Dumb Crooks. Always been a fan of these.. so wait, where the are the last 5?
Click to expand


What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #3 - hentailovers (12/11/2012) [-]
so wait, where the **** are the last 5?
#134 to #3 - anon (12/12/2012) [-]
They were stolen
User avatar #5 - gratrunka (12/11/2012) [-]
How big were the balls of the clerk in number 3?

He denied a man a bottle of scotch, even when he was pointing a shot-gun in his face.
#11 to #5 - bananamilkshake (12/11/2012) [-]
most have been at least about this size
User avatar #12 to #11 - bananamilkshake (12/11/2012) [-]
#76 - darthblam ONLINE (12/12/2012) [-]
I love it when guys get 			******		 over in an attempted robbery...
I love it when guys get ****** over in an attempted robbery...
#84 - augustusxxiv ONLINE (12/12/2012) [-]
That last one. Genius trolling countered by more genius trolling.
That last one. Genius trolling countered by more genius trolling.
User avatar #89 to #84 - richardastley (12/12/2012) [-]
lol When I read about the first case, I was thinking "That's a smart mother ****** ." Then I read about the second case and realized I'm as stupid as the smoker!
#31 - kneehumper (12/11/2012) [-]
Don't 			****		 with insurance companies...
Don't **** with insurance companies...
User avatar #83 to #31 - tredbear (12/12/2012) [-]
unless you have the best lawyers in the world
#73 - buthow (12/12/2012) [-]
10? I only see five.
#82 to #73 - nicktheslayer (12/12/2012) [-]
I see six, considering OP is an idiot and has robbed us of four of the stories.
#29 - scootymcbooty **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#119 - zionsype (12/12/2012) [-]
"Give me that scotch or I'll blow your ******* head off!"
"No, I don't believe you're over 21."
Clerk's FW
User avatar #129 to #119 - princebroken (12/12/2012) [-]
I can't believe he gave him his info.
#118 - cometfire (12/12/2012) [-]
MFW the last one.
MFW the last one.
#68 - ohlookathing (12/12/2012) [-]
The clerk in #3 is a badass.
The clerk in #3 is a badass.
#110 - metatarsis **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#111 to #110 - metatarsis **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#112 to #111 - metatarsis **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#113 to #112 - metatarsis **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #131 to #113 - princebroken (12/12/2012) [-]
wait what?
#87 - anthonyh (12/12/2012) [-]
Comment Picture
#9 - trandhal (12/11/2012) [-]
So wait... 30 years.
30 ******* years in prison for robbery

Holy ******* dickballs **** .
Is that... like, common in the U.S?
That one armed robbery can put you away for more than 1/3 of your life?
Or was this some kind of extreme extreme case?
User avatar #103 to #9 - heartlessrobot (12/12/2012) [-]
It's very common. It's not just for robbery, they'll stack as many charges as humanly possible on you, from disturbing the peace to brandishing a firearm in a public place and battery.
User avatar #19 to #9 - generic (12/11/2012) [-]
In america, the police enforce the laws, whether they make sens or not. Police no longer work for the protection of the people anymore.
User avatar #45 to #19 - Kennyalways (12/12/2012) [-]
Um, what the hell do the police have to do with this? Dont belittle them for trying to do their jobs, thats like getting mad at a Video Game Designer for designing video games you play
#37 to #19 - intrepidy (12/11/2012) [-]
That is nothing to do with the police. It is the judicial branch of government which picks the sentence. The fact he shouted about blowing her head off puts him into the category of threatening to public safety. Hense a large sentence.
#157 to #19 - generic (12/12/2012) [-]
Not necessarily sure  why I get the negativity I am, simply stating that the police aren't what they used to be, and as far as I'm concerned it's a damn shame.
Not necessarily sure why I get the negativity I am, simply stating that the police aren't what they used to be, and as far as I'm concerned it's a damn shame.
User avatar #20 to #19 - generic (12/11/2012) [-]
User avatar #50 to #20 - HarvietheDinkle (12/12/2012) [-]
User avatar #16 to #9 - dolandickbutt (12/11/2012) [-]
Yeah its common but i mean if you look at it from my point of view then its all fair. If you steal thats just wrong so dont. If you dont then you dont get any jail time for it.
User avatar #104 to #9 - ContentsFlammable (12/12/2012) [-]
I would think that, as he also stood up in the court of the law and threatened the manager, he would be proven to be a violent individual and the sentence could be lengthened for that reason?
User avatar #10 to #9 - poetsofthefall (12/11/2012) [-]
armed robbery with intent to kill or maim
User avatar #15 to #10 - trandhal (12/11/2012) [-]
Holy **** .
Here in Sweden, the longest you can sit off is about 25 years. And that's for stuff like excessive torture and massmurder.
User avatar #22 to #15 - exarzero (12/11/2012) [-]
In Sweden they put a mass murderer in prison for 25 years? That is about the dumbest thing I have heard... Let him go? Fuuuuck that.

