What did this dope, Zack Ford, say?
He was pissed off that a woman used her conceal carry during an armed robbery to end the threat by ventilating the scumbag.
Few of us think that armed citizens should go around gunning down pickpockets, for example.
But what Ford left out is that the mugger himself was armed with a handgun. I suspect this omission was intentional, because that small fact utterly destroys his case. Armed robbery is not merely “theft,” it comes with a threat of violence and harm. When guns are involved, that threat is implicitly murder.
What we actually have is a case where a woman responded to a credible threat of violence with a proportionate amount of violence. I don’t know that I am “thrilled” that one human being was forced to kill another. But yes, I call that justice.
He continued to defend his stance in the replies to his tweet.
See the tweets Here
There’s a lot going on here, so I’ll take them in order. “The kid was 19” is almost a contradiction in terms: 19-year-olds are legally adults. An adult walked around at night, with a gun, robbing women. This is the same infantilizing nonsense that is rightly called out by Ford and his allies when used to excuse crimes from privileged white college students and “good ol’ boys.”
It’s “a gun death is a gun death” where you start to see how ideology is driving Ford’s stance. Guns, you see, are bad. It’s so alien to Ford’s worldview that a gun might’ve have been used in good way that even something as straightforward as self-defense must be cast as a bad outcome. The fact that there was an actual human being in danger is besides the point when there’s a cause to defend.
Again, we get “the punishment for armed robbery is not death.” But self-defense is not a matter of “punishment.” Self-defense is justified because every person has a right to life, and with that comes the right to use the appropriate use of force to protect that right. That another person is harmed through the use of force is a predictable effect of self-defense, but the intention is the protection of life.
Depending on the circumstances you may view the harm to an attacker as “punishment” they “deserved,” but that’s irrelevant to the larger moral justification. That’s why self-defense is justified even against those we wouldn’t think of as morally culpable, such as the mentally incompetent or insane.
We now arrive at “if she had let him rob her, even at gunpoint, both likely would have survived.” I … I almost don’t know what to say here.
He looks like the kind of guy who loves Gillette razors.
Meh, this guy farts in the bath tub and bites at the bubbles. He should read a few Penal Codes. I can’t remember where this shooting took place, but a lot of states give a ccw the right to “Shoot a fleeing felon”.
It figures with the pink shirt
That guy looks like the inspiration for Mr. Potato Head.
I wonder if his silly opinions would change if he was the one being robbed at gunpoint? He is a fool.
I’m so tired of leftists professing moral superiority when they know nothing on the matter. Innocent life should be protected and if a criminal makes a choice to threaten violence, they should be fully prepared to have their life ended by the victim.
The kind of guy who sometime down the road is discovered to possess his own illegal firearms.
Oh he is indeed worthy of the Biggest Dope title – no doubt about it.
However, he has a lot of competition. There are many hungry aggressive contenders clamoring to earn the title.
How come these moron libtards
all look like punchable ugly dork soy boys ?
http://zackfordblogs.com/whoiszackford/
gay, athiest
One can hope that, soon, he might have a life-changing epiphany that clears his thinking. …..Lady in Red
I still like this clip:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cw6jDrshgEw
May Karma strike soon: he is assailted by an armed man and a woman approached with her permitted carry gun pulled, but she backs off, after seeing who the victim is.
She says, “Oh sorry, I don’t want to violate the perp’s rights. Carry on.” As she walks away.
He should go interview some of these poor, robbin’, rapin’, thieven’, muggin’, wilding sorts in prison, and get THEIR side of the story, in-depth. I’m sure they’d LOVE to see him on the inside; they’d no doubt GIVE IT to him… “in-depth!” 😮 😮 😮
“The kind of guy who sometime down the road is discovered to possess his own illegal firearms.”
There is certainly that kind of guy, but this round-bottomed dumpling ain’t it. There is a greater chance that Mr. Rogers was a sniper in Vietnam.
Yu huh. It’s a fruitbat incapable of concluding the high probability that its proposition of “if she had let him rob her, even at gunpoint, both likely would have survived.” would be followed by oh, say, a home invasion, since he now had all her personal information, if not her keys as well. Then she could get killed and fruitbat wouldn’t even hear about it.
I have to wonder how much morons like him are paid. They should donate a substantial portion of their salary and read to the blind as penance.
Fag. He doesn’t think being threatened with a gun entitles someone to defend themselves, but he prolly believes that speech he doesn’t agree with is a violent act that justifies a violent response.
“the punishment for armed robbery is not death.”
Seems not the case in this instance. It also seems “journalism” is rife with high-functioning morons.
A very punchable face and throat.
He’s as creepy as it’s possible to be.
No, he is even more creepy than that.