Teen Tries To Rob Cafe With a Banana

niktemadur writes "In an uncanny case of life-imitates-Monty-Python, the BBC reports of a North Carolina teenager who entered an internet cafe with a banana concealed under his T-shirt, said it was a gun and demanded money. The owner of the shop and its customers overcame the hapless thief and called for help. When the police arrived, witnesses reported that the teenager had eaten the banana in the interim. In addition to attempted armed robbery, officers joked they may also charge the 17-year-old with destroying evidence and took pictures of the banana peel instead. No mention in the article, however, on how patrons might have defended themselves against a pointed stick."

Comments

Bad choices

[Locke2005]

Cafe workers first became suspicious when the youth yelled "Alright everybody... no, I am NOT just happy to see you!"

First Guns, Then Knives

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Not many people outside of the UK have noticed, but recently there has been a huge hullabaloo over there about "knife crime" - to the point of were they are seriously considering banning (if they haven't already done so) anything much more dangerous than a butterknife.

I think we should we can count on them taking this BBC report to heart and once the dangers of knife-crime have been eliminated, they will move on to ban bananas so that people can be spared the terror and suffering of banana-crimes.

Re:First Guns, Then Knives

[modecx]

Somewhere on the net recently, I saw this retarded chef's knife some entrepreneur in London was trying to have instituted as the only legal, large knife you could buy in the city. Instead of having a regular sharp point, it had a much smaller point along the regular cutting edge, but instead had a flat segment which would apparently make stabbing someone to death more difficult.

Of course, everyone ignores that a slash attack with a sharp knife can pretty easily make wounds resembling those made on seals by great white sharks. There's also a number of vulnerable arteries near the surface of the skin which can be easily severed by a flick of the knife--as little as a minute or two till you bleed out.

A gun shot would have been preferable to some knife wounds I've seen. Too bad British subjects have been so thoroughly disarmed because some believe inanimate objects are the source of the problems.

Re:First Guns, Then Knives

[TheThiefMaster]

We know the inanimate objects aren't the source of the problem, but we do know that they make a lot of problems much much worse.

Re:First Guns, Then Knives

[InsaneProcessor]

Yea, we need to outlaw water (too many drowning victims) and any windows from 3rd story up.

They will only get my gun when they pry it from my cold dead hands.

Re:First Guns, Then Knives

[TheThiefMaster]

Actually there are probably already regulations about Windows above a few stories that insist they are toughened glass etc...

Re:First Guns, Then Knives

[modecx]

They only make things worse if criminals never need to fear retaliation whilst they freely use them. Of course they don't--and why should they? Even the bulk of law enforcement officers in the UK don't/can't carry firearms. They have to wait for special response, Authorized Firearms Officers, or fight 'em off with their truncheon or tazer. Maybe that will change, after a few cops get mobbed and killed.

The subjects are even worse off. Your government has no respect for an individual's right to protect himself, as if it were possible to subjugate natural animal instincts with laws. They're only too happy to take your teeth away, it seems. First it was the guns, now it's the knives, next it'll be nail filled clubs improvised from tree branches, then rocks, and sooner or later you'd think people would realize it's not possible to legislate cultural problems away.

I hear you can't carry ANYTHING for personal protection. Not a knife, not a baton, nothing. How about OC spray? For some reason, I'm doubtful of that as well. What is it now? Last I heard, only 4% of households own any kind of long gun, and handguns are banned. You're damned if you do and you might be damned if you don't. Perhaps you can get a guard dog, for when you're at home with the kiddos. Yeah, that aught to make at least some of the weapon wielding crazies stain their underwear.

I suppose a mastiff might not be a great comfort when you're being followed down an abandoned urban alley, and maybe then someone in a similar situation will pause to think that violent crime in the US is trending downward and vice versa in Britain. In the US, most states license law abiding individuals to carry concealed weapons to protect themselves, and many states also recognize an individual's right to carry a sidearm, license or no, right on their hip for all the world to see... I wonder why it is that career criminals now fear armed citizens more than they fear the police. Ho hum. Meanwhile, there are millions upon millions of arms in homes all across this country which didn't hurt anyone yesterday, nor today, nor will they ever.

I think it's only right to fear any government which fears your firearm.

Re:First Guns, Then Knives

[TheThiefMaster]

Sprays and so on are legal as far as I know, but I don't know anyone with one.

Some breeds of dogs are actually banned, due to too many "baby mauling" incidents. Mastiffs are allowed, the main one which isn't is the "pit bull terrier".

I've NEVER seen a violent crime. Those "weapon wielding crazies" you mention are really a U.S. thing.

Re:First Guns, Then Knives

[modecx]

Oh, on the whole, they're (violent crime) pretty rare here as well. And, in some people's minds, I'm quite sure that description (weapon wielding crazy) applies to me, due to certain *ahem* lifestyle choices. The difference is, of course, I'm not out to cause anyone harm, may be able to save someone else from harm when the time comes.