In Texas we kill them. No more threat, and the dead are avenged.
#138 to #22 - anon (12/12/2012) [-]
I approve of this post because I too am from Texas, and show state pride as is proper and necessary.
User avatar #28 to #22 - OsamaBinLadenz (12/11/2012) [-]
I'm not really sure I agree with death penalties. I feel as though they are human beings, and that we have no right to decide if they die and how, and that they should be put in jail for life, unless of course by some chance they request a death penalty.
#38 to #28 - angelusprimus (12/11/2012) [-]
I agree with you up to a point.
I agree that human beings should not be killed.
This dude here is Marc Dutrox.
He killed three men. One of them by mutilation. But thats least of his crimes.
He has kidnapped, tortured, raped 10 girls. I say girls because they were all under the age of 18. five of them younger then 14.
Two of them, both aged only eight years, he kidnapped, kept in a dark basement room with no light, no toilet only implements for sexual torture. He repetedly raped those two eight year old girls. Sexually tortured them. tortured them just for kicks.
And filmed himself doing it.
Oh and those two eight year old girls?
They died in that basement. In the dark. Alone. Scared. Hurting. They starved to death.
Human being could not do that. He is not a human being. And should be dealt with like sick dangerous animals are dealt with.
With a bullet in his head.
User avatar #42 to #38 - exarzero (12/11/2012) [-]
******* monster.

This is my point.. I just did not want to get into the details so much. Thanks for the info. So ******* sick... truly a monster.
User avatar #30 to #28 - exarzero (12/11/2012) [-]
If they took another life they forfeit their own. If they kill someone and we do nothing they take can another life.

It is in fact the lesser evil to prevent innocent death with the death of the guilty. Human beings are still animals, and some animals are a threat to others. :(
User avatar #33 to #30 - OsamaBinLadenz (12/11/2012) [-]
I see your point. From a moral standpoint, I still disagree, but hey, each to his own; neither of us are wrong and it's all a matter of opinion. I'd argue that a life sentence would prevent that, but I suppose there's chances of getting off early, breaking out, etc.
User avatar #41 to #33 - exarzero (12/11/2012) [-]
Thanks for using logic in how you replied instead of exploding like many do. I appreciate decent minds. You have a good point about them escaping... I suppose in prisons even they could kill someone who's only crime was like having a little pot on him or something.

The world is rough.
User avatar #43 to #28 - siridontcare (12/12/2012) [-]
can I just point out that your username does not help you?
User avatar #156 to #43 - OsamaBinLadenz (12/12/2012) [-]
Haha, yeah, guess not.
User avatar #72 to #22 - Ruspanic (12/12/2012) [-]
I have two main objections to the death penalty.
1. I don't like the idea of the government having the legal power to kill its citizens.
2. There is always a possibility of killing innocent people. I think it is better to allow heinous killers to live than to execute an innocent person.
User avatar #121 to #72 - exarzero (12/12/2012) [-]
1. Government is not the one that controls that, a Jury does. That is your peers mate.

