Looter Gets Owned During G20 Toronto Riots
 

https://youtube.com/watch?v=6CKkLYYczdM (was embedding turned off?)

From what I heard Bell gave him a free phone, and $1,000 to donate to whatever charity he wants.

nice guy...bell gave him a free phone...hopefully with no bill...lol

Reminds me of a clip i saw on telly once where young people formed human rings around shops to keep out rioters. I think that was in Canada too

Hehe. I didn't hear if he has to pay for the service or not. :pimp

what a asshole :) classic ass kisser :)

haha, good job!

Nice. :) ...

Who's the asshole and ass kisser? Confused. :)

Looks like a citizen got involved, good for him!

Yup. Big kudos to him.

We need more citizens like that,although the damn punks would probably shank you if you interfered

haha good for him.. punks

Where are the store owners with their guns? Seriously, how the hell do they allow people to do that to their stores?

Psst. That's Canada.

Right, yeah - that'd be fair and balanced to kill someone over a broken window.........

What would be fair is for them to not break the damn windows and steal their shit :2 cents:

Indeed, and they should have been apprehended / arrested by the police - there were enough of them to be watching storefronts. But I'm sure they purposely allowed it to happen to distract from the police brutality / human rights violations.

Exactly why the store owners should protect their own interest and not depend on the police.

by shooting a bunch of stupid kids now known to everyone who'd care?

nice

heh, I like the tagline... "In Canada, we riot with a little class".

Ha ha ha.
Even with a broken window, he still could not steal anything.

Most likely a couple 20 something females working in there that are paid by the hour. Not like they are going to run out and start busting heads.

It's also possible the store was closed at the time and no one was in there. I think the riots were on the weekend?? Some shops close at 5 or 6 on Saturdays.

that's something you don't see everyday.

Everyone is assuming I meant they should be shot. A guy holding a gun in the window may deter them from breaking it. After all throwing a brick at someone is considered assault with a deadly weapon and the person holding the gun has the right to shoot the person throwing deadly weapons at them. :2 cents:

People weren't being targeted. Still, businesses have insurance for this purpose. And in a society that has free healthcare there's less need to be steal and potentially become violent. Some people will still do it if the opportunity arises though - they still shouldn't be threatened with a gun.. especially then because if that person is expecting a gun to be present they a) will be aggressive with more force initially, b) that may mean they bring a gun or a friend and two guns. It makes no sense to escalate it.

So many wrong statements so little time. The most violent areas in the Untied States are where people get everything for free.

Do you believe people have the right to protect their property or do you believe they should just set back and watch everything they worked for be destroyed and hope their insurance (another big business) covers it?

This can only be a discussion, not a debate. I don't want to be responsible for someone's death because they stole or destroyed property of mine. Physical assault, etc. is a different matter where self-defense for whatever force necessary is fine.

It'd be nice to see a link to the research that shows most violent areas are where people get things more free? If so, it's probably because the income is so low that they need more free because still isn't the same level of services that people who can afford to pay get.

Here's a question for you - Do you believe other people's actions should be allowed to put you at increased risk or threat of violence?

Youre making a huge assumption that someone protecting their property puts others, that are not involved in the crime, at higher risk. When every police study shows the exact opposite and in fact someone protecting their property is statistically less likely to kill an innocent person than a cop that is arriving at the scene.

On a micro level you're correct, not correct on a macro level. In the majority of instances people who are just shit disturbers on your property / or wanting to steal will be scared away by a gun, yeah.. etc.. this would be a long drawn-out discussion...

You can just look at compare overall statistics of violent crimes for different countries based on their gun laws. Sure, it deters but it still increases overall severity and will increase the amount of violence in certain cases simply because it's easier to be more violent.

Thank you for being one of the few people left who believes in property rights and the right of self defense. In a civilized society looters are shot on sight.

Spoken like true slave. :disgust

haha fair enough.. still think the 'degrees of violence' would apply.

edit: guess it's already been talked about, but the presence of weapons would eventually insure bigger weapons, or bigger force, and the purpose would be moot anyway. this was a situation where some guy stood up for what was right, with a definite good chance the guy he was standing up against didn't have a weapon of his own

Someone put music to the video like the Techno Viking !