/several-gather-in-delta-show-support-for-victim-of/17824/uiuOaLCGqki6aIQrBG8W1w

Relapse wrote:
Looks like a couple hundred people drove down to Delta for openers on a show of support for the family:

http://www.good4utah.com/story/d/story/several-gather-in-delta-show-support-for-victim-of/17824/uiuOaLCGqki6aIQrBG8W1w

Well, if this was all faked for attention rather than a real crime, it certainly worked.
Not saying it was faked, but there is definitely something odd about this story.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Relapse wrote:
Looks like a couple hundred people drove down to Delta for openers on a show of support for the family:

http://www.good4utah.com/story/d/story/several-gather-in-delta-show-support-for-victim-of/17824/uiuOaLCGqki6aIQrBG8W1w

Well, if this was all faked for attention rather than a real crime, it certainly worked.
Not saying it was faked, but there is definitely something odd about this story.

The damage done to his pizzeria, his home and his body are superficial. The safe had been broken into two times and each time for a relatively small amount of money. Both crimes were committed within a few weeks of one another. If I was their insurance company, I would be hard pressed to pay out on this. The more i read about this story, the more obvious it gets.

Advanced victim blaming at its best.
There is no point in waiting for the results of the police investigation.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Advanced victim blaming at its best.
There is no point in waiting for the results of the police investigation.

So let me get this straight..

His store is robbed and he was attacked.. Safe was opened.. no witnesses and no physical evidence.
His home was vandalized (garage spray painted).. no witnesses and no physical evidence.
His store was robbed a second time and safe was empties a 2nd time even though the combination was changed. no witnesses and no physical evidence.
His home was vandalized (Molotov cocktail).. He immediately put out the fire. no witnesses and no physical evidence.

4 separate instances where a safe cracking vandal left no physical evidence and no witnesses to the crime. It must be Bigfoot.

Wounding, spray painting, missing money, etc. are all physical evidence, of course, and the man involved is a witness.

You merely have chosen to come to a decision without waiting for the results of the police enquiries.