Jogger who shot and killed his assailant gets off without charges
261 replies, posted
[QUOTE=hypno-toad;27511647]It wasn't dangerous enough to fire without any other defense attempts first.[/QUOTE]
why does he have to go into dangerous hand to hand combat against two people who may or may not be armed?
Because he did not use correct judgment in any circumstance. Lets be honest, the article has given barely any circumstantial info. It doesn't say how the attacker approached him, it doesnt say how long it took before he fired. In any of the potential scenarios, he wouldn't have needed to use the gun.
To be honest I don't know how the flying fuck the guy could get into a situation where an assailant manages to approach him in such a way and strike him in the face without him having any idea it was going to happen; I find it hard to believe somebody could come up to him without a word and strike him, on top of that do it in such a way that doesn't arouse the slightest modicum of initial suspicion on the joggers part. The lack of details leads me to believe this was spur of the moment, he probably shot him out of the anger that being struck produced. Can't trust an edgy person with a firearm. It wasn't calculated, which is the problem.
I don't even know why there are any arguments on this thread. The guy shouldn't have been committing the crime in the first place. If he wasn't prepared to face any of the consequences then he shouldn't have done that in the first place.
[QUOTE=hypno-toad;27511838]Because he did not use correct judgment in any circumstance. Lets be honest, the article has given barely any circumstantial info. It doesn't say how the attacker approached him, it doesnt say how long it took before he fired. In any of the potential scenarios, he wouldn't have needed to use the gun.
To be honest I don't know how the flying fuck the guy could get into a situation where an assailant manages to approach him in such a way and strike him in the face without him having any idea it was going to happen; I find it hard to believe somebody could come up to him without a word and strike him, on top of that do it in such a way that doesn't arouse the slightest modicum of initial suspicion on the joggers part. The lack of details leads me to believe this was spur of the moment, he probably shot him out of the anger that being struck produced. Can't trust an edgy person with a firearm. It wasn't calculated, which is the problem.[/QUOTE]
Considering he was planning to go into the military and was jogging to stay fit, he sounds like an alright guy, mr. pessimist. If he was unfit to use the gun he wouldn't have received a license to get one.
[QUOTE=Run&Gun12;27511917]I don't even know why there are any arguments on this thread. The guy shouldn't have been committing the crime in the first place. If he wasn't prepared to face any of the consequences then he shouldn't have done that in the first place.[/QUOTE]
The issue with this whole situation is one guy is a pissant little punk who wants to show off, and the other is a trigger happy meat-head, why else would he carry a gun if he didn't have a massive inferiority complex. The only difference between these two assholes is that one is on the correct side of the law.
The law does not equal universal, infallible morality. Just because this slaughtering was barely justifiable as legal self defense, doesn't mean for a second that it was the right snap decision to make. While you can't punish the jogger for using his rights, it is no reason to celebrate the situation.It's disgusting that people support actions like this, some will even hail him as a hero.
[editline]19th January 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=SgtCr4zyAlt;27511990]Considering he was planning to go into the military and was jogging to stay fit, he sounds like an alright guy, mr. pessimist. If he was unfit to use the gun he wouldn't have received a license to get one.[/QUOTE]
Somebody who openly decides to go mame and kill people in unjustifiable wars is an alright guy?
As much as you need to respect the armed forces, that does not make him an alright guy, I sure as fuck wouldn't want people like this "defending my country"
[QUOTE=hypno-toad;27512054]The issue with this whole situation is one guy is a pissant little punk who wants to show off, and the other is a trigger happy meat-head, why else would he carry a gun if he didn't have a massive inferiority complex. The only difference between these two assholes is that one is on the correct side of the law.[/quote]
I don't know how better to prove you wrong than to point to the article. What is the "pissant little punk" had a knife? Or a gun? Over even if he had just used his fists and had beat the jogger to death? A gun would have saved him. How does it prove he has an inferiority complex?
I simply can't empathize with the jogger. I've had run-ins with harassing street punks and people trying to start fights before and recalling those situations I don't think I would have been comfortable with a concealed gun. If you can't talk yourself out of a situation like this or have the judgment to prevent it in the first place, then you probably shouldn't be carrying a gun, it'll simply escalate a manageable situation. If I had seen this happen on the street it would have barely been discernible from a violent execution.
The world isn't made of "what ifs," the fact of the matter is the punk was unarmed and this guy completely slaughtered him. The situation could have easily been defused. Now that we are done with the FACTS we can go to the "what ifs" Yes, it is possible that the situation could have been worse for the jogger. As such, he rightfully cannot be punished for this, but my point still stands, there's a lot of real creepers and degenerates in here celebrating this, it's sick.
