Gunman Dies

joescrivens said:
Death comes to us all at some point. It's inevitable and is just a part of life.

Yes we have a choice on how to react when death happens.

But that choice includes feeling good and feeling bad or feeling nothing. Having the choice makes us human.

If we choose to feel good that a reprobate is no longer on the earth then that's our choice and we can have it.

If you want to feel sympathy about it that's your choice and I won't stop you for feeling it.

Don't expect me to lose any sleep over it though. I'm still glad another despicable human is no longer breathing the same air as me.
Click to expand...

Scarily.....:agree:
 
neil_g said:
im saying its very presumptuous to suggest it was done from greed.

it may have been more desperation. neither you or i know the facts on the whys.
Click to expand...

A serial armed robber.... to many do gooders not wanting to read facts about robbers who should be called terrorists.
 
tiler65 said:
Why else would want to rob a place that holds money?...For the thrill of it?
Click to expand...

Desperation or frustration would probably be bigger motivating factors than greed.

People who are greedy tend to operate on a basis that nets bigger rewards. A local bookies is never likely to return any significant sum of money. Greed is a motivator, and a motivated man does not rob a local bookies.

If he was motivated by greed he would've likely been engaging in crimes that can be repeated often and with larger returns, or less frequently, but with massive returns. Crimes such as drug dealing and fraud respectively. Or theft.

And yes, robbery, as a crime, is commented on by criminal psychologists as having a significant impact on your adrenal system and is supposed to be one of the most thrilling crimes to commit. This is mirrored by bank robbers who all say exactly the same in their memoirs.

I know the opponents of this absolutely do not care one bit about having their opinions changed, or learning anything in any way, but if anyone wants information, I could probably ask my girlfriend. Before becoming a lawyer, she was a criminal psychologist who worked closely in the prison service. She's likely met scores of people like this gentleman and may be able to shed light on his type.
 
Last edited:
London Headshots said:
Desperation or frustration would probably be bigger motivating factors than greed.

People who are greedy tend to operate on a basis that nets bigger rewards. A local bookies is never likely to return any significant sum of money. Greed is a motivator, and a motivated man does not rob a local bookies.

If he was motivated by greed he would've likely been engaging in crimes that can be repeated often and with larger returns, or less frequently, but with massive returns. Crimes such as drug dealing and fraud respectively. Or theft.

And yes, robbery, as a crime, is commented on by criminal psychologists as having a significant impact on your adrenal system and is supposed to be one of the most thrilling crimes to commit. This is mirrored by bank robbers who all say exactly the same in their memoirs.

I know the opponents of this absolutely do not care one bit about having their opinions changed, or learning anything in any way, but if anyone wants information, I could probably ask my girlfriend. Before switching to law, she was a criminal psychologist who worked closely in the prison service. She's likely met scores of people like this gentleman and may be able to shed light on his type.
Click to expand...

Nonsense....a bookie will contain thousands of pounds....it is an easy target, usually only female staff. That is the motivation he needs, an EASY return for doing NOTHING. That is greed!
 
As for saying he would be motivated in crimes greater than robbing a bookies...he probably wasn't clever enough to mastermind a 'greater' act of criminality!
 
Hmm.. The first google hit for a bookies robbery was this: http://www.eastbourneherald.co.uk/n...d-with-cash-from-eastbourne-bookies-1-4662362

He made away with £1500.

Tom, in all honesty, I don't actually think you really understand what you're talking about here. You don't seem to grasp the concept that things run deeper than the kind of vague tabloid headline posts you keep making.

Robbery of any kind if not easy, nor is it doing 'nothing'. Criminal psychologists affirm that it is one of the most stressful crimes you can commit and also affirm that it is an arena populated by only the staunchest of criminal constitutions. It is, for want of a better term, a crime for the "brave".
 
tiler65 said:
As for saying he would be motivated in crimes greater than robbing a bookies...he probably wasn't clever enough to mastermind a 'greater' act of criminality!
Click to expand...

You're saying that as career criminal, at 50 years of age, wouldn't have learned how to sell drugs or steal high value goods?

He could've done a smash & grab on a jewellers. That's still robbery, and would've earned in the tens of thousands for 30 seconds work. But instead he chose a local bookies which probably had less than £500 on the floor. apparently because he was 'greedy'.
 
London Headshots said:
Hmm.. The first google hit for a bookies robbery was this: http://www.eastbourneherald.co.uk/n...d-with-cash-from-eastbourne-bookies-1-4662362

He made away with £1500.

Tom, in all honesty, I don't actually think you really understand what you're talking about here. You don't seem to grasp the concept that things run deeper than the kind of vague tabloid headline posts you keep making.

