4 Scumbag punks Get what they deserve!

Biggins

A true story that made me laugh and cheer for the good guy!

4 punks in America decided to shoot a neighbours dog. So what you say!
It was their big, BIG mistake!
They shot the dog just for the sake of it. However the stupid idiots made the mistake of not knowing...
1. The owner was at home and..
2. The dogs master was a NAVY SEAL!

Long story shory, he jumped in his truck after them, caught them and dealt with them apparently! lol

On a radio show in America (Glenn Beck radio show) they played Marcus's (the owner) 911 call right after he found and started chasing these punks who shot his dog.
It went through the car chase he was in to keep up with these punks @ 110 mph.
He was at his calmest.
The 911 telephone person told him to please slow down so he wouldn't get hurt and he said

"Mam I am fine
I am a Navy Seal and I know what I am doing".

LOL :pac::pac::pac:

Serve the schite's right! Fair play to him.

Love this bit:

The Texas Rangers arrive and these guys, when the Texas Rangers are taking these guys away, Marcus has held them there by a gun. As the Rangers are taking these guys away, they're threatening Marcus' life and saying, "When we get out, we're coming for you next. First it was your dog. It's going to be you next. You don't know who you're messin' with." That's when Marcus kind of snapped just a little bit and said to the Ranger, "Excuse me, ranger, do you know who I am?" He said, "Yes, sir, Mr. Luttrell, I do." He said, "You might want to explain to these punks because I could have killed them 600 different ways and if I wanted to kill you guys after what you would have done what you just did to my dog, I would have pulled you down into my basement and I would have tortured you for days and you wouldn't have died until you begged me for death. So before you start saying you're going to come after me, you better learn who you've just whose dog you just killed."

Source Story: http://digg.com/d1oI7Y

LiNgWiStIkZ

Awesome.

Sharpshooter

He still lives with his mother, Chuck Norris he ain't.

oh yeah, poor dog.:(

Sleipnir

I wouldn't have thought advanced driving was high on the list of training priorities for a Navy SEAL.:D

Biggins

The phone call: http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=315393&comments=1

The owners picture (Marcus Luttrell fourth from Left, all other team members killed):

Marcus Luttrell is the lone survivor of Operation Red Wing; a special forces operation that took place on June 28th 2005 in Afghanistan’s Kunar province. The seals mission was to kill or capture Ahmad Shah, a high ranking Taliban official responsible for numerous killings in the region. Marcus Luttrell and three of his seal team members were ambushed by 150 Taliban fighters with Luttrell being the only survivor.

A failed attempt by Special Forces helicopters to recover Marcus Luttrell led to the death of 16 more special forces soldiers; Marcus Luttrell was hidden from the Taliban by locals who eventually sent word to the army where they could rescue him. He wrote the bestselling book “Lone Survivor”, detailing Operation Red Wing and telling the story of his fallen seal team.

The dog that was killed was named after four members of his own team. The dogs name DASY was made up from the names of his fallen comrades.

Abi

Sharpshooter wrote: »

He still lives with his mother, Chuck Norris he aint

I wouldnt give a shït if he was living with his mother. He is mo fo crazy. Incredibly hot.

/packs suitcase

'Sides the sex would be that noisey and wild, she check herself into a home.

Kinetic^

I heard it was Steven Seagal!!!

Poccington

I'm quite suprised he didn't kill them, especially considering what the dog meant to him.

Ross_Mahon

I'm surprised he held himself back from killing them, I would have rammed them off the road and beat the last bit of life from them.

Sea Sharp

Now that's what I call a sticky situation.


Could yer man not be arrested for making threats though?

galwayrush

Ahh was wondering when The Citizen would show up:D

Biggins

Ross_Mahon wrote: »

I'm surprised he held himself back from killing them, I would have rammed them off the road and beat the last bit of life from them.

Having fought for his country (and to uphold its laws, etc) and seen all his comrades die beside him, I guess his training including restraint kicked in.
I would have seen seriously tempted to pull the trigger if I had a gun to their heads like he did.

GaNjaHaN wrote: »

Now that's what I call a sticky situation.
Could yer man not be arrested for making threats though?

Did he though? He was apparently only replying to their threats and to be honest, the cops knowing he was a national hero and how he came to be one, their memories of that night might suddenly get fuzzy as to what he actually said to the punks.