[QUOTE=hypno-toad;27512054]The issue with this whole situation is one guy is a pissant little punk who wants to show off, and the other is a trigger happy meat-head, why else would he carry a gun if he didn't have a massive inferiority complex. The only difference between these two assholes is that one is on the correct side of the law.
The law does not equal universal, infallible morality. Just because this slaughtering was barely justifiable as legal self defense, doesn't mean for a second that it was the right snap decision to make. While you can't punish the jogger for using his rights, it is no reason to celebrate the situation.It's disgusting that people support actions like this, some will even hail him as a hero.[/QUOTE]
Kid fucked with the wrong guy, the guy was strapped. The article says he carried for protection, which implies that he was probably aware the neighborhood had problems or that he himself had had confrontations in the past. Does that make what he did right? Not really. But I'm not about to feel sympathy for the kid who got shot, he made a poor decision and paid for it. There are plenty of people who own and carry firearms as an insurance policy rather than the result of a "massive inferiority complex"
[QUOTE=hypno-toad;27512321]I simply can't empathize with the jogger. I've had run-ins with harassing street punks and people trying to start fights before and recalling those situations I don't think I would have been comfortable with a concealed gun. If you can't talk yourself out of a situation like this or have the judgment to prevent it in the first place, then you probably shouldn't be carrying a gun, it'll simply escalate a manageable situation. If I had seen this happen on the street it would have barely been discernible from a violent execution.[/QUOTE]
This is one of those rare times where I agree completely with the conservatives
The jogger was outnumbered and the gun was the only means he had on him to defend himself, he had no way of knowing if one of them would pull a knife or a gun of their own. He wasn't thinking about "reasonable force", he was thinking about removing the threat.
[QUOTE=PieHard92;27512483]Kid fucked with the wrong guy, the guy was strapped. The article says he carried for protection, which implies that he was probably aware the neighborhood had problems or that he himself had had confrontations in the past. Does that make what he did right? Not really. But I'm not about to feel sympathy for the kid who got shot, he made a poor decision and paid for it. [/QUOTE]
That is ultimately my sentiments, but check some of the ratings and comments here. I guess I shouldn't be surprised.
It sucks for the kid because he was just stupid and obviously hadn't been taught any better. It's very, very unfortuante that the lesson doesn't really sink in because he's a corpse in a morgue now.
[QUOTE=hypno-toad;27512054]why else would he carry a gun if he didn't have a massive inferiority complex.[/QUOTE]
Everyone who wouldn't go into a potentially dangerous part of town without a weapon and willingly give up all he has to a mugger who may or may not be armed and who has already attacked him like you would is obviously just feeling inferior.
[QUOTE=hypno-toad;27512518]That is ultimately my sentiments, but check some of the ratings and comments here. I guess I shouldn't be surprised.
It sucks for the kid because he was just stupid and obviously hadn't been taught any better. It's very, very unfortuante that the lesson doesn't really sink in because he's a corpse in a morgue now.[/QUOTE]
I think the support for the jogger in this thread stems from the conscious desire to see punks get their comeuppance, having been the victim of street crime before I can tell you it puts a little smile in my heart to hear that this whole thing unfolded the way it did. Call me heartless, but I think anyone who intentionally goes out looking to fuck with people and leave emotional and physical scars deserve whatever is coming to them.
I think I'd rather get robbed than shoot somebody dead when they are not expecting it. My first instinct would be to talk myself out of the situation like a normal person.
[QUOTE=Vandl92;27512626]and who has already attacked[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=PieHard92;27512666]I think the support for the jogger in this thread stems from the conscious desire to see punks get their comeuppance, having been the victim of street crime before I can tell you it puts a little smile in my heart to hear that this whole thing unfolded the way it did. Call me heartless, but I think anyone who intentionally goes out looking to fuck with people and leave emotional and physical scars deserve whatever is coming to them.[/QUOTE]
I agree, but "whatever is coming to them," for me only goes as far as a few missing teeth or a broken bone.
[editline]19th January 2011[/editline]
More "what ifs"
Both the jogger and kid were incredibly unlucky. The jogger was unlucky that the kid punched him without warning, and the kid was unlucky that the Jogger was armed, and his first instinct was to open fire without warning.
