Because vermin like your spawn exist

The parents of an armed robber shot by a Pizza Hut employee are asking “why?”

They’re asking why their son was shot by a restaurant worker, rather than law enforcement.

They’re asking why the employee had a gun.

They’re asking why their son was shot in the head.

The answers are short and sweet.

  1. The reason why their son was shot by a restaurant worker rather than law enforcement is because law enforcement wasn’t on the scene.
  2. The reason why the employee had a gun is because vermin like their spawn exists.
  3. The reason he was shot in the head is because he was carrying a handgunduring the commission of a crime (edited to add) which was recovered at the scene.

middle-fingerMommy dearest claims the shooting was personal because Michael Grace, Jr. was shot in the head.

Why does it matter? This scum and two of his friends walked into a restaurant armed and tried to rob the place. Period. It doesn’t matter if the shooting was personal or not. Had he not been in there waving around a pistol, the wouldn’t have been shot. Not in the leg. Not in the head. Not anywhere.

Mommy dearest claims her spawn wouldn’t have hurt anyone. The very fact that he had a gun negates that claim.

She claims he’d fallen on hard times and turned to crime to provide for his child. You know… As a kid, I remember my parents hunting through other people’s trash for clothing, furniture, and other necessities. Not once did they grab a gun and try to rob a restaurant! I wonder why that is! Perhaps because despite our financial difficulties, my parents are decent people who would never dream of committing an act of violence against another human being or taking by force what was not theirs?

What did these parents teach their spawn?

That his “rights” included treating others as prey? That he was entitled to assets that did not belong to him? That his need and “desperation” were claim checks to other people’s earnings?

Their son died as a predator. He walked into a peaceable establishment and tried to make prey out of the employees there. And unfortunately for him, one of his intended prey decided “Not today, motherfucker.”

His “rights” ended with the muzzle of his gun pointed at another human being.

Parents like these are why we can’t have nice things.


57 responses

  1. Would the “grieving mother” consider it less personal if the perp had had his nuts shot off? Or would she have characterized that as “genocide”?

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Would she have been happier if the vermin spawn had been shot by cops? Probably, because then she could paint him as a victim and the BLM cockbags would be out in full force.

      Liked by 1 person

  2. There is a line from Lois McMaster Bujold’s early Vorkosigan book “Barrayar” that has become a favorite of mine and seems to apply: “If you had not gone down that path, you would not have found that trap.”

    Don’t go robbing people at gunpoint; don’t get shot by people defending themselves (and others) from being robbed at gunpoint. Funny how that works.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. You left out ‘if you do get shot, don’t complain’.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Fortunately, Junior isn’t complaining. Head shots are good that way.

        Liked by 1 person

  3. If you’re using a gun to rob me, then hell yes a headshot is personal!

    Liked by 1 person

  4. Questions for the family:
    Why did you son have a gun?
    If he used to work there, why did he try to rob the place?
    If he needed help, why didn’t he turn to his family? Or Social services?
    Would you have been happier if he had shot someone before he was shot?
    If this robbery was to help support his child, why were they two other people?
    What difference would it have made if he had been shot by the police instead of a citizen?

    When someone is waving a gun around the other person does not have the luxury of time to decide if a) the gun is real, b) the gun is loaded, c) the person with the gun intends to do harm. If you are smart – You assume that the gun is real, loaded and the person intends to do harm and act accordingly.

    We all make choices in life, some good, some not so good. Those choices have consequences. This person chose poorly. He walked in to the store, with a gun, presenting an apparent threat. Someone acted accordingly.


    1. What difference would it have made if he had been shot by the police instead of a citizen?

      Because then they could have screeched “RAAAAAAAACISM” and sued the police department.

      Liked by 4 people

      1. As my father used to be in the military he always taught us if someone pulls a gun on you assume they’ll use it and act appropriately.

        So i fault the employee not at all for protecting himself.