Either that or if anyone testified against him - they might be afraid he'd come after them! :pac:

snubbleste

I'm suprised the headline doesn't read:
Man who tried to kill Afghan official, and responsible for 16 soldiers dying has admitted to driving at 110mph after having dog shot at

galwayrush

snubbleste wrote: »

I'm suprised the headline doesn't read:
Man who tried to kill Afghan official, and responsible for 16 soldiers dying has admitted to driving at 110mph after having dog shot at

Thankfully the GAAW and others like them don't have their own media outlets.
Indymedia is bad enough

Biggins

snubbleste wrote: »

I'm surprised the headline doesn't read:
Man who tried to kill Afghan official, and responsible for 16 soldiers dying has admitted to driving at 110mph after having dog shot at

Why are you surprised? However the media don't let the actual real facts come between us and what actually happened!

He wasn't at home ordering 16 men to their deaths. He was too busy under fire in a battle taking cover.
And what would any of us have done if one of our family/friends was under fire? Would we have sat on our hands, done nothing or at least tried to send in help?

Some should walk in others shoes once in a while before they qualify to throw stones of quick and one-sided agenda spun judgements.

Futurism

I don't use the word hero often,but he is the greatest hero in American history.

Stercus Accidit

thread title is misleading.

Got what they deserved?

All thats happened is they were arrested, shot a dog? Whats that, 100$ fine?

They didnt get anything.

Biggins

Stercus Accidit wrote: »

thread title is misleading.
Got what they deserved?
All thats happened is they were arrested, shot a dog? Whats that, 100$ fine?
They didnt get anything.

They are currently under arrest, having got captured - so far they have gotten a month in jail and now they have been nationally (even internationally) shamed.

I'd say thats a start of what they have 'got'!!!

SV

Stercus Accidit wrote: »

thread title is misleading.

Got what they deserved?

All thats happened is they were arrested, shot a dog? Whats that, 100$ fine?

They didnt get anything.

I guess you missed the part where it says that 'if convicted, they can face up to 2 years in jail' then, yeah?

Pyr0

I'll have to check out that book Biggins, sounds interesting. That must be a serious head mess to be the only survivor of his team, saying that though they all went in knowing the risks but that doesn't stop it from playing with your head in the end.

It's good to see the Police knew who he was and respected his previous actions to not arrest him for dangerous driving and threatening them with serious harm/death.

snubbleste

The headline your link has is 'Glenn Beck: Teen punks murder American hero's dog' the report says there were four men aged 18-24, it's unclear whether they are punks or not.
I'm just putting another angle on the story based on the links provided

Sharpshooter

It goes to show the inner strength the guy had, when he saw the dog dead it must have been like losing his team again.
You have to have excellent self control to repress the kind of rage he must have been feeling at the time.

helimachoptor

Poccington wrote: »

I'm quite suprised he didn't kill them, especially considering what the dog meant to him.

+1, from the book though mostly Rambo in words it's obvious that he had great affection and loyalty to his fellow team members.

Adiboo

Good man himself. Great story, thanks for posting OP.

tallus

Adiboo wrote: »

Good man himself. Great story, thanks for posting OP.

Seconded, it's great to see scumbags getting what they deserve.
Fair play to the guy for not kicking their asses.

tallus

Biggins: I'd recommend using the ignore function.
It takes all sorts heh.

Poccington

If the dog was anything like him it deserved to be shot?

The mind boggles sometimes.

galwayrush

Just ignore his crap Biggins.:cool:

Highsider

Is'nt it possible the dog had rabies or something. These guys where doing the dog and society a favour then.

Biggins

Highsider wrote: »

Is'nt it possible the dog had rabies or something. These guys where doing the dog and society a favour then.

The four blokes had a previous history of going around just randomly shooting animals.

Highsider

Biggins wrote: »

The four blokes had a previous history of going around just randomly shooting animals.

Okay so

galwayrush

Biggins wrote: »

The four blokes had a previous history of going around just randomly shooting animals.

They could replace 4 animals at some animal research lab and make a lot of people happy.;)

seanybiker

Poccington wrote: »

I'm quite suprised he didn't kill them, especially considering what the dog meant to him.

Was thinking that meself. And since he's a war hero he would have gotten away with it.

suspectdevice

gran torino is going to inspire of lot of this type of stuff

Holsten

Pitty he didn't kill them.

Saibh

seanybiker wrote: »

Was thinking that meself. And since he's a war hero he would have gotten away with it.

He could have got away with it.

But it just shows that he is better than them and he wasn't going to lower himself to their standards.

