Nah, since the embassy is considered American soil, I would have left trip wires and grenades/claymores ALL OVER THE PLACE. Put a big sign in Arabic warning them of the dangers of tampering with the compound and the equipment stored there and let Darwin take its course.
February 13, 2015 at 8:46am
As a US Army Infantry veteran I call total BS on this story. I have flown on chartered civilian flights before when moving to various training areas and always flew WITH WEAPONS in hand. On a flight to Japan for an Orient Shield 30 day exercise we took all our weapons, to include the M60s and M249s, in the cabin on a chartered flight and were told to put them in laundry bags when we exited the plan in Japan so the locals would not know we had weapons with us. Yeah a M60 is so not noticeable in a military green laundry bag, looks exactly like lumpy dirty laundry.
I would surmise it has to do with the flag of the carrier. If it's a foreign charter, as this likely was, that could have something to do with it. Also, it's likely you were traveling armed with actual orders in hand and these guys probably just didi'd out of there, and that could've been an issue as well.
249G’s and 60′s on a civilian plane…Things sure have changed since those days, and not for the better.
 February 11, 2015 at 6:26am
That’s pretty much what I told a guy at work. “Your bullet might travel faster, but my car hits harder and I can adjust is path.”
 February 11, 2015 at 6:25am
He was the driver of the dark car, don’t you know.
February 9, 2015 at 5:25pm
“information regarding YOUR States particular law”, not “… our …”
 February 9, 2015 at 5:24pm
Laws vary greatly from State to State. So unless you got your CCW in Texas you may have been given accurate information regarding our States particular law. If you got your CCW in Texas you were being misinformed as to the actual law at hand Texas deadly force breaks down into four different section in the Texas Penal Code, Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON, Sec. 9.33. DEFENSE OF THIRD PERSON, Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY, and Sec. 9.43. PROTECTION OF THIRD PERSON’S PROPERTY. Each has its own elements which must be met to qualify for allowable use of deadly force.
"information regarding YOUR States particular law", not "... our ..."
Thanks for the info Tex!
 February 9, 2015 at 8:52am
Texas Penal Code 9.42 would disagree with you there.
 February 9, 2015 at 8:14am
“Criminals thrive on the indulgence of society’s understanding.” Ra’s al Ghul.
 February 9, 2015 at 8:12am
All shootings go to a grand jury in Texas no matter how justified they appear. So for us here, we don’t even sweat about it when we hear that cases like this see a GJ. It raises an eyebrow when a shooting case DOES NOT go to the GJ.
 February 9, 2015 at 8:09am
Better than relying on Time, ha ha ha, why not read the actual law. Sec. 9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE’S OWN PROPERTY. (B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property;
The term “fleeing immediately after” has been adjudicated a couple of times to continue until the person fleeing has reached “safe harbor”. In other words, if the thieves made it home, and then the actual owners of the truck tracked them down and then shot them, owners are in a heap of trouble. Stopping them while they are still fleeing in the truck will probably be no billed. And oh your parade of horribles of what might have went wrong, doesn’t hold up. Parade of horribles rarely stand up in court.
 February 9, 2015 at 8:02am
Very presumptuous of you to assume they had full coverage, because that is the only way they would have gotten a money to replace the stolen vehicle.
 February 2, 2015 at 5:10am
For those who have not kept up with this story, it is WAY more involved than just these 4 young adults tossing rocks at cars, they were on a literal rampage that night:
The problem we have is not that some people are bad. The real problem is lots of the really sick and evil people we have, are Judges and Attorneys.
 February 1, 2015 at 3:23pm
Does anyone in NYC question a system where a 1st grade teachers is making north or $80K a year? Does she have a track record of former Nobel prize winners having gotten the love of learning started with her?
 February 1, 2015 at 3:16pm
No no no, it was not an “unsatisfactory” rating, it was a “U.N. Satisfactory” rating. This story is really confusing people.