  5. Excellent post. People feel entitled today and feel no responsibilityfor their actions. Yesterday some guy came begging at my door saying he had the chance to attend William and Mary. I told him to do what I did, I worked my way through school working in a warehouse, steel mill and as a bartender. In graduate school I worked full time and spent five years going at night.

    I never asked for anything I didn’t earn.

    Liked by 1 person

  6. Apparently business establishments capable of being robbed by armed violent criminals should never allow their employees to be armed because it’s too dangerous for the armed violent criminals.

    Liked by 1 person

  7. I hope the pizza hut employee doesn’t lose his job.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. He probably will. :/ Because bullshit.


      1. Very likely. Also because lawyer/insurance company bullshit. But as the saying goes, he can find a new job if he’s fired, but he couldn’t get a new life if he were killed.

        Would still suck, though.


        1. And IIRC, Pizza Hut has a record of firing employees who defend themselves. I think that was them… not sure.


  8. All of the big chains (Pizza Hut, papa John’s, Dominos) have a very strict policy concerning self defense and weapons; don’t. If you merely possess a weapon, even in your own car, that’s grounds for immediate termination. If you’re unarmed & resist a violent confrontational crime, that’s grounds for termination. All those big chains, whether owned by corporate or a franchisee, have fired people for defending themselves or possessing weapons or both. even delivery drivers are forbidden to have weapons in their own vehicles while on the clock. I’ve worked for 2 out of the 3 & in practice there’s a wink & nod thing from most managers (I’ve been at stores where only myself & another drive were allowed to deliver to certain neighborhoods because we were the only ones armed) but above the store manage level it’s strict enforcement & zero tolerance.

    I’ve went as high as the VP of security for one of the chains & was basically told that it was too dangerous to let people have guns cause statistics. & the stats I had didn’t count. I’ve seen PR folks at press conferences laugh away the thought of employees being armed because (I slightly paraphrase) “would you want your delivery driver to have a gun if you couldn’t afford to tip?”

    So yes, this fellow will likely get fired. I stopped spending money at the big 3 chains long ago (ditto starbucks, & several other places) because they have company policies that disarm folks, either customers or employees or both. Digiorno & Red Baron & other frozen pies are just as tasty imho & I’m not supporting these jack assed policies when I buy them.

    Oh, I grew up a few miles from that store. Haven’t been in town in a while, & not really spent much time there in even longer, but it’s a real rough side of town. So rough there are certain neighborhoods that managers would only let drivers deliver to if they knew they were armed. Not surprised this sort of thing happened, & not surprised that a bad guy got shot by a non cop. These are North Carolinians after all, & the progressive culture hasn’t yet succeeded in stamping out logically thinking folk who won’t let a company policy diminish their ability to do what’s right.


    1. And the answer is to start passing laws that say “If you want to be a gun free zone, then you can, but you bear total and strict liability for the personal defense of everyone who darkens the door. OTOH, if you want to be immune to liability for injuries caused by some lawbreaker targeting you or your customers, allow armed self-defense as defined by the Second Amendment.”


      1. As pro gun as I am, I disagree emphatically.

        You do not have the right to obligate a business owner to defend you by walking into his store. You do have the obligation to follow his rules, because its his store.

        If you don’t like his rules, then stay the fuck out of his establishment, don’t tell him what his rules have to be, and don’t drop a huge legal burden on him for your convenience.


        1. That ship sailed in 1964. If it is a civil rights offense to refuse to bake a cake if you are a business open to the public, then why should a business be able to restrict a right explicitly guaranteed in the Constitution?


        2. Because you don’t fix one shitty court ruling with another.


        3. And this is why “conservatives” will ultimately lose: we refuse to make these people live by the rules they set, and use them to crank back the ratchet. “You want your states’ gay marriage license recognized in my state? Then the same “full faith and credit” applies to my concealed handgun license.”

          “You want to claim that a business owner can be forced to violate his religious beliefs because he’s open to the public? Fine, here’s another civil right you can’t bar people from your business for exercising.”

