◀Previous Post
Next Post▶

TTAG reader Danny gave us the heads up on this one, providing a “somewhat quick translation” of what is said from 0:39 to 1:28:

Bandit: Stop stop stop stop stop stop… Give the alarm!

Biker: Sure sure…

Bandit: Give the alarm! Give the alarm! Give the alarm!

Biker: It’s here! It’s here! It’s here!

Bandit: Fucking give it!

Biker: It’s here! It’s here! It’s here! You can take it! You can take it!

Bandit 2: Give it to him (or something similar).

Biker: You can take it! You can take it! I don’t have a weapon! I’m not a cop! You can take it! You can take it!

Bandit gets shot.

Biker: Thank you officer! Thank you officer! Really, thank a lot! You are going to steal in hell now crazy fuck, you are going to steal in hell, my bike you ain’t taking, my bike you ain’t taking for god’s sake!

Danny has a question about this incident:

“I’ve always been told that no material object is worth getting shot over to protect. I’ve been wondering though if responding with violence to a person committing a crime would be a good deterrent, letting them know that if they wish to do this kind of thing to expect a bullet, not your mark pulling out a cell phone as you run away.”

A deterrent for the next guy maybe. But not the guy aiming a gun at you.

◀Previous Post
Next Post▶

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

78 COMMENTS

    • Watch the black SUV starting at around 55 seconds. As the green car passes, you can see the cop slide out of hist SUV and the gives the perp a surprise.

    • no, its correct, “da o alarme” or “give the alarm” is basically like “cry for help, I dare you, I’ll shoot you…” it was a challenge/threat not a command. I lived in Brazil, speak the language, married a Brazilian. Life is good.

      • While true, it’s an idiomatic expression, so you don’t translate it directly word for word.

        It means “this is a stick up” not because the words are similar, but because one idiomatic expression is being translated into another to convey the correct meaning.

        For example, in English people will say “He’s never at a loss for words” and the Russians say “He never has to reach into his pocket for a word” They mean the same thing, and should be translated as such, though the words differ greatly.

        Translating idiomatic expressions is the hardest part of translating.

        • Motorcicles in Brazil have alarms, anti-theft systems and gps trackers like cars. Some of those systems are actuated by the distance between the vehicle and a remote control or keychain.

          “da o alarme“ means “Give me the remote control/anti-theft system key chain“

      • FOLKS!

        Motorcicles in Brazil have alarms, anti-theft systems and gps trackers like cars. Some of those systems are actuated by the distance between the vehicle and a remote control or key chain.

        “da o alarme“ means “Give me the remote control/anti-theft system key chain“

        look at 47s
        biker right hand and robber left hand

      • Barely, but yes.

        My point was that when one translates idiom, one should make a poetic translation in order to convey the meaning.

        To a speaker if English, a “horse of a different color” makes more sense than the French “that’s a whole other sleeve,” and such a poetic translation is indicated.

        In Through the Looking Glass, f’rinstance, “We called ‘im Tortoise because ‘e taught us.” works only in English.

        In the French translation, there is instead a pun on nose, as the French word for tortoise so lends itself.

        In a motion picture dubbed into Spanish, to cite a common example, fire (a gun) will be translated as “fuego,” even though Spanish speakers say disparar, which is release or shoot, as in an arrow. In the posters in the post office, solamente is used for only as in “only a little” even though is means only as in unique.

        Such misunderstandings are legion.

        Overly precise translation is often unintelligible due exactly to its robotic precision.

  3. It’s not so much the property that’s important, it’s the resistance to the petty tyranny that unchecked will develop into larger scale tyranny.

    That being said, who knows the importance of that bike to its owner? Can he easily replace it? (Should he have to?) If he loses his means of transportation, will he lose his ability to get to his place of employment? If he loses his job & income, what be the impact on his life/health and to his family? I suspect the reason that they used to hang horse thieves wasn’t because they valued a horse more than a man’s life. It was probably because that horse was essential to the owner’s well being. $100 may not be a big deal to many of us but to some it may be the difference between living in an apartment and living on the street.

    Resistance to tyranny is a community service.

    • If this happened in the U.S. the bike would be impounded for “evidence” and the owner wouldn’t get it back for many months at best. Never mind if it might have been his only means of transportation. The government simple doesn’t care.

    • I’ve always hated that saying myself. They’re the ones that decided that your life is worth whatever they’re trying to steal when they threaten you over it, so why not defend it then?

    • And while I personally think very few, if any, of the things I own are worth getting shot at for, let alone actually shot, it’s not as simple as that.