Robbery of any kind if not easy, nor is it doing 'nothing'. Criminal psychologists affirm that it is one of the most stressful crimes you can commit and also affirm that it is an arena populated by only the staunchest of criminal constitutions. It is, for want of a better term, a crime for the "brave".
Click to expand...
You are the one sensationalising robbery by saying they are brave. I am saying they are cowards and are terrorists and want an easy route to money so they can spend it things they can't afford ...like drugs, guns, gold, cars, big flat screen TVs.

Why can't they try and work for it like the majority of the adult population.

The sooner you realise that these people do not want our help the better you will understand that want to live in their own world without laws (unless it directly involves them, then they are the victims! ...how quaint)

So it appears you are getting all your info from your girlfriend. Don't you have any direct knowledge of these criminals?
 
London Headshots said:
You're saying that as career criminal, at 50 years of age, wouldn't have learned how to sell drugs or steal high value goods?

He could've done a smash & grab on a jewellers. That's still robbery, and would've earned in the tens of thousands for 30 seconds work. But instead he chose a local bookies which probably had less than £500 on the floor. apparently because he was 'greedy'.
Click to expand...

Have you ever been in a bookies?

Do you know how much a 2k Stolen watch can be resold to a fence for?

You are living in a dream world of Hollywood sensationalism.
 
tiler65 said:
Have you ever been in a bookies?

Do you know how much a 2k Stolen watch can be resold to a fence for?

You are living in a dream world of Hollywood sensationalism.
Click to expand...

I forgot that when performing a smash & grab, most people choose to only grab one watch.

Sorry, my mistake.

Thanks for clearing that up.

What do they do with the other twenty watches in the display, and all of the diamond rings and necklaces? Do they leave them behind? Seems implausible.
 
LH, that report you posted from some gazette reads that he stole from one till at 9.20 am...barely any time to take any takings.... what if the other tills + safe were containing money but as usual he was in a hurry so he didn't want to risk wasting time...you talk utter nonsense.
 
London Headshots said:
I forgot that when performing a smash & grab, most people choose to only grab one watch.

Sorry, my mistake.

Thanks for clearing that up.

What do they do with the other twenty watches in the display, and all of the diamond rings and necklaces? Do they leave them behind? Seems implausible.
Click to expand...

remember ....30 seconds you said.

You still haven't told me how much said goods would be resold to the fence for.
 
tiler65 said:
You are the one sensationalising robbery by saying they are brave. I am saying they are cowards and are terrorists and want an easy route to money so they can spend it things they can't afford ...like drugs, guns, gold, cars, big flat screen TVs.

Why can't they try and work for it like the majority of the adult population.

The sooner you realise that these people do not want our help the better you will understand that want to live in their own world without laws (unless it directly involves them, then they are the victims! ...how quaint)

So it appears you are getting all your info from your girlfriend. Don't you have any direct knowledge of these criminals?
Click to expand...

Yes, I know you are saying they are cowards and terrorists, and you happen to be completely wrong about it, much like you have been completely wrong throughout the entire thread. The only reason you don't see it is because you're a bit insecure, and your ego won't allow you to actually debate a topic. You MUST be right.

The reality here is that you don't have the slightest understanding of what motivates criminals. You are a tabloid-reader.

And no, I'm not getting the information from my girlfriend, but if I was, what would be the problem? That would mean at least one of us was consulting an expert and not doggedly affirming a position that is based utterly on opinion.
 
tiler65 said:
remember ....30 seconds you said.

You still haven't told me how much said goods would be resold to the fence for.
Click to expand...

Hmm, again, in this smash and grab, the robbers appear to have made off with £2 million in items. http://www.kilburntimes.co.uk/news/...t_smash_and_grab_robbery_in_kilburn_1_1685080

I don't know how much a £2k watch goes for, and I'm not quite sure why you think my argument hinges on it, but I would imagine it would probably go, if brand new, for £5-700.

I know though, that whatever figure I say, you'll scoff at it and half it.
 
So how come you are right and I am wrong?

It appears there are only 3 or 4 people saying that we have got this criminal mastermind wrong and that he was really a good egg.

I take that they are al wrong too?

Try and tell me how much a £2k stolen watch can be resold for.
 
London Headshots said:
Hmm, again, in this smash and grab, the robbers appear to have made off with £2 million in items. http://www.kilburntimes.co.uk/news/...t_smash_and_grab_robbery_in_kilburn_1_1685080

I don't know how much a £2k watch goes for, and I'm not quite sure why you think my argument hinges on it, but I would imagine it would probably go, if brand new, for £5-700.