          It’s either one rule for everyone, or neither side gets their rule.


        4. You’re right… it should be one rule.

          So that court decision needs reversing. We need to push for THAT, not bring up this other shit and use it to justify an injustice. If we do what you suggest, then you CONCEDE that it is proper for government to remain a shit-fight between interest groups.

          Honestly, if the only answer you have to my original point is “but wedding cakes!!!” it tells me you have no real argument for your position.


        5. No, I have a position you are deliberately ignoring: that there is no justification for treating any civil right as second class, and that until the Left stops trying to pretend there is, we shouldn’t give them one inch, but use any tools including court decisions, etc. to force them to the position that they’ll leave us alone. THAT was what prompted the comparison with the forcing of baking cakes. As you knew full well before you responded.


        6. You do not have the right to obligate a business owner to defend you by walking into his store.

          It’s a matter of responsibility. One of the arguments for businesses forbidding firearms is that if they allow firearms and someone does something bad, then the business owner would be liable for that and could be sued. Since defending such a suit can be quite costly even if you win, many would choose not to take that chance.

          Since that legal responsibility is only one way as things stand now. There is a legal risk to allowing firearms but none in forbidding them. Making the person responsible for the negative consequences of forbidding firearms in addition to the negative consequences of permitting them merely evens the score, levels the playing field. The business owner can then make a decision based on his or her own impression of relative risk and his or her own philosophy.

          There is nothing anti-freedom about requiring one to take responsibility for the consequences of ones own decisions. It doesn’t “obligate” them to defend on, but it does mean that if they do not then they are responsible for the consequences of that choice.


        7. @Snelson

          No sir.

          What I saw was a man acting like a child, when called out that his desire was IN FACT a violation of others liberties, screeching that Timmy got to do it, so why can’t he?

          I FLATLY REFUSE to violate another person’s liberty simply because other people have gotten away with similar violations that gored my ox. You are as utterly lacking in integrity as any leftist. I don’t WANT you on my side.


  9. Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion… in private self-defense. — John Adams


  10. If the bereaved mother wonders why he was not shot in the leg, I reply with what I taught my niece and nephew: “If you’re justified to shoot at all, you’re justified to shoot to kill, but if you’re not justified to shoot to kill, you’re not justified to shoot at all.” Shooting to wound is the very definition of a Bad Idea; people have died from trifling injuries, just as others have survived horrendous ones, and if the perp dies when you didn’t expect that as the outcome, your legal and moral position sucks.

    Liked by 1 person

  11. He was a trubbled ute trying to turn his life around as an aspiring rapper


    1. Was he also a “gentle giant”?

      Liked by 1 person

      1. He just got out of the white man’s racist prison system and was trying to turn his life around.

        He a good boy, he was in the church choir.

        He was struggling with the demons of addiction.

        He fell in with a bad crowd.

        He loved de midnights baxitball and was gonna turn pro.

        He only had a toy gun.

        He just wanted to scare ’em.

        He was a good father to his kids (seventeen by thirteen different women)

        I swear to God, every time this happens, you could print out bingo cards and fill them in with the idiotic BS that comes out of Mammy’s, Na-Na’s, and their lawyers’ mouths.


        1. Lois E Brenneman, MSN, FNP

          Nicki, I am glad you see it that way. So many people do not have the vaguest idea of how our now devastating societal problems came about. What I dislike most about Johnson is that he did what he did with full mind of the consequences. He purposely made a group of people dependent on the government and thus condemned them to poverty and violence for generations to come. He effectively created multi-generation poverty and did so with a smirk for the worst of all possible motives – political expediency.