You can't base your opinions for subjects such as this on anecdotes and theoretical scenarios. The fact of the matter if that muggings, especially violent ones are extremely rare. This news story in particular is a one in a million scenario, that's why it's on the news.
[QUOTE=hypno-toad;27510628]While guns can make the difference between life and death in the correct circumstances, it seems all to often that somebody gets mugged and they simply blast the offender into next year without even a warning.[/QUOTE]
As cold as it may sound that's one less idiot thug on the streets. And it would be a loud and clear message to any other chumps who try to do the same. That they run the risk of being swiss cheesed over the paper in someones wallet. And that the Law is completely against them if they try to pull it off.
[QUOTE=PieHard92;27512666]I think the support for the jogger in this thread stems from the conscious desire to see punks get their comeuppance, having been the victim of street crime before I can tell you it puts a little smile in my heart to hear that this whole thing unfolded the way it did. Call me heartless, but I think anyone who intentionally goes out looking to fuck with people and leave emotional and physical scars deserve whatever is coming to them.[/QUOTE]
I find it a little disturbing that the thought of anyone being killed puts a smile on your face. And we aren't even talking about say nazis or terrorists, we are talking about a young kid who punched someone in the face.
I just don't see why he couldn't have pulled the gun and told them to fuck off, then if they try to pull something then shoot them.
[QUOTE=hypno-toad;27512751]I agree, but "whatever is coming to them," for me only goes as far as a few missing teeth or a broken bone.
[editline]19th January 2011[/editline]
More "what ifs"
[b]Both the jogger and kid were incredibly unlucky. The jogger was unlucky that the kid punched him without warning, and the kid was unlucky that the Jogger was armed, and his first instinct was to open fire without warning.[/b][/quote]
Well I somewhat agree. Just producing the gun would have sent a very visual message that can DRASTICALLY change said situations.
[quote]
You can't base your opinions for subjects such as this on anecdotes and theoretical scenarios. The fact of the matter if that muggings, especially violent ones are extremely rare. This news story in particular is a one in a million scenario, that's why it's on the news.[/QUOTE]
I disagree on 'violent mugging's being rare but w/e you're right on the first part of this post.
Truth: if that man didn't have a gun, there is a better chance that no one would be dead. Its impossible to say what those kids would have done. But in my opinion, they wouldn't have beaten the man to death. I know a ton of kids who have been "jumped" like this guy apparently was. They walked away with a few bruises, maybe lost something valuable. But no lives were lost. Just something to consider.
It's so easy to say that the kid deserved it. Because it's arguably justified self defense, and the kid was an idiot who had something like that coming. Its the default "tough guy" response, for Internet tough guys especially. Doesn't mean it's the right solution. I bet you the man who killed the kid lives with regret.
Fixin' page 6.
[QUOTE=xxdeadb0ltxx;27513108]I know a ton of kids who have been "jumped" like this guy apparently was. They walked away with a few bruises, maybe lost something valuable. But no lives were lost. Just something to consider.[/QUOTE]
Yes, because when the jogger was greeted with a nice punch to the face in the middle of the night, all he could think about was the high probability that he'd get away with only a couple bumps/bruises and that his life wasn't [i]really[/i] in any danger.
Your stories are worth shit when your life is potentially in danger.
[QUOTE=xxdeadb0ltxx;27513108]Truth: if that man didn't have a gun, there is a better chance that no one would be dead. Its impossible to say what those kids would have done. But in my opinion, they wouldn't have beaten the man to death. I know a ton of kids who have been "jumped" like this guy apparently was. They walked away with a few bruises, maybe lost something valuable. But no lives were lost. Just something to consider.[/QUOTE]
Stop trying to justify it. What the jogger did was unreasonable but he should not be charged because he was not in a situation where "reasonable" is expected
If I had a gun, and someone punched me in the face, I would shoot them.
I see nothing wrong with this.
when you shoot?you shoot to kill?
why not shoot his leg?
[QUOTE=NoDachi;27496750]Cool fact. More civilians have murdered each other in America with guns, than the entire casualty rate of all the wars America has been involved in since it's inception.
Cooler EDIT: More Americans were killed by guns in the 18 years between 1979 and 1997 than died in all of America’s foreign wars since its independence.[/QUOTE]
Guess how many more were killed in accidents involving pools.
[QUOTE=Matrix374;27513676]when you shoot?you shoot to kill?
why not shoot his leg?[/QUOTE]
Have you ever been assaulted before? Instinct and adrenaline kicks in, this whole thing was probably over in a couple of seconds, how people react when put in a situation like that is completely unpredictable. He probably just pointed the gun at the assailant and hammered the trigger.
When something like this happens you don't shoot to kill and you don't shoot to wound, you shoot to shoot.
I'd like to see if anyone else would react differently in his situation, given the fact that someone has just punched you in the face and you don't know what he's going to do next im pretty sure you'd be panicking and would probably fire without thinking too.
Seriously this guy clearly wasn't trained to handle firearms like a cop would have so its not like he was probably thinking straight at the time more like fearing for his life anyway im sure most people here would react the same.
Dumbass should have brought a knife.
Atleast he would have landed at least one good hit.
[QUOTE=waxrock;27513340]Yes, because when the jogger was greeted with a nice punch to the face in the middle of the night, all he could think about was the high probability that he'd get away with only a couple bumps/bruises and that his life wasn't [i]really[/i] in any danger.
Your stories are worth shit when your life is potentially in danger.[/QUOTE]
I never said that "this is how the jogger should have felt after getting punched in the face". If I had a gun and I was in the same situation, I would have reacted the same way. About 90% of the people in this thread have already stated they would do the same. In my opinion the jogger shouldn't be guilty of what he did - the laws permitted it, and it was his instinct.
But my point is that if this guy [i]didn't[/i] have a gun, things probably wouldn't have gone so bad. I'm not saying "It would definitely have gone more smoothly if this guy didn't have a gun" - no, for all I know those kids could have attacked him with the intent to kill him. Who knows? I'm saying that the chances of someone being killed would be less likely. And that's something you shouldn't discredit.
I used my example as something to consider. Same scenario, different outcome - you don't have to discredit my examples. It's all hypothetical - every situation is different. But out of the people who I know, who have been "jumped" or "surprised attacked" like this guy was, their lives were in danger too. Yet because they didn't have the tools to react with, the situation didn't escalate.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;27513437]Stop trying to justify it. What the jogger did was unreasonable but he should not be charged because he was not in a situation where "reasonable" is expected[/QUOTE]
I never said the jogger should be charged. I just think it's unfortunate that he had a gun with him, because if he didn't, it's my guess that no one would have been killed. But my "guess" is impossible to predict, and I guess that's why this topic has no "conclusion" to it.
I feel this debate comes down to a few sides. Most of us agree that the jogger did what any other person, given the same situation, would do. But it leads to another question - do you agree that the jogger should be walking around with a gun? My opinion is no, he shouldn't be. Others might say "of course he should have a gun, for situations exactly like this!". We could argue back and forth all day about it. I don't think we'd ever reach a conclusion though.
[QUOTE=Matrix374;27513676]when you shoot?you shoot to kill?
why not shoot his leg?[/QUOTE]
...
dot dot dot, as it were.
The leg is not a hunk of meat, that's only role is to move a person and feel pain. It has quite a system of blood circulation. Getting shot in the leg is often times fatal because of the large veins being punctured.
But say I do shoot him in the leg, and say I miss a large artery. Well, I could shoot the bone, it splinters, and then the person dies from blood loss anyways.
I'll tell you what, you never shoot to wound. If you intend to fire a gun, at a person, you do it to incapacitate them without worrying about their heath.
And I'll add this. If someone just punched me, and I shot them, I would not help them with their wound for they are in no position for me to be kind to them.
[QUOTE=hypno-toad;27511344]So because of that it's alright to whip out your sidearm in a residential area and start letting off indiscriminate shots that are probably also pointed in the direction of houses or inhabited buildings?
Guns defense in grave danger is a legit cause, but from the sounds of it, this guy got smacked in the face (not very hard apparently) and he whipped out a gun and fired off 8 shots in a residential area, killing his assailant who [I]evidently[/I] didn't hit him very hard. I think the punk would have backed off had he known the jogger was armed, I highly doubt the jogger gave any warning whatsoever.[/QUOTE]
No, I'm saying you can't expect him to land every round on target, and even Police officers miss their target half the time, also the .45 acp is a slow and heavy round that might go at most 100 meters, and get stopped by a piece of wood, meanwhile you make it sound like he had a PKM out with anti-matter tipped bullets and just spraying it everywhere like he had mouse sensitivity set to 10
Also what do you mean hit him very hard? unless you get KO'd on the first hit, nothing is going to prevent you from drawing your weapon
[editline]18th January 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=hypno-toad;27512054]why else would he carry a gun if he didn't have a massive inferiority complex. [/QUOTE]
Because we don't give fuck about maintaining the same moral superiority complex you have
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.