If you get out enough, chances are you'll see a violent crime in your lifetime. You'd be amazed at the number of guns and concealed carry licenses a string of rapes around a college campus can sell.

Re:First Guns, Then Knives

[meringuoid]

thoroughly disarmed

'Disarmed' implies that at some point in the past you were armed. This is not the case; I don't think there's ever been a time when ownership of firearms was commonplace. Shotguns and such things, yes, in agricultural areas, but pistols and the like? All but unknown even before they were banned.

Re:First Guns, Then Knives

[TheThiefMaster]

I bet they don't write "I intend to kill that rapist motherfucker" on their gun or carry licence application, though that is probably what most of them are thinking.

A gun is self defence only in the sense that it kills the other person, which stops them e.g. robbing/mugging or raping you. Personally, I don't consider that acceptable.

Re:First Guns, Then Knives

[Kokuyo]

That's okay. I do, though, so I don't see how it becomes your business whether _I_ carry a gun. Since you, hopefully, are not planning to be a robber/mugger, you don't have anything to fear. Right?

Re:First Guns, Then Knives

[Kokuyo]

Switzerland probably has full automatic rifles in more than 50% of all households. Of course politians don't like that fact very much and are working hard towards changing this.

Re:First Guns, Then Knives

[TheThiefMaster]

You're ok with killing someone to stop them doing something which is significantly less than killing someone themself?

I'm so glad I don't know you in real life.

Re:First Guns, Then Knives

[modecx]

First of all, nobody is thinking that...Unless they've been previously raped--in which case, I think that's a completely justified response against future attacks, or they're a vigilante (relatively few enough of those to ignore them for the sake of this conversation, however).

They're thinking, "I hope to God this tool will help protect me from that serial rapist/killer." I know, because I'm a certified instructor of the mandatory safety class in my state--an individual wishing to carry a concealed weapon must take at the very least a safety class given by a qualified person to be eligible. I interview my students, to get a better idea of some of the points I need to touch on during the class. Like I said, I see a marked increase in the number of females of all ages who seek to carry a gun during the time when a serial rapist is raping about town, and quite unlike men, women admit they're afraid.

This is, in fact a big point I teach in my class: you don't EVER shoot to kill someone. You shoot to STOP them from causing harm to you or someone else. More specifically, in most states, deadly force of ANY kind is JUSTIFIED when:

A) Trying to protect yourself or another person from death or serious bodily harm;
B) Trying to prevent a forcible felony, such as rape, robbery, burglary or kidnapping.

Ever taken a karate class, or other kind of martial art? Well, you might be a deadly force in your own right. You better not use those learned skills at the wrong time. Just like Karate, however, handguns are *emergency defensive tools*. They're underpowered compared to a myriad of other weapons, and the compact versions often carried are more difficult to use than any other kind of firearm. This is why if you want to hunt someone down, you use a rifle, shotgun, bazooka or laser guided bombs.

That your attacker may be killed in any conflict is adjacent to the issue. You could trip him or use some kind of Taekwondo throw, so that he hits his head and dies. Different method, same potential result as using a firearm, right? His willingness to assault you removes any kind of right he has, while he continues, and gives you the right to use any kind of force, up to and possibly including deadly force, to stop him. Even if he's "only raping you", most rapists convincingly threaten the use of deadly force for non-compliance. A threat of deadly force, is often times just as justifiable, and how can it not be of he's also committing another felony?

If the attacker dies, one shouldn't feel bad about it. Hell, if one of my students comes back to me, and says that they defended their lives, or the nature if their bodies with the things I've taught them, I'll tell you how I'll feel. Proud. As a taxpayer, if I learn that nobody else will be victimized by a criminal, and that I don't have to pay to feed and house a violent criminal which attacked one of my students... I'll feel fucking elated.

The fact is, the right to defend oneself is THE basic inalienable Human Right. Period. Due to our nature as animals, the directive of self-preservation precludes all other human conceived natural rights. If you do not find that acceptable, it's time to be deprogrammed, because your mode of thinking is WRONG. You're one step away from becoming MUTTON, my little lamb. If that is the case, even Buddhist monks, the most peaceable and most reluctant to kill set of folks on this planet believe contrary to you.

If you do by chance self-preservation acceptable, but furthermore also believe that one shouldn't also a equip himself with the best and most useful tools available to him, to achieve the directive of self-preservation, you likewise need to reevaluate your potion.

Re:First Guns, Then Knives

[modecx]

On the topic of rape: would you have the opportunity to ask your attacker whether or not he has blood-borne or sexually transmitted pathogens? There is a reasonable fear of death of life altering infection by AIDS, Hepatitis, etc. should a rape attempt be successful.

Re:First Guns, Then Knives

[TheThiefMaster]

I am insulted by the way you quote "only raping you" as if I said that. I would never belittle the people who have suffered rape by claiming it was "only".

What I was saying is that if stopping someone without killing them is possible, that is what should be done. Yet if you shoot someone, death is almost inevitable. With the adrenaline rush you'd get when you're actually in that situation, you're unlikely to be able to think and aim well enough to "just" disable someone.

With the sheer number of Christians in the US, you'd think more would stick to their teachings and believe that people can be reformed and earn god's forgiveness no matter what they have done, instead of believing that criminals are all deserving of being shot to death.

Re:First Guns, Then Knives

[modecx]

Maybe it's not you, but some people, including some Christians, do think that it's not appropriate to kill someone attempting rape. It's a crime, that's "significantly less than killing someone" (as you say) in the eyes of the court. Obviously, I feel that's quite ridiculous, and I feel that the victim should ideally be be the judge, jury and executioner, just before she becomes a real victim. It just saves everyone a lot of trouble, and counseling a rape victim is harder than someone traumatized because they took a life.

Yet if you shoot someone, death is almost inevitable.

I can't fault you for ignorance in this area, because you're inexperienced, and what you do know probably comes from anecdote, movies and TV. In the old days before antibiotics, that may have been true, but it's less true today. Back then, you didn't want to get hit by anything. Clothing full of bacteria and other pathogens gets pushed into the wound channel, you get infected and you die--days or weeks later, unless your immune system could take care of it.

These days, with ambulances and antibiotics, if you don't get shot in a vital area (central nervous system, larger arteries, maybe the liver, etc.), your prognosis may not be as bad as you think. An individual's attitude has a larger impact on this than you imagine, also. Sheeple who are conditioned to believe that they'll keel over and when they get shot have a much better chance of doing just that--even if they got shot in a non vital area like a shoulder, they just GIVE UP. It happens all the time. People who are natural fighters live with greater frequency, all other things being equal. There have been guys filled with holes by a few cops, who didn't stop till they shoot 'em with shotgun slugs or buckshot. Hell, even if you shoot and destroy the heart, people on various drugs may have up to 15 seconds or so of active consciousness.

As to "shooting disable", there's no such thing in my book. When the adrenaline hits, frankly, even a well trained shooter will probably misses all together more than he hits. That's why you always aim for the center of mass, and you keep shooting till they go down. (Unless they're wearing body armor, then shoot for the face.) Like Teddy Roosevelt said, Don't hit at all if it is honorably possible to avoid hitting; but never hit soft!

RE Christians: as a devout atheist (I suppose you thought since I love guns I must also love Jeebus), I have to say this: when have christians, as a whole, ever strictly followed Jesus' teachings? Also, I don't give a shit about god's for forgiveness for some thug, my main concern is the damage someone may do to my body, those of my family and friends, etc. If they're of the theological persuasion and they intend to hurt me or my loved ones, I'll be sure to arrange the meeting between them and their deity of choice.

Re:First Guns, Then Knives

[TheThiefMaster]

So basically, you're saying you are in favour of anyone killing anyone else that they think deserves it?

Your definition of "deserves" may be "intends harm", but you aren't the one holding the gun in every crime in the US. The stupid masses will be.

Re:First Guns, Then Knives

[modecx]

So basically, you're saying you are in favour of anyone killing anyone else that they think deserves it?

Holy shit, you're thick. I'm in favor of people defending themselves when there's an active threat. I don't care if they use knives, swords, clubs, rifles, pistols, phasers, ion cannons, or orbital bombardment, as long as it's used appropriately and responsibly.

That said, people make mistakes. That's a given. The margin for making a mistake when you're using a gun is a lot thinner than for other things, and the price for may also be higher, that's also a given. For example, should you shoot and miss, and hit an innocent third party, you're responsible for that errant bullet.

When people make mistakes, it's up to a court and a jury of their peers to determine the next appropriate step. People have been tried and convicted for using their tools at an inappropriate time, e.g. before there was a real threat, or after the threat has ended. People have and shot and killed robbers/attackers/rapists moments after the threat has ended. That's called murder. It's a thin like to walk.

Re:First Guns, Then Knives

[TheThiefMaster]

It's a thin line, and one I don't think the masses can walk, especially with the adrenaline of a real life-threatening situation.

You yourself said that they're more likely to miss than hit. Thankfully people tend to run away from trouble, otherwise they might be more likely to hit bystanders than the person they're aiming for.

Perhaps you have more faith in the average person than I do, but then how do you explain the criminals? If you trust everyone to use their guns for good, your trust is very misplaced. The vast majority of shootings in the US are not justified by the law.

I'll admit I don't have any real experience about this, the only guns I've seen in real life are pellet guns (still deadly) and farm rifles. But then I don't think you've ever killed anyone in self defence either.

We're both arguing about things we don't really know about.

Re:First Guns, Then Knives

[modecx]

You yourself said that they're more likely to miss than hit.

The only verifiable metric available for this statistic is found in shootings where police are involved (that said, affirmative action hirelings are rarely known to achieve the acme of shooting proficiency), and yeah... They tend to spray bullets frantically all over the place. Heck, there's been a number of cops which have emptied their magazines before they even got on target (as they were drawing the gun, seriously.) It's said that most shootings involving civilians usually end with an average of six shots fired, (makes sense, a lot of people, criminals included, carry six shooters), and random people very rarely get hit either way.

The vast majority of shootings in the US are not justified by the law.
Of course not. The majority of shootings (perhaps not vast majority, but at least 50%) are purposefully self inflicted, and self inflicted euthanasia is still illegal here. Thanks to the christians, of course. The criminal element will always get their hands on prohibited items. The more well connected, the better armed. Look at the Yakuza in Japan, criminals trying to be a legitimate business. I suppose that might be only slightly better than legitimate businesses trying to be criminals.

Perhaps you have more faith in the average person than I do, but then how do you explain the criminals?

I have faith in freedom, and the vast majority enjoy it for what it is. Criminals and other anti-socials are an aberration. Those types have it easier in population centers which outlaw guns, however. I'm not saying that's the only factor, of course... But it's hard to deny that the likes of places such as Chicago, New York, Washington DC, Detroit, historically, some of the places which are very much against law abiding citizens owning and carrying guns are also historically some of the most crime ridden.

Crime is a problem, and guns being used in crimes just hurts us all. There is no doubt and that, and it needs to be dealt with. The cat is out of the bag, however, and there's just no getting it back in, so it doesn't make sense to disarm law abiding citizens. The good thing is, crime is on the downfall over the last decade, and this despite, ahem, millions of millions of guns being manufactured, and most states adopting concealed carry laws.

I think it's arguable someone here knows what they're talking about. I've been shooting almost my entire life, I regularly teach other people how to use firearms responsibly, and have participated in getting pro-gun amendments signed into law. You've never even seen a gun by your own admission. Not trying to be a jerk, but, you know, but basically anyone with any experience here in the states is doing better than you on this point.

I've never had to shoot anyone, you're quite right, and I sincerely hope it forever stays just that way. Fortunately, that big gray organ in my skull helps me to avoid situations where I would ever need to draw a pistol. That said, should I ever need to, I'm confident I have and will continue prepare myself adequately.

If you ever find yourself in the US for any reason, you really aught to find a range, rent a gun, get some basic instruction and have a taste of freedom. It's cool and delicious, and it's in rare supply.

Re:First Guns, Then Knives

[TheThiefMaster]

I didn't know that US cities "historically" against guns are the more crime ridden, but UK cities have dramatically lower crime levels all round.

You say that guns are most dangerous when the criminals have them, so you need them too. I say that the majority of US criminals get their guns the same (legal) way you do, and without so many guns on legal sale, nearly all criminals would be gun free. In the UK, guns are extremely rare among criminals, hence the windbag politicians going after knives. Unfortunately you can't turn around. If you abolished guns now, everyone would still have them.

You also misquote me as having never seen a gun. I have both seen and (I think I forgot to mention it) fired pellet guns and farm rifles. Admittedly I haven't fired a regular pistol, but the pellet guns were both pistol and rifle styles, both firing metal pellets. The pellet rifle belongs to my little brother, and some of the metal "pellets" he has are a pointed-tipped "piercing" kind. Which, to be honest, is a little scary in his hands.

This has been an interesting conversation, maybe I'll speak to you again some time :)

Re:First Guns, Then Knives

[modecx]

I say that the majority of US criminals get their guns the same (legal) way you do, and without so many guns on legal sale

Actually, much like drug dealers, there's the street dealers, who act as a sort of clearing house for all types of illegally obtained guns. Those may come from so-called straw purchases (one person buys for another who is not qualified), guns obtained from thefts, and lastly, illegal transactions with licensed dealers. People are sometimes paid a fair sum to go out and buy guns to turn them over to a dealer.

When they're not in use or on their bodies, people really should lock their arms up in safes. That would take a big bite out of the amount of guns hitting the streets... And, if the agencies responsible for tracking and prosecuting people for making straw purchases did their jobs more effectively, that would probably have the most benefit.

If the laws on the books were simply enforced more rigidly, things would be better.

It has been fun however. See ya around.

Hmmm

[Fotograf]

"on how patrons might have defended themselves against a pointed stick" i dont know, slap him like in old days? Or you would more likely call him terrorist now?

Re:Hmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

WHOOSH