  12. Shooting to wound is a Hollywood fantasy. I was trained to get two in the center mass, one in the head. Gruesome to consider, but as poster John C. states–don’t use a gun unless you intend to kill someone. And that has enormous consequences on both sides.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Lois E Brenneman, MSN, FNP | Reply

      Plus the fact that a wounded perp can shoot back and perhaps take out half the patrons of the restaurant. I am all for wounding vs killing if the person cannot retaliate. If someone were breaking into a home and was being shot at from an upstairs window, I would favor wounding. There is no need to kill him in that case unless he proceeds into the home. Once he is actually in the home and face-to-face with his intended victim, wounding makes no sense. Absolutely spare a life where it is feasible but face-to-face settings are not the place to do so.


  13. “She claims he’d fallen on hard times and turned to crime to provide for his child.” Maybe the dead perp should have tried carrying a job application rather than a gun.

    Liked by 1 person

  14. As they used to say out west, when a man wore the law on his hip, “Shoot first and ask questions later.” You’ll live longer.


  15. It surprises me that no one pointed out to our young miscreant that getting shot is an occupational hazard for armed robbers.


  16. patriarchal landmine | Reply

    I wish more people felt this way about women who falsely accuse men of rape.


    1. What makes you think they don’t? I’m fully in favor of them going to prison after a false accusation.


  17. Lois E Brenneman, MSN, FNP | Reply

    Nicki, Best commentary I have read in a long while. You absolutely have a way with words. I could not agree more with your remarks. Fact is that we have all manner of taxpayer-funded programs in place to help hungry children. Odds are great that the child’s mother is already availing herself of these opportunities. We, as a society, have these very safety nets in place precisely so no one need resort to such “solutions” in which he engaged. Odds are even greater that the deceased he did not support nor participate in the care and expenses of said children. His role was limiting to the impregnating of the child(s) mother. His own mother’s suggestion that the deceased acted to protect his own child is merely an attempt to rationalize that which is indefensible. Any efforts this (understandably grieving) woman would spend in helping to educate any of her remaining children to formulate a less anti-social world view, would be time well spent.


    1. Thank you! That’s exactly right! I had someone tell me that this was an “ugly screed,” because we have no right to criticize someone who lost their child! I’m not even kidding!


      1. Lois E Brenneman, MSN, FNP | Reply

        Nicki, It was not an “ugly screed” at all. We can feel her pain without excusing her comments. There have been many mothers of persons who engaged in criminal activities where the parents did not defend their child’s actions. Often, these parents state that they are as devastated and heartbroken as the rest of us over what their child had wrought. The fact is that defending a child’s wrong behavior does not well serve that child. Who knows but that she had defended his transgressions for his whole life. Perhaps this episode is not the first time he engaged in reprehensible behavior. I speculate that if she held him accountable for his misdeeds early on his his life, he might be alive today. We need more effective parenting for large sectors of our population


  18. Doo-Dah, Doo-Dah | Reply

    Sadly, I can see the store’s position: if they allow employees to carry arms, that’s just plain chum-in-the-water for the Legal Sharks who seek out “prey with deep pockets”.

    Since those guys usually work on a contingency basis, they gamble that the jury will be sympathetic to the grieving mother’s claim that li’l Darvonqwis was “just turning his life around”. She’s happy to play lawsuit lottery, the attorneys are happy to play lawsuit lottery; it’s only rule-of-law-and-civilized-behavior that suffer when the jury-of-their-peers decides that Pizza Hut can afford a couple million dollars to assuage mama’s grief….


  19. “She claims he’d fallen on hard times and turned to crime to provide for his child. ”

    Did he and the baby-mama have the same last names like his parents? Oops.


  20. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. For example, it sounds like the late Mr. Grace won a cure for that lead deficiency he had, that was causing his antisocial behavior.