      If the bad guy has a gun and is threatening to use it, I have to go on the assumption that the threat is credible. I’m also not going to just trust such a person to keep his/her word that if I give them ‘x’ the person will leave peacefully. What guarantee do I have that they won’t decide to elimimate witnesses?

      Each situation is different, but at the end of the day, if it comes down to what to do if faced with a credible imminent threat to me or my loved ones …

  4. While it smacks against all the utopian ideals, yes it would deter crime.
    Sure Brazil is probably not the best example since you know drugs and organized crime run rampant in the unarmed populous.
    Having said that though if criminals knew they there is a high probability of meeting some lead for trying to take what is not theirs I think they would move along.

    • Anything that smacks against a Utopian ideal, much less against ALL of them, is a good thing and should be promoted and pursued.

  5. Bad guy’s bad luck to do the deed with an off-duty(?) cop in his car right behind you. Sometimes the stars align just right.

    • That guy was on duty, cops in Brazil have to leave their guns in the police armory when they get off their shift.

  6. One does not need to justify how the bike or any property is important to their owner. The minute someone uses deadly force or threatens you with deadly force to break the law and try to steal from you they lose their rights to a stratisfied response. Period no discussion. It does not matter if it is a deterance to any one else it will keep that individual from perpetrating any further crimes.

  9. That was some good timing for sure.
    But if that had happened to me.
    As I commute using a trike or one of my bikes daily.
    Id have given it up too.
    Then in all probability if on an uncrowded corner or in a direct line otherwise.
    Id have shot the jerk myself.

      • ya beat me to it….he didn’t have to unload his weapon to hit his target….NYPD you reading this?

      • Guys… calm down. He was aiming at the dog behind the guy.

        This was an unintentional by-stander shooting.

        • I love how a cop does a textbook double-tap and takes out a robber, and there are still internet commandos here who will type like they have the experience to second-guess his every move.

        • Textbook double tap doesn’t have an innocent on the other side of the target, you yahoo. The guy was going to get away with a motorcycle after leaving the guy unharmed… I don’t know what the f your problem is, but if someone gets shot between me and the shooter, I will count my lucky stars. Internet commando… talking about a pot and kettle.

  11. You may say I’m a dreamer. . . but I wonder what the world would be like if all armed robbery ended this way, this quickly. That was extremely satisfying. I’m sure there are those who would talk about what a tragedy it is that the robber lost his life. I’m inclined to argue that all of society is now just a little better off without him, and that the tragedy is that his accomplice escaped.

    • Oh, I don’t know. The accomplice has some real good face-time on the video. I bet they scoop him up too.

    • Possibly. Or it could be a .357 loaded with .38 special. On a video like this one all you can tell is that the rounds are not filling the cylinder up. Quite possibly in real life too.

    • I wonder if there was any audio between the cop and robber before he got ventilated. I SAID DROP IT!

        • God I wish that had some audio, it looks like that cop was verbally abusing that SOB in his final moments. s’all good though, those marginals don’t have any compassion or empathy for those they target, I have no compassion or empathy for them when they occasionally catch a bullet.

        • Call me cold but that’s the right thing to do.
          Why wait for an action on the robbers part.

      • Doesn’t matter, as it appears the robber pointed the gun at the cop. No need for those Hollywood catch phrases at that point.

      • If imminence is imminent there is no time for talking. If you are talking instead of shooting then you obviously were not in sufficient peril (by your own actions) to engage in the use of deadly force. Negotiation with perps is the job of trained SWAT guys, not the person facing the threat.

  16. I think the crime rate in Brazil is such that the cops are not known for their subtlety. A friend of mine went to work there in the 90’s and she was tied up in the bathroom and her husband kidnapped for several hours until he managed to escape. My impression is that there is quite a bit of lawlessness there.

  17. If only they all ended this way. Hell of a lot cheaper than jail/prison for us folks too.

    My property was bought using money I made. I made that money by trading my time for it. And that time is a portion of my life. And any portion of my life is worth infinitely more than the life of any criminal filth on the planet, regardless of their crime.

    • Exactly. How many hours of his life did it take to buy that bike? It’s like being kidnapped.

      I would shoot someone if they tried to steal my car. They are not taking that much from me. All those days working… Yeah, that isn’t happening.

      • “How many hours of his life did it take to buy that bike?”

        If you change that to “How many hours of his life did it take to steal that bike?” The answer is: ALL OF THEM. The more criminals who know and understand that, the better.

    • It wasn’t just a jacking it was a jacking at gun point, I think the officer responded appropriately.