2. That is a good what if scenario, but one is not executed without good reason and proof these days. You really going to risk that guy getting out and slicing up a family or raping kids because you fear that there may be a mistake once in a million?
User avatar #145 to #121 - TwistedBamboozler ONLINE (12/12/2012) [-]
If someone is willing to be against the death penalty on those odds, they better be playing the ******* lottery
User avatar #152 to #145 - Ruspanic (12/12/2012) [-]
It doesn't matter what the odds are, only that people make mistakes and innocents are killed.
A prison sentence is sufficient and allows the possibility of an appeal or a retrial. It's bad enough that innocent people are confined unjustly, but at least that way they have some chance of being freed.
It's not like in videogames where if you **** up and lose a life - whoops, you can try again. In the real world, lives are not expendable.
User avatar #159 to #152 - exarzero (12/12/2012) [-]
Alright **** this. . . they don't just kill people, it takes time, in hopefully if a person is mistaken for the crime (which hardly happens in the thousands that happen every day) then it is found out otherwise. I'm not going to be okay with letting murderous bastards live with the chance of getting out.

Burn them
User avatar #161 to #159 - Ruspanic (12/12/2012) [-]
Contrary to what you may think, the criminal justice system does not exist to punish bad people. It exists to protect innocent people. The punishment of criminals is merely a means to that end, not an end in itself. The punishment itself should serve to incapacitate the criminals, and to deter the potential criminals (and when possible rehabilitate young/minor offenders), in order to protect the law-abiding populace.
Execution is one way to this end, but it is not the only way, and the inevitable risk of killing wrongly convicted people is an unnecessary risk to take.
User avatar #163 to #161 - exarzero (12/12/2012) [-]
No **** ? OH I thought they just killed people who am I kidding? I am not a moron mate.

The risk far outweighs anything you have to say about off chance of mistakes ever being made. Look up all the times inmates got out and killed so many... I bet there are many more of those stories than the former. That alone gives reasonable reason for my argument.

I know a family that had their house broken into, he tied the family and raped the young girl in front of her mom and dad while pouring drain-o down her ******* through. Then he raped her mom, and sliced up the dad.

If you ******* think I am going to let someone like that have the smallest amount of a chance getting out of prison, then you are naive. Honorable intentions, but you don't know the world.
User avatar #154 to #152 - TwistedBamboozler ONLINE (12/12/2012) [-]
And it's ignorant of you to assume that I'm desensitized because of video games. I approve of the death penalty because if you think about it from a totalitarian stand point, we don't need people who are criminals. We are better off without them, why not just let them die? Besides, with today's technology, the number of innocent people being convicted is next to nothing.

In my opinion, if you take someone's life in cold blood, you lose all of your own rights. You deserve whatever you get.
User avatar #158 to #154 - Ruspanic (12/12/2012) [-]
I think you mean utilitarian standpoint. Though it's funny you should say totalitarian...

I brought up videogames by way of comparison. I made no assumptions about you.

I agree with you when you say that in violating another's right to life, a person forfeits his own right to life. This does not mean, however, that we are obligated to kill all murderers, only that decisions about their continued existence can justifiably be made by others. (You are just talking about murderers, right? Or are you saying we should kill all criminals?).

This does not change the fact that killing innocent people should be avoided at all costs. I frankly don't care whether some murderer lives or dies, as long as he is incapacitated and no longer a threat, which can be achieved through incarceration. I care far more about the life of an innocent. If saving innocents requires mass murderers to merely get life in prison as opposed to death, so be it.

Technology may reduce mistakes, but it does not eliminate them. There was a case some years ago (in the 2000s) when a guy was executed for starting a fire that killed his kids. A later investigation found that evidence for his actually having committed the arson was dubious. But now he's dead. Oops.
User avatar #162 to #158 - theknikker (12/12/2012) [-]
You standpoint is honorable but ineffective. I wish people were nice and sweet to each other but no they are not. History shows well enough what happens when you don't take out the trash, but rather through it all into a big pile. It is not going to change anyways, so I really don't care. People will figure it out on their own what horror is because of stopping the death penalty. This would only make killers more aggressive, and less worried about the punishment of being thrown into a box like exarzero said.

ExarZero covered the rest...

User avatar #165 to #162 - Ruspanic (12/12/2012) [-]
I don't think life is prison is much less of a deterrent than the death penalty, especially considering how many people spend decades on death row before actually being killed.

There are also plenty of countries as well as US states that have abolished the death penalty. They have not suddenly become violent cesspools. In fact, states without the death penalty tend to have lower homicide rates than states with the death penalty (though causation can't be definitively proven).
User avatar #160 to #158 - exarzero (12/12/2012) [-]
...One killer can kill 20-30 people. If they escape they can wreck havoc. You don't just put all the bad people in a box and expect them to go away. Don't forget now you pay for them, and just as well anyone that goes to prison with them is in danger now.

Not to mention, that does not seem all that much better than just putting them down. You fear mistakes. We all do yes... but we cannot just let them all live behind walls with the chance of them getting out due to any reason. Especially if the murder was say caught on film, or seen by many. Mistakes are far to rare to stop. In order to protect more innocents.

I would love to see what a killer would think of this conversation:

"You mean I can kill someone and they just put me in a prison with free food and gangs to play with? **** yeah! Oh yeah and I could also escape and kill others."

User avatar #164 to #160 - Ruspanic (12/12/2012) [-]
How often do mass murderers escape from maximum-security prisons?
The sort of person who would kill 20-30 people isn't going to be put in some county jail, and he's not going to be put in the same place as a pickpocket.

Anyway, all I'm saying is that it's better to punish a murderer less than he deserves than to effectively be a murderer yourself by killing the very people you're supposed to protect.

From a criminal justice standpoint, I don't really care how much the criminals suffer - as long as they're not able to harm anyone else, and the punishment is severe enough to deter potential future offenders.
User avatar #147 to #121 - Ruspanic (12/12/2012) [-]
The jury merely decides whether the accused is guilty. It does not decide the legal penalty for any particular crime. Juries are also very capable of making mistakes.

"one is not executed without good reason and proof these days"
Forgive me if I don't take your word for it. I think there was a case (don't remember the year, but in the 2000s) when Texas executed a guy for an arson that killed his kids. Later they revisited the case and found that the evidence for him actually starting the fire was dubious. It didn't prove that he was innocent, but it did imply that he was never adequately proven guilty. Which is legally the same thing.

"You really going to risk that guy getting out and slicing up a family or raping kids because you fear that there may be a mistake once in a million?"
You present a false dilemma. I didn't say we should release the inmates, merely that we shouldn't execute them. Life in prison at least allows some possibility of appeal or retrial.
User avatar #150 to #22 - critique (12/12/2012) [-]
The whole Texas thing kind of backfires when the wrong person is on death row, and the real murderer is still a free man...
Just a thought.
User avatar #17 to #15 - leted (12/11/2012) [-]
but don't worry though; you can always appeal for a sentence reduction or even a pardon if you have a good attitude and appealed to the parole regularly.
#13 to #10 - anon (12/11/2012) [-]
and a death threat and some legal protection laws probably because you are probably breaking some law of legal defense if you are representing your own victim...
User avatar #81 - turtlecat ONLINE (12/12/2012) [-]
Wow OP, you could have at least said you were reposting and given credit to the guy

#27 - redwolv ONLINE (12/11/2012) [-]
Heard one of these recently, guy robbed a store. But the cashier said the register could not be opened unless something is purchased. Guy grabs a pack of gum puts it on the counter along with 20 bucks, soon as the drawer opens he gabs the money (totaling about $15) and leaves with the 20 bill still on the counter.
#88 - hmficjustinbieber (12/12/2012) [-]
"10 really stupid criminals"
only posts five
User avatar #114 - hahafunnyuwhore (12/12/2012) [-]
you said 10 but there are only 5, explain OP
User avatar #130 to #114 - princebroken (12/12/2012) [-]
Lets us wait and see.
User avatar #115 to #114 - kiratheunholy ONLINE (12/12/2012) [-]
I agree, do explain OP!
User avatar #71 - mrhumperdoodle (12/12/2012) [-]
how Canadian robberies go
#7 - anon (12/11/2012) [-]
'Ten Really Stupid Criminals'

All I See Is Lies!
#109 - thinlizzy (12/12/2012) [-]
Blaze it faggot
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)