  21. Lois E Brenneman, MSN, FNP | Reply

    There is no question in my mind that the perp’s child and his “baby-momma” were on food stamps…………and I don’t mind that. I don’t believe anyone should go hungry in this land of plenty. I’ll gladly pay taxes to feed anyone. The rest of the stuff they waste our tax-payer money on is what bugs me. Food – well that’s OK, by me. The fact is that I doubt the perp ever provided jack s___t for this child. No one commits armed robbery to feed a child. Feed his drug habit would be more like it. My guess is that his role in parenting the alleged hungry child was limited to depositing his semen inside the child’s mother. Even worse is that, without good parenting – esp solid male presence in the home – the child will be condemned to repeat the cycle. Thank you Lyndon Johnson and the “Great Society.” There are more people living in abject poverty now than when he hatched his brainchild in the 1960s. Worse, Johnson is on record for saying (I kid you not) “This will keep those ______(substitute racial slur) voting Democratic for the next 200 years.” Yes, Mr. Johnson, it sure did and will……all the while the bodies will pile higher and higher.


    1. Johnson was a disgusting, foul racist. If I could go back in time and throat punch his ignorant ass, I would.


    2. I don’t believe anyone should go hungry in this land of plenty. I’ll gladly pay taxes to feed anyone. The rest of the stuff they waste our tax-payer money on is what bugs me.

      If people weren’t told it was the government’s responsibility (i.e., the taxpayer’s responsibility) to feed everyone, and if government weren’t taxing a third to a half of everything productive people make to throw it both there and (mostly) down the shitter…then I am pretty sure you’d be able to voluntarily give money to feed people; there’d be plenty of charities to do so.

      Your generous impulse is worthy (particularly when its to feed people who truly cannot do for themselves), but when you say you’re willing to tax–you are *forcing* others to be generous too. It’s NOT generous to decree that third parties *must* help out or you will sic the taxman on them.


      1. but when you say you’re willing to tax–you are *forcing* others to be generous too. It’s NOT generous to decree that third parties *must* help out or you will sic the taxman on them.

        When you make something a law, in the final analysis, you are saying you are willing to kill (or rather to have someone else kill because most people won’t get their hands dirty that way) to make it happen. All laws, in the final extreme of non-compliance, carry the death penalty.


        1. The thing is, that’s not even a criticism of law. It’s what it has to be. Without that ultimate sanction someone can at some point say “no” and make it stick, and instead of a law you have a strongly worded suggestion.

          But, that necessity for law to be law means that law should be limited to those things that are worth killing over. The dividing line I use is:

          “to secure these rights governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” The proper use of law is to secure the rights of those within its power, used against those who would infringe on another’s right to Life, Liberty, or Pursuit of Happiness. Defense against foreign powers that would use their own military or other power to restrict our rights, criminal law against those who would infringe the rights of another, civil law to provide a format for peaceful resolution of disputes to head off people taking arms against each other leading to generations long blood feuds, and not much else.


        2. Again, Bingo. I’m not an “anarchocapitalist” but I do recognize that government is force. But force per se isn’t the problem, it’s the initiation of force that is. Rights, properly construed, can only be violated by an initiation of force.

          So let’s examine some of the so-called rights people have asserted in this very thread. (I doubt that you, TWIB, need this but it might help someone out.)

          1) The right to carry a gun into someone’s shop. Er, no. If you believe this, you’re assuming you can put yourself on someone’s property without his consent. You are willing to force him to accept your presence. Far from being a right, it is a violation of rights.

          2) The right to food. If you don’t have any, and don’t have the means to get any, you’re talking about forcing someone to give it to you. Er, no, once again.

          If you have to use force on someone who isn’t committing fraud or aggression against you, to secure your so-called “right,” then it’s not a right.


      2. Lois E Brenneman, MSN, FNP | Reply

        Steve, Excellent points you make. For sure, we pay a heavy tax burden and most of it is wasted on inappropriate spending. All societies will need some form of taxation for common services – roads, military, police, schools, etc. There is little dispute over that issue. The only issue is whether we – meaning those of the smaller government viewpoint – want to include food for the needy in that basket. I am inclined to do so only because I am not convinced that left to their own devises, enough people would actually contribute to charities. Maybe they would. I’m a bit more cynical than you and think that most would not. I could not eat comfortably knowing people around me were hungry. It is just how I am. Food is just so basic. I put it right on up there with schools, roads, police protection, etc. I’d err on the side of food for all but I do agree that if we did not waste so much money on all these others big government initiatives, we likely would have more left over for charity.