      I personally wish we could defend high value property with lethal force. For example, vehicles(reliable transportation often being criteria for attaining and keeping a job), a family heirloom (has great meaning to the family), large sums of money, ect. Small sums of money, cheap easily replaceable stuff, I don’t find it really justifiable.

      In essence, in castle states (if you be ever so lucky) you can defend material items, as long it is on your property.

      I’ve often wondered if how pets would be treated. To me, and I think I can safely say all good pet owners, they are part of my family, but legally, they are just property. I think it is a grey line in the law.

    • Based on the pedestrian heat signatures picked up on their FLIR, and the impacts on surrounding buildings, Rule Four is obviously not that important in Brazilian police training. As for marksmanship, how many rounds did they fire at that car without effecting a stop?

      (BTW, back in the ’70s I was working a gas station in Missoula, MT. A pair of bad guys was making the late-night rounds of all the 24/7 businesses in order to collect a payment for their new Mustang. Immediately after leaving the gas station $64 dollars richer than when they came in the local 5-0 descended on them and opened fire, hitting the now not-so-new Mustang 28 times with .38 and .357. (The ’70s, cops still carried revolvers.) The car was finally disabled, but neither bad guy was wounded. That always amazed me, especially after I saw the car in the impound lot.)

  21. As they get closer to the Olympics the cops down there are going to be given free reign to stop any street crime. If that means shooting first so be it.

  22. “Danny has a question about this incident:

    ‘I’ve always been told that no material object is worth getting shot over to protect. I’ve been wondering though if responding with violence to a person committing a crime would be a good deterrent, letting them know that if they wish to do this kind of thing to expect a bullet, not your mark pulling out a cell phone as you run away.'”

    The “question” arises from a misunderstanding of the situation.
    The thug was not shot to protect the material object (bike).
    The thug was shot in direct response to the thug threatening Deadly force against the biker, and by way of proximity, all the people in the area.

    Deadly force is always the right move when someone is being threatened with deadly force.

    • Well stated. I was trying to work out how to say something similarly. Once that thug put the pistol in the biker’s face it was no longer about the bike. The biker’s life was being threatened and any and all response was at that point appropriate. It is unfortunate that the biker’s only choice was to simply keep backing away and hoping not to get shot.

  23. My property may not be worth my life, but it’s certainly worth the life of the b@stard who tries to steal it.

  24. If you look on the side of the road at 00:10 you can actually see the gunman standing on the side of the road. A few seconds later you see what looks like the bike he was riding going the other direction on the street. I don’t know if this was spur of the moment or well organized but either way those crooks have their shit together to catch up that quickly.

    • Yup, only a couple of crooks with their sh1t wired would try to pull of an armed robbery within fifty feet of a cop.

      • Well there is a lot of non uniformed cops hovering around and some cops in regular cars. Criminals don’t see it coming. If there was a cop car there they would pick another place where they wouldn’t get shot dead. I think it is a good idea because they will start to second guess their crimes when they don’t know who is a cop and who is prey.

    • That’s not the gunman. The guy with the gun is wearing jean shorts & flip flops. The guy at :10 is wearing full length jeans & blue sneakers.

  27. I don’t think he pointed his gun at the cop. He is a righty. When the biker surrenders, the jacker tucks something into his waistband. He uses both hands to lift the bike. It is quite hard to operate a bike without both hands. I doubt he became a lefty shooter in 5 seconds.
    That cop was cold. Deservedly so.

  28. ok class. compare and contrast:

    brazil cops AGAINST bikers using deadly force on civilians

    vs

    Nypd undercover cops AS bikers using deadly force on civilians…

    • Yea, I was going to point out that very juxtaposition.

      Several other things come to mind:

      – only two rounds expended by the cop.
      – and they were on target.
      – delivered without the cop being dressed up in full mall ninja mode.

      In other words, the Brazilian cop showed himself to be a pro. There was a crime being committed right in front of him, he dispensed justice on the spot. No dogs, innocent bystanders, private property or endangered. No MRAP, Star Wars costumes, AR-15’s or tasers were employed. One cop, a civilian-looking automobile, in old-fashioned cop attire, with one sidearm and two rounds. Done deal.

      Would that we had such competence on our streets.

      • Instead we get bully Navy SEAL wannabes.

        I bet that Brazilian cop makes half of what a US one does but he is more efficient.

        In the US there would’ve been a police chase that would end up costing thousands.

  29. Unfortunately, this video backs up the antis’ contention that we can all rely on the cops to be there when we need them, and therefore no one but the police need guns.

Comments are closed.