Fighting Irish

fair play to him but he was stupid

Terry

snubbleste wrote: »

I'm suprised the headline doesn't read:
Man who tried to kill Afghan official, and responsible for 16 soldiers dying has admitted to driving at 110mph after having dog shot at

It was Fox news.
Here's Jon Stewart's take on Fox news: http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=224275&title=nationwide-tax-protests

Poccington

Terry wrote: »

It was Fox news.
Here's Jon Stewart's take on Fox news: http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=224275&title=nationwide-tax-protests

I think there's a very high chance that the reason Fox News didn't use the headline that snubbleste suggested, had very little to do with it's own bias.

Zzippy

Biggins wrote: »

The phone call: http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=315393&comments=1

The owners picture (Marcus Luttrell fourth from Left, all other team members killed):

Marcus Luttrell is the lone survivor of Operation Red Wing; a special forces operation that took place on June 28th 2005 in Afghanistan’s Kunar province. The seals mission was to kill or capture Ahmad Shah, a high ranking Taliban official responsible for numerous killings in the region. Marcus Luttrell and three of his seal team members were ambushed by 150 Taliban fighters with Luttrell being the only survivor.

A failed attempt by Special Forces helicopters to recover Marcus Luttrell led to the death of 16 more special forces soldiers; Marcus Luttrell was hidden from the Taliban by locals who eventually sent word to the army where they could rescue him. He wrote the bestselling book “Lone Survivor”, detailing Operation Red Wing and telling the story of his fallen seal team.

The dog that was killed was named after four members of his own team. The dogs name DASY was made up from the names of his fallen comrades.

I read this book, the guy survived several days of seeing his teammates and friends killed beside him, being hunted through sheer mountain valleys by hundreds of Taliban, being shot, and finally making it out alive. Some people just hate American policy so much that they post sh1te about this guy, but in purely military and human terms he is a hero.
Excellent read, even if its a bit gung ho with the American patriotism in parts, highly recommended.

Terry

Poccington wrote: »

I think there's a very high chance that the reason Fox News didn't use the headline that snubbleste suggested, had very little to do with it's own bias.

Don't get me wrong. I completely agree with his actions.
I dealt with a few scumbags myself tonight. Not in that way. I just backed up the guy who was alone in the off licence when 7 little **** came in and started calling him a Paki and stuff. I just puffed out my chest, put on a mean face and scared them off. They weren't locals.

What I'm saying is that Fox news is not a relaible source of information and is extremely biased. So much so that it makes Al Jazeera look like the bastion of all truth.

galwayrush

here's a link.
http://www.rightpundits.com/?p=3669

baglady

I just saw a movie which was kind of similar to this story!

http://us.vdc.imdb.com/title/tt0972883/

really good!

MoominPapa

I reckon it would have been much better if, after killing them execution style and maybe taking a couple of cops out as well, one of whose wife was in delivery and another who was only a month away from retirement, he blew his own head off Bobby Peru style

S.I.R

Flucking hero

Cianos

Biggins wrote: »

The phone call: http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=315393&comments=1

The owners picture (Marcus Luttrell fourth from Left, all other team members killed):

Marcus Luttrell is the lone survivor of Operation Red Wing; a special forces operation that took place on June 28th 2005 in Afghanistan’s Kunar province. The seals mission was to kill or capture Ahmad Shah, a high ranking Taliban official responsible for numerous killings in the region. Marcus Luttrell and three of his seal team members were ambushed by 150 Taliban fighters with Luttrell being the only survivor.

A failed attempt by Special Forces helicopters to recover Marcus Luttrell led to the death of 16 more special forces soldiers; Marcus Luttrell was hidden from the Taliban by locals who eventually sent word to the army where they could rescue him. He wrote the bestselling book “Lone Survivor”, detailing Operation Red Wing and telling the story of his fallen seal team.

The dog that was killed was named after four members of his own team. The dogs name DASY was made up from the names of his fallen comrades.

This is what I hate about the whole "leave no man behind" motto. 16 lives are lost to save 4...such a waste. The "leave no man behind" policy is only a marketing term for the military in that it promotes heroism and honour (and in turn ensures higher enrollments) and romanticises the actual cost and waste in human life behind upholding it.

It wasn't me!

Cianos wrote: »

This is what I hate about the whole "leave no man behind" motto. 16 lives are lost to save 4...such a waste. The "leave no man behind" policy is only a marketing term for the military in that it promotes heroism and honour (and in turn ensures higher enrollments) and romanticises the actual cost and waste in human life behind upholding it.

Well, fundamentally, that's not a common result. The fact is, in the vast majority of cases, a modern western military force will pull off the extraction of its men without such casualties. It doesn't detract from the risk and danger they face at all, rather it speaks volumes for their training and courage. It's a good policy; not because it promotes heroism and recruitment, but because it enhances the cohesion of armed forces, which is largely based on faith in your comrades and the belief that they will be there for you when you're in need.

Cianos

It wasn't me! wrote: »

Well, fundamentally, that's not a common result. The fact is, in the vast majority of cases, a modern western military force will pull off the extraction of its men without such casualties. It doesn't detract from the risk and danger they face at all, rather it speaks volumes for their training and courage. It's a good policy; not because it promotes heroism and recruitment, but because it enhances the cohesion of armed forces, which is largely based on faith in your comrades and the belief that they will be there for you when you're in need.

Sure, in the majority of cases such casualties aren't spent, but because it is a policy, a lot of people have probably lost their lives for the sake of not breaking it. Military intelligence should be able to tell what kind of risk is involved in a rescue and in some situations will probably predict that if they do send people back, there's a high % chance that more people are going to die than the amount they are trying to rescue. If the area is particularly hostile, they can't expect to get in and out without further loss of life. But it'd be a PR nightmare for them if it got out that they left a soldier behind to die.

which is largely based on faith in your comrades and the belief that they will be there for you when you're in need.

I agree...but isn't it somewhat contradictory to the overall ethos and meaning of the military, ie the sacrifice of the individual in servitude for the greater good? If a single soldier faces death if not rescued, but a rescue attempt means 10 more will die, a rescue attempt becomes a campaign to preserve and protect the individual who was so expendable when they were sent in in the first place.

The soldier in need of rescue invokes sympathy and paternal/maternal instinct in that the vulnerability of his or her life is seen as in urgent need of protection whatever the cost. Our instinct is to protect those in need of protection rather than logically weigh up the associated risk. This is why the 'leave no man behind' policy can be actioned with public acceptance, to ensure further enrolment and as you say the enhancement of comradeship and cohesion for the continued success of the military.

Good story Biggins.

Cheers for posting.

Mr.Lizard

I've nothing against animals owning other animals (I'm openminded) but how exactly does a seal learn to speak English and drive a car?

It wasn't me!

Cianos wrote: »

Sure, in the majority of cases such casualties aren't spent, but because it is a policy, a lot of people have probably lost their lives for the sake of not breaking it.

Any evidence of it being commonplace? I'm not instantly dismissing you, but I am doubtful that you'll find more than a handful of instances.

Military intelligence should be able to tell what kind of risk is involved in a rescue and in some situations will probably predict that if they do send people back, there's a high % chance that more people are going to die than the amount they are trying to rescue.

What they do is assess the likelihood, then plan for as many contingencies as possible to remove the threat to life as far as possible. Western military training and tactics enables a trained force to punch way, way above their numerical weight in conflict with untrained forces.

If the area is particularly hostile, they can't expect to get in and out without further loss of life. But it'd be a PR nightmare for them if it got out that they left a soldier behind to die.

The thing is, however, that they do carry out these missions with few if any casualties, all the time. It would be a PR nightmare, but far more importantly, it would do nothing for morale, which is the hinge-pin for soldiers.

I agree...but isn't it somewhat contradictory to the overall ethos and meaning of the military, ie the sacrifice of the individual in servitude for the greater good? If a single soldier faces death if not rescued, but a rescue attempt means 10 more will die, a rescue attempt becomes a campaign to preserve and protect the individual who was so expendable when they were sent in in the first place.

It's a misconception that soldiers are expendable. If they were, you'd take any useless geebag, give him a rifle and put him on the plane. In simple economic terms, you don't invest millions in training and equipping someone, devoting considerable governmental resources (though how considerable is a sore spot for many soldiers, and worthy of lengthy debate in its own right) only to denote him expendable. Soldiers are a precious commodity in a western military force and their loss is not taken or considered lightly, and rightly so. Furthermore, the men are volunteers and if they lose their lives in a rescue attempt, it's another part of their job to consider that.

The soldier in need of rescue invokes sympathy and paternal/maternal instinct in that the vulnerability of his or her life is seen as in urgent need of protection whatever the cost. Our instinct is to protect those in need of protection rather than logically weigh up the associated risk. This is why the 'leave no man behind' policy can be actioned with public acceptance, to ensure further enrolment and as you say the enhancement of comradeship and cohesion for the continued success of the military.

You raise good points here, but while you're undoubtedly correct in that it can only enhance morale and recruitment opportunities, I think it's far more important that the policy denotes in the first place the value of the soldier, giving an individual soldier an understanding of his individual value and importance in the grander scheme of the army.

Foremost however, it could be viewed as a show of force. An army is the long arm of foreign policy and the ability to protect all of its men is a good way to be seen to be flexing the muscles in that arm.