        There is another interesting issue related to your perspective. Conservatives and esp the religious-right tend to contributed more to charity than do libs. Dems look to taxation as a means to support the needy in society. So where do people like me who vote GOP but totally non-religious fit in. I would not be willing to donate to a church, for sure. There would have to be charities to specifically feed the needy and, then, they would have to be non-religious before I’d be willing to donate to them. Would I donate enough? Would I fork over my fair share? Who knows. I am not totally convinced that I would so. For folks like me, then, it is easier to simply put food for the needy in the tax-funded services which we all must pay for. For someone who absolutely would give – and these are usually the religious people – what you advocate makes more sense


        1. Your concern that you wouldn’;t donate as much as you think you should, were you not forced, is your own problem. It emphatically does NOT justify forcing others to do so.

          You’re coming across as willing to force others to do what you are pretty sure you’d fail to do yourself.


        2. Lois E Brenneman, MSN, FNP

          Again, Steve, excellent points – very cogent. I think what it really all boils down is where you stand on the issue of taxation. To what extent and for what goods/services do you support taxation. Do you support taxation for roads, schools, military, etc. Actually, some do not. Depending on your answer, the next question is what will you put into the basket of items which you feel are justified in terms of collecting taxes. Perhaps you will say – I feel roads, police and military are justified. Perhaps you will say I feel nothing is justified. I don’t know because I have only just met you a few days ago. What all this discussion really all boils down to is that I feel putting food for everyone in the basket of justifiable tax expenditures and you emphatically do not do so. I cannot say who is right and who is wrong concerning that issue. Probably you and I are going to disagree as to what is essential items for a society in terms of collecting taxes. For sure, we seem to disagree on whether food for all belong in the necessary tax category. Sadly, it does not matter what we or anyone else feels concerning this matter. Washington is going to ever increase our taxes in the name of more and more entitlements and pork barrel projects. On think on that point, you and I are of like mind. We have too many unnecessary projects for which the government ever collects more and more of our monies. We, as a country, have gone the route of fostering dependency in the name of garnering votes.


        3. If you’ve followed some of the things I’ve said to others here, I’ve made it pretty clear that government’s only proper purpose is protection of peoples’ rights. And I understand those rights in a very Jeffersonian way.

          So: Police, yes. Military, yes. School, no. And roads…well SOME (but by no means all) highways have a military justification. Other than that…no. (However, given that government has taken over them anyway and has erected barriers to private entities, I insist they do the job well and cost-effectively; i.e., exactly unlike the Washington Metro.)


        4. Lois E Brenneman, MSN, FNP

          Hi Steve, I have only just come to this site – which I like very much, BTW (good job Nikki) – so I have not had much opportunity to read your posts. We only just met a few days ago. Given what you have just said, it would make absolute sense for you to oppose government-funded food initiatives where all of the hungry would be fed. I can see that. I guess our respective positions boil down to a different construct of the roll of government within our society. It sounds like you are a true Libertarian. I am a hard-core GOP voter but I break rank with them on many issues and often it is precisely these kinds of issues which you and I are now discussing. To the shock of most of the GOP, I actually favor single-payer healthcare and some form of socialized medicine albeit not to the extreme that the Dems would envision. More, I favor a public option and favor a dedicated register tax to fund healthcare. As a healthcare provider, I see that as the best alternative to the dilemmas we face in delivering healthcare but that is a discussion for another thread. I see where you are coming from now. I just don’t agree with the perspective to the same extent that you do.

          One thing I am really thrilled about is that Trump won last night’s election. In view, justice was served! After all she has done along the lines of government corruption and self-service to say nothing of breaking rules to serve her own interests – there was absolutely no way she should have the honor to serve as president of the USA – the greatest country in the world. Yes, Virginia, there IS a Santa Claus and he visited us last night.


We Want To Hear What You Have To Say

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: