Bowling? It can be a right pain in the.. er stomach?

biko · 09-02-2010 09:59PM

What does "go back at him" mean? They attack him? Just never heard it before?

Overheal · 10-02-2010 12:31AM

Magnus wrote: »

What does "go back at him" mean? They attack him? Just never heard it before?

That would be my understanding.

Jesus Wept · 10-02-2010 12:50AM

MARK IT ZERO.

jackiebaron · 10-02-2010 10:04AM

prinz wrote: »

Sorry Jackie, but seems to me you've never been Stateside :pac: Almost every business in any sort of built up area will have armed guards on site.

You know what they say about when you assume.

Prinz, I lived in New York for seven years. In fact I used to go drinking in Woodside...Dillons (before it got burned down), Toucan Tommy's, Copperface Jacks, etc. Used to also go up to Sunnyside to Sally's and the Breffni. Used to get our full Irish brekkie at 4:00am in the Stop Inn on Roosevelt Avenue. Lived in Flushing and on Long Island. Worked in Manhattan....mostly midtown but for a spell on Spring Street for a small software house...now defunct (Pastel Development). Wrote software for the Mac.

You know what they say about when you assume

jackiebaron · 10-02-2010 10:15AM

prinz wrote: »

Sorry Jackie, but seems to me you've never been Stateside :pac: Almost every business in any sort of built up area will have armed guards on site.

You know what they say about when you assume.

To reiterate Prinz...I've lived in the US for 7 years and I never saw armed guards in restaurants, diners, bars, delis, beauty salons, pizzerias, bookstores, hotdog stands, The Gap, Tower Records, Peep-World, Baskin-Robbins, McDonalds, etc.,etc.

So for you to say that "almost every business in any sort of built up area will have armed guards on site" is utter gibberish.

The only place I've EVER seen armed guards is in banks/post-offices, federal buildings and the dudes who do the money drop-offs/pick-ups from the armoured Brinks trucks.

jackiebaron · 10-02-2010 10:24AM

Overheal wrote: »

I think I saw that in a movie once...

But no they got shot for attacking the bouncer.

How many bouncers do you know in their mid fifties that take on sober late 20-somethings at 2:1 odds?

You don't get to decide how much force was necessary - the courts do.

Then EMPLOY security guards who CAN take on rowdy 20-somethings, not some useless geriatric. Christ Almighty, where's the logic in what you're saying. Are you going to employ an eighty year old granny to keep order in a nightclub but, knowing that she can't handle too many people, give her a flame thrower and grenades???

It's truly baffling how peoples' thinking skills have deteriorated in the last 20 years. They see a situation and in order to formulate an opinion on it they immediately default to "what would happen in the movies?". They think.."ah, in the movies those guys might be carrying blades or concealed weapons! Conclusion: guy was right to shoot. Corollary: guy was right to have gun at bowling alley. Q.E.D."

prinz · 10-02-2010 10:28AM

jackiebaron wrote: »

You know what they say about when you assume

jackiebaron wrote: »

The only place I've EVER seen armed guards is in banks/post-offices, federal buildings and the dudes who do the money drop-offs/pick-ups from the armoured Brinks trucks.

Got your eyes closed buddy? Go up to the mall in Turnbull Conn., you'll see armed guards patrolling the centre. Not to mention every sort of deli and cornershop keeping arms on site in Bridgeport....strip club in New Haven with an armed guard.

I even know of an Irish pub in Michigan that employs an armed guard...

pickarooney · 10-02-2010 10:30AM

Do we get to see the video at any stage? Drunk (and non-drunk) people 'put their hands on' other people all the time - it's hardly any reason to pull a gun. If it said they'd thrun a coupla digs at him...

They probably saw him pull out his gun, reckoned he was a psycho about to murder them and tried to disarm him before he could manage it...

ooooorr, they made it clerar they were going to take his gun and shoot him with it and he was just protecting himself.

jackiebaron · 10-02-2010 10:39AM

dotsman wrote: »

If only we could get that security guard over to Ireland. There's a lot more scum over here that need sorting out that our judicial system is incapable of handling.

Fair play to the security guard.

Ah, you want to return to the dreamy, halcyon days of IRA kneecappings and punishment beatings when wayward kids would be found in pools of blood in back-alleys with their shins mangled from shotgun blasts because they couldn't get a job and so resorted to selling a bit of weed.

I agree. Start chopping off the hands of thieves too while we're at it. If it turns out the guy didn't actually steal anything we'll pay for the cost of his hook.

jackiebaron · 10-02-2010 10:48AM

prinz wrote: »

Got your eyes closed buddy? Go up to the mall in Turnbull Conn., you'll see armed guards patrolling the centre. Not to mention every sort of deli and cornershop keeping arms on site in Bridgeport....strip club in New Haven with an armed guard.

I even know of an Irish pub in Michigan that employs an armed guard...

Yes and I would imagine that many liquor stores, shopping malls and corner shops in Compton, Trenton, Detroit, Bed-Stuy and various other crime infested dumps like Bridgeport WOULD have an armed guard if they could afford one or a firearm under the counter if they couldn't. But you're singling out high crime areas. The off-licenses in Garston, Liverpool and Mosside, Manchester in the UK have bullet-proof glass and you get your booze passed to you in one of those sliding trays like they have in banks. But these are exceptions.

Woodside isn't exactly the wild-west and this bowling alley isn't constantly under siege from marauding gangs of of violent skittle thieves

pickarooney · 10-02-2010 11:00AM

Learn to multi-quote.

AnonoBoy · 10-02-2010 11:09AM

jackiebaron wrote: »

The only place I've EVER seen armed guards is in banks/post-offices, federal buildings and the dudes who do the money drop-offs/pick-ups from the armoured Brinks trucks.

Maybe you just need to get around a bit more. I've seen armed guards in a lot more places than that in the States.

General Zod · 10-02-2010 01:25PM

They entered a world of pain.

Overheal · 10-02-2010 05:25PM

jackiebaron wrote: »

Then EMPLOY security guards who CAN take on rowdy 20-somethings, not some useless geriatric. Christ Almighty, where's the logic in what you're saying. Are you going to employ an eighty year old granny to keep order in a nightclub but, knowing that she can't handle too many people, give her a flame thrower and grenades???

If it was a Retirement Home in Somalia, I wouldn't see why not.

This was a Family Bowling Lane with a 50-something guy carrying a light revolver. Don't make it out to be something its not. Hyperbole much?

It's truly baffling how peoples' thinking skills have deteriorated in the last 20 years. They see a situation and in order to formulate an opinion on it they immediately default to "what would happen in the movies?". They think.."ah, in the movies those guys might be carrying blades or concealed weapons! Conclusion: guy was right to shoot. Corollary: guy was right to have gun at bowling alley. Q.E.D."

If you honestly thought the movie reference above wasn't a joke, then I point you in the direction of Sunshine and Fresh Air.

>

bamboozle · 10-02-2010 07:37PM

General Zod wrote: »

They entered a world of pain.

maybe it was a league game to determine who enters the round robin...

Dyr · 10-02-2010 08:20PM

Are these the Nazis?

No, Donny, these men are irish, there's nothing to be afraid of.

dotsman · 10-02-2010 08:49PM

jackiebaron wrote: »

Ah, you want to return to the dreamy, halcyon days of IRA kneecappings and punishment beatings when wayward kids would be found in pools of blood in back-alleys with their shins mangled from shotgun blasts because they couldn't get a job and so resorted to selling a bit of weed.

I agree. Start chopping off the hands of thieves too while we're at it. If it turns out the guy didn't actually steal anything we'll pay for the cost of his hook.

No, this has absolutely nothing to do with punishment beatings. This has to do with the all too common lack of respect for laws and authority, as well as complete idiocy.

They were smoking in a knowingly non-smoking establishment = scum
They then assaulted the guy for doing his job = scum
They then attacked the guy after he drew his weapon = idiots

Unfortunately in Ireland, nothing would happen to them and they would continue to menace society.

They weren't shot for smoking. They were shot because they attacked a guy who was carrying a gun.

Overheal · 10-02-2010 08:52PM

They were just being asked to smoke outside, they were escorted outside and didnt take too kindly to smoking outdoors.

Then again this is set to become one of the coldest winters on the books, so I can hardly blame them! Still, I would have just put out the damn cigarette. Idiots.

LifesgoodwithLG · 11-02-2010 03:01PM

From my knowledge you can shoot if you believe your life is in danger both of these lads were unarmed therefore I don't believe that the security man acted in good faith and shot in self defence.

Definitely smoking inside is plain stupid however it doesn't warrant being shot. I know one of the families and can confirm that they are lovely people ( not that matters ) hope the 2 lads are okay.

prinz · 11-02-2010 03:10PM

LifesgoodwithLG wrote: »

From my knowledge you can shoot if you believe your life is in danger both of these lads were unarmed therefore I don't believe that the security man acted in good faith and shot in self defence.

You don't need to be armed for someone to reasonable expect to be attacked. They menaced him = assault, they put their hands on him = battery.

LifesgoodwithLG wrote: »

Definitely smoking inside is plain stupid however it doesn't warrant being shot.

They weren't shot for smoking inside.

LifesgoodwithLG wrote: »

I know one of the families and can confirm that they are lovely people ( not that matters )...

Bog standard Irish respone tbh.

LifesgoodwithLG wrote: »

...hope the 2 lads are okay.

Luckily enough with this man's history in law enforcement I have a sneaking suspicion he knew exactly what he was doing, i.e. he took them both down with a single non-life threatening shot. They can thank their lucky stars it was he that shot them and not some amateur.

LifesgoodwithLG · 11-02-2010 03:32PM

They’re charged with a misdemeanour, not a crime,” said James Patrick Delaney, the Irishmen’s lawyer. “They had no weapon and they didn’t cause any injury. While the Security Guard was also charged - do you not believe that this actions were excessive ?

prinz · 11-02-2010 03:44PM

LifesgoodwithLG wrote: »

... do you not believe that this actions were excessive ?

Not based on the information to hand, no.

stephenlane80 · 11-02-2010 03:45PM

prinz wrote: »

Luckily enough with this man's history in law enforcement I have a sneaking suspicion he knew exactly what he was doing, i.e. he took them both down with a single non-life threatening shot. They can thank their lucky stars it was he that shot them and not some amateur.

yea good thing he shot them harmlessly in the stomach and chest and not in a critical limb such as their arms or legs

prinz · 11-02-2010 03:51PM

stephenlane80 wrote: »

yea good thing he shot them harmlessly in the stomach and chest and not in a critical limb such as their arms or legs

It is isn't it.

stephenlane80 · 11-02-2010 04:03PM

prinz wrote: »

It is isn't it.

Yes i guess in your expert medical opinion it is

Overheal · 11-02-2010 05:11PM

LifesgoodwithLG wrote: »

From my knowledge you can shoot if you believe your life is in danger both of these lads were unarmed therefore I don't believe that the security man acted in good faith and shot in self defence.

Definitely smoking inside is plain stupid however it doesn't warrant being shot. I know one of the families and can confirm that they are lovely people ( not that matters ) hope the 2 lads are okay.

THEY WERENT SHOT FOR SMOKING.

Honestly. Can we be very clear about that?!

jackiebaron · 12-02-2010 01:07PM

prinz wrote: »

You don't need to be armed for someone to reasonable expect to be attacked. They menaced him = assault, they put their hands on him = battery.

They weren't shot for smoking inside.

Bog standard Irish respone tbh.

Luckily enough with this man's history in law enforcement I have a sneaking suspicion he knew exactly what he was doing, i.e. he took them both down with a single non-life threatening shot. They can thank their lucky stars it was he that shot them and not some amateur.

"With this man's history in law enforcement" .... what kind of cretinous, deluded statement is that. This clown was a prison officer. Get it? A screw, a hall walker with a badge and a nightstick and that's it. You're making out that he's some kind of expert in anatomy with cool calculated intellect and nerves of steel. The muppet is a divorced ex-screw paying alimony through his dead-end bowling alley security job.
There is NO way of shooting someone in the torso that guarantees non-fatality. In fact there's no way of shooting in the LEG that guarantees non-fatality. Ever heard of death by rupture of the femural artery in the thigh? Ever heard of death by spleen rupture, liver destruction, etc. etc?

Go back to your reruns of 24 or whatever brainless fictional shows from which you get your get your worldview.

prinz · 12-02-2010 01:12PM

jackiebaron wrote: »

"With this man's history in law enforcement" .... what kind of cretinous, deluded statement is that. This clown was a prison officer. Get it? A screw, a hall walker with a badge and a nightstick and that's it..

DamoDLK wrote: »

Mr Iavecchio then escorted them outside and a fight ensued. The guard, a retired policeman... ...Mr Iavecchio was a policeman for 18 years before retiring in 1999.

Hmm. Yes, where in the world would I get that idea? Perhaps by reading the article.

neil_hosey · 12-02-2010 01:18PM

monosharp wrote: »

</inevitiable comment> smoking kills :pac: </I'll leave now>

html fail.

jackiebaron · 12-02-2010 01:18PM

LifesgoodwithLG wrote: »

From my knowledge you can shoot if you believe your life is in danger both of these lads were unarmed therefore I don't believe that the security man acted in good faith and shot in self defence.

Definitely smoking inside is plain stupid however it doesn't warrant being shot. I know one of the families and can confirm that they are lovely people ( not that matters ) hope the 2 lads are okay.

"Belief" is not a very solid grounding for a defence and has been twisted by the nefarious to commit crimes for their own gain and get away with it. Without a witness I could walk up to someone I didn't like, shoot him dead and then innocently say to the courts that I "believed" my life was in danger. Do you think they would just say "Ah, well that's alright then, case dismissed."
Unless it can be PROVEN that one's life was DEFINITELY in danger and I mean their LIFE...not just their health (broken nose, broken teeth, whatever) then some charge/conviction has to be applied whether it be accidental homicide, diminished responsibility, negligence, reduced assault charge, whatever.

Bowling? It can be a right pain in the.. er stomach?

Comments