I know though, that whatever figure I say, you'll scoff at it and half it.
Click to expand...

A GANG....not a one man operation!!!!!!!!!

they made off with £2m worth of goods for insurances quote purposes

How much would that be resold for ....you don't get it do you?
 
Last edited:
That was 6 robbers, three of which performed the smash so that's £650,000 per robber. They also did a similar job the day before apparently.

Here's the footage: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izw1lnm2yyU

Takes them about 1:30.

So, since you're hinging an entire argument on a random number I plucked out of the air, one man working for thirty seconds under similar circumstance could net £200,000 worth of goods.
 
tiler65 said:
So how come you are right and I am wrong?

It appears there are only 3 or 4 people saying that we have got this criminal mastermind wrong and that he was really a good egg.

I take that they are al wrong too?

Try and tell me how much a £2k stolen watch can be resold for.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying I'm right, I'm saying you MAY be wrong. I'm saying that we don't have all the information needed to rely on your assumption that this gentleman was motivated purely by greed. You are the only person in this discussion asserting anything as dogged fact.

What I'm doing is being reasonable and asking if there might be mitigating factors that led to this crime.

I've already told you what the watch could be sold for. I've got absolutely no idea why you think it matters.

You see the part where you say we're all asserting that he was a 'good egg'? What you are doing is inventing a scenario that would make your posts in this thread justified. NOBODY, NOT ONCE, has suggested any such thing. That is why your argument is so fragile. In order to justify it, you have to use hyperbole. It's a classic technique that people use in these situations when they have a flimsy argument that they can't really back up under scrutiny.
 
Last edited:
tiler65 said:
A GANG....not a one man operation!!!!!!!!!

they made off with £2m worth of goods for insurances quote purposes

How much would that be resold for ....you don't get it do you?
Click to expand...

I'd imagine it would be resold for 1/4 of it's value. So that would still net the robbers around £100,000 each. For 1:30 work.
 
I will tell you why the amount the watch can be resold is a big factor is that because it is so little value to the robber ...they have to re commit offences because they need more money to fuel their lifestyle.

An if you go back to my original post where I used greed for the first time ...you will notice it did not just contain greed....it also suggested that they want something for nothing...but again like may folk on here ...you pick and choose what to 'quote' rather than read the whole post.
 
"re commit offences because they need more money to fuel their lifestyle"

I'm going to move on now. More assumption, absolutely no basis in fact. Pure and utter speculation.
 
London Headshots said:
Yes, I know you are saying they are cowards and terrorists, and you happen to be completely wrong about it, much like you have been completely wrong throughout the entire thread. The only reason you don't see it is because you're a bit insecure, and your ego won't allow you to actually debate a topic. You MUST be right.

The reality here is that you don't have the slightest understanding of what motivates criminals. You are a tabloid-reader.

And no, I'm not getting the information from my girlfriend, but if I was, what would be the problem? That would mean at least one of us was consulting an expert and not doggedly affirming a position that is based utterly on opinion.
Click to expand...

Actually you didn't say he MAY be wrong.
 
London Headshots said:
You're saying that as career criminal, at 50 years of age, wouldn't have learned how to sell drugs or steal high value goods?

He could've done a smash & grab on a jewellers. That's still robbery, and would've earned in the tens of thousands for 30 seconds work. But instead he chose a local bookies which probably had less than £500 on the floor. apparently because he was 'greedy'.
Click to expand...

But then he'd have to sell the jewellery, not only entailing a lot more "work" to get cash, but risking further detection. A cash robbery is the easy option for these low life's.
 
Last edited:
viv1969 said:
Actually you didn't say he MAY be wrong.
Click to expand...

You've taken a small piece of a single post and used it out of context. That's not really how to prove a point.

In that particular post, useless though this explanation will be, I am saying he is wrong about calling robbers cowards, as the data for that particular crime suggests, pretty conclusively, that it is not a crime committed by people who lack, for want of a better term, 'balls'. He asserted the point throughout the thread, hence the "throughout the thread" part.

At this point, any reasonable person, would say "Ah, I see what you're saying".

You won't though. You'll quote another piece of a post or find another way to continue the argument, because, as I've noticed with you, you never actually argue the topic at hand, you merely argue with the people in the topic. Contributing largely nothing.

Actually, I'll pop you on ignore.
 
Last edited:
London Headshots said:
You've taken a small piece of a single post and used it out of context. That's not really how to prove a point.

In that particular post, useless though this explanation will be, I am saying he is wrong about calling robbers cowards, as the data for that particular crime suggests, pretty conclusively, that it is not a crime committed by people who lack, for want of a better term, 'balls'. He asserted the point throughout the thread, hence the "throughout the thread" part.

At this point, any reasonable person, would say "Ah, I see what you're saying".

You won't though. You'll quote another piece of a post or find another way to continue the argument, because, as I've noticed with you, you never actually argue the topic at hand, you merely argue with the people in the topic. Contributing largely nothing.

Actually, I'll pop you on ignore.
Click to expand...

But I said that they were cowards AND terrorists in my post but you chose to ignore that fact that they were terrorists.....am I wrong about that too?

I see it is OK for you to 'pull' snippets of info from a thread/post but no one else can do it.
 
London Headshots said:
I haven't read it, as I don't have time, but I will when I get home. A quick glance at the stats suggests that the main reason for armed robbery is drug related. Which, much to my point, doesn't indicate greed, but rather, desperation.
Click to expand...

Actually you need to read it as it does not state that majority is for drugs.
 
odd jim said:
But then he'd have to sell the jewellery, not only entailing a lot more "work" to get cash, but risking further detection. A cash robbery is the easy option for these low life's.
Click to expand...

Thus, likely to be committed by someone motivated by something other than plain greed.
 
Why do these thread degenerate into name calling and spiteful remarks?

Yes, there are stongly held views on opposite sides of the debate. If someone diagrees with me it doesn't mean they are a bad person and I should insult/denigrate them. There are some very good, well written posts on this thread, but also some pretty silly and pointless ones.
 
Can we not stop the arguing before this thread gets locked too?
 
tiler65 said:
But I said that they were cowards AND terrorists in my post but you chose to ignore that fact that they were terrorists.....am I wrong about that too?

I see it is OK for you to 'pull' snippets of info from a thread/post but no one else can do it.
Click to expand...

I ignored the terrorists part, because it seemed a bit stupid if I'm honest. In modern parlance, terrorism is a criminal act with a strong political motive.

The term terrorist is already used within current lexicon to define a very clear type of criminal. If you start calling robbers terrorists, then what do you call the terrorists?

Also, terrorists are cowards? That is like the antithesis of a coward. Say what you want about terrorism, but I don't think it's an aera of people who one would accurately describe as a "coward".
 
PatrickO said:
Why do these thread degenerate into name calling and spiteful remarks?

Yes, there are stongly held views on opposite sides of the debate. If someone diagrees with me it doesn't mean they are a bad person and I should insult/denigrate them. There are some very good, well written posts on this thread, but also some pretty silly and pointless ones.
Click to expand...

Who has been called names?
 
The problem as I see it is your all guessing at things. Reasons for this motives for that tbh you can argue that point all day. You can have two people commit the same crime for TOTALY different reasons. So the only point that remains is the crime was committed.
 
London Headshots said:
I ignored the terrorists part, because it seemed a bit stupid if I'm honest. In modern parlance, terrorism is a criminal act with a strong political motive.

The term terrorist is already used within current lexicon to define a very clear type of criminal. If you start calling robbers terrorists, then what do you call the terrorists?

Also, terrorists are cowards? That is like the antithesis of a coward. Say what you want about terrorism, but I don't think it's an aera of people who one would accurately describe as a "coward".
Click to expand...

LH....an armed robber uses terror tactics to force his/her prey to hand over goods.

Therefore they are terrorists. It is plain English.
 
I find some of the arguments just plain daft.

Everyone makes their own choices in life, these choices are informed by their environment, e.g. if all of my friends and parents were scroungers and thieves then I would be more likely to be one too, but I would still have had a large element of choice.

As it happens, we were very poor, and I determined that I wasn't going to be poor, so I went the route of education and hard work to change that, rather than crime.

I've met a few criminals. Most of them are far too lazy to plan anything, they are just opportunists, that's why they often take chances that just aren't worth taking.

Some of them are violent, whether they are violent or not, and the degree of violence they use, doesn't seem to be related to their physical capability, they are just violent thugs.

Why do they commit crimes? There may be many reasons but often it's because
1. They are too idle to work
2. They have a massive chip on their shoulder and believe that because they are 'have nots' they have the right to steal from the 'haves'. They blame society as a whole for the fact that they have nothing, just as ignorant people blame immigrants or any other people who are different from themselves for their own failures.

I'm all for giving people a chance, I don't write people off when they have committed just one crime, because a small number of people do learn from their mistakes and change, but a career criminal is a different matter. I am sorry for his family, but that's about as far as my sympathy goes. I just hope that the people who took the action that may have led to his death don't blame themselves for it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top