65 years old knocked off his bicycle by three kids. Results? One dead, one wounded, one in jail
566 replies, posted
[QUOTE=H4ngman;38177468]That's exactly the point. He [I]felt[/I] threatened. That was just his personal, subjective view of the situation, it has no legal basis. people feel threatened over a lot of things, does that mean they can kill whoever they feel like?
What is a threat and what not should be clearly defined by law and not left to people's personal opinions. I feel threatened by people following me at night in a park. I feel threatened by strangers creeping around my door at night. Do you support my right to just fucking kill everyone of those people? because that is exactly what you imply. Hell, my 60-year old aunt feels threatened by just about anyone, I sure as hell won't give her a gun and tell her to just kill everyone that bothers her.
I know, this was a specific case where under specific circumstances (they assaulted him with a deadly weapon, threatened his life), that were not even met, the killing would have been justified, but you people fail to see the full extend of supporting vigilantism.
Fact is, there were no weapons, he got beaten, that's scary, that's threatening. Did he give off a warning shot? No, he just shot the fucker in the chest and killed him. Did he leave it at that? No, he proceeded to try and kill everyone in his proximity. Tell, me what you will that is not self-defense, that is completely stepping over the boundaries of defending your personal goods and health[/QUOTE]
" No, he proceeded to try and kill everyone in his proximity"
OK so
he fired off only two shots and that's it
if he tried to kill them don't you think blanking an entire mag off would be more appropriate for killing people? No, that isn't what the did, it was two blind shots, and that's all.
I mean, if I want to kill 3 kids, I'm not going to only fire two fucking shots, I know that much
also, considering your behind a computer screen makes it very easy to say "Stay calm"
"I know, this was a specific case where under specific circumstances (they assaulted him with a deadly weapon, threatened his life), that were not even met, the killing would have been justified, but you people fail to see the full extend of supporting vigilantism. "
you know, if you rob a bank and die because you got shot,[B] the only person at fault is yourself.[/B] [B]You are to blame for YOUR life ending.[/B]
Attacking/Mugging people isn't a safe thing to do, if one honestly can't understand that when one does it, then bad things [I]are [/I]going to happen. if you act uncivil, don't wont why people respond uncivil.
[editline]25th October 2012[/editline]
not only that but the justice system found him very innocent
[QUOTE=proch;38167656]6 posts and no gun laws debate yet. You're getting better, fp.[/QUOTE]
Most people don't like gun culture in the US which in turn sort of influences legislature. But most people don't have anything if the use of the weapon was clearly justified.
Can anyone else smell a thread simulator?
Good riddance,
while I doubt that the survivng kids would really learn anything from this I still think its good.
Kids like that are the worst people on the planet, right after Dictators, both needing to get put down one way or another.
Guys, why is this dumb?
[QUOTE]Obviously the kids didn't 'deserve' what they got and the man shouldn't be praised (those suggesting otherwise and rating this winner are idiots), but at the same time the man shouldn't be treated like a murderer for this (although I don't think he should be let off with a pat on the back). Groups of teens attacking someone and killing them isn't a far-fetched scenario at all, and it's understandable how he would've panicked.
It's just an unavoidable consequence of telling individuals they can use lethal force as they please if they feel their life is in danger. Problem is that individuals aren't always rational and reasonable, especially in situations such as this.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=WeekendWarrior;38167681]Is no-one fazed about the fact that the old guy killed someone?
Not saying if it was a good or bad thing, not getting into that debate.[/QUOTE]
Bad things happen every minute of every day to people worldwide. Getting pissy about one when it comes on the news doesn't serve any useful purpose.
hey heres a good idea
if you dont want to risk getting injured, dont rob people
[QUOTE=Noss;38178607]hey heres a good idea
if you dont want to risk getting injured, dont rob people[/QUOTE]
Like that's going to happen,
people gotta survive one way or another,
its a jungle out there.
[QUOTE=Linda,Octopus;38178546]Good riddance,
while I doubt that the survivng kids would really learn anything from this I still think its good.
Kids like that are the worst people on the planet, right after Dictators, both needing to get put down one way or another.[/QUOTE]
The fact that you think a couple of punk kids are anywhere near dictators, and refer to executing people as putting them down is shockingly stupid. Be rational, you're little better than a dictator if you honestly believe these people should be executed. I seriously believe you need to seek help. your lack of an ability to empathize with humans, despite the bad in them, is a pretty clear indicator that something is wrong with you.
[QUOTE=DOG-GY;38178651]The fact that you think a couple of punk kids are anywhere near dictators, and refer to executing people as putting them down is shockingly stupid. Be rational, you're little better than a dictator if you honestly believe these people should be executed. I seriously believe you need to seek help. your lack of an ability to empathize with humans, despite the bad in them, is a pretty clear indicator that something is wrong with you.[/QUOTE]
Hey, I just hate stupid kids.
Hey guys, did you hear about the shootings off of Schuylkill River trail? I heard that someone was killed.
[IMG]https://7chan.org/fail/src/134876974181.png[/IMG]
[highlight](User was banned for this post ("meme reply" - postal))[/highlight]
Btw, i'm getting the impression that people here believe criminals like these kids actually deserve to die... It's bad enough the US has capital punishment in the first place, but thinking those who commit crimes as moderate as mugging and robbery should get the same done to them is terrible.
The point of self-defence rights is to protect the individual's most important and significant right of all- the right to life. It's not meant to be some karmic thing to give criminals what they apparently 'derserve'
I can't believe some people have so little empathy.
You pull a gun, you pause and don't fire because you're trying to "threaten them and make them back down"...
They've grabbed your arm, three seconds later, they've pryed the gun from your hands and you're dead.
Reading through this thread, it sounds like a hell of a lot of people were there, close enough to know exactly what happened and how the guy should have acted.
Why didn't you intervene guys?
[QUOTE=J!NX;38177566]
you know, if you rob a bank and die because you got shot,[B] the only person at fault is yourself.[/B] [B]You are to blame for YOUR life ending.[/B]
[/QUOTE]
There's a lot wrong with that.
First of all, where do you draw the line? If I walk onto some farmers land and he shoots and kills me with a rifle, is it 100% my fault that I died? Should I be considered the one in the wrong? Did I deserve to be killed?
Say I knowingly walk into the territory of some violent gang and again get shot and killed. I put myself into a situation where I knew there was a chance of death, does that mean my death is 100% my fault and the gang member who shot me should be let off because of that?
Also about your bank robbery example. An individuals right to life is worth more than some money, taking away that right to save some money isn't a justified trade-off. A robber wouldn't deserve to have his life taken away from him in that situation.
On a side note, it's like i've entered some fantasy world where everything's black and white and there's only absolute good and absolute evil
it still amazes me how facepunch can argue about the most stupid of fucking things.
kids assaulted and tried to rob an old guy
kids got shot
what the fuck did they expect
shit happens
would've happened to them later anyway considering they were fuckups
game over, people are now safer that they aren't on the streets
/thread
I'm seeing the phrase "non-lethal shot" being thrown around a lot here, and when you're being attacked non-lethal shots are much harder to achieve than lethal ones.
If you're getting attacked you're going to go for the center of mass, the only way to make sure a shot is nonlethal using a firearm is if the guy you're shooting is standing still/bound, you're shooting him in the ass or a limb, and you can take care of the bleeding immediately. I'm sure the guy didn't want to kill the kids, but realized that shooting the air probably wasn't going to cut it because they looked like "tough chavs" or someshit like that.
[QUOTE=RobbL;38178698]Btw, i'm getting the impression that people here believe criminals like these kids actually deserve to die... It's bad enough the US has capital punishment in the first place, but thinking those who commit crimes as moderate as mugging and robbery should get the same done to them is terrible.
The point of self-defence rights is to protect the individual's most important and significant right of all- the right to life. It's not meant to be some karmic thing to give criminals what they apparently 'derserve'
I can't believe some people have so little empathy.[/QUOTE]
its unfortunate that somebody died, but i have no empathy for the inidivudal
it is their fault and their fault alone that they were killed, if they weren't being such an antisocial fuckbag in the first place then none of this would have happened
he was a repeat offender and honestly he had this coming to him sooner or later anyway
[QUOTE=StupidUsername67;38178826]it still amazes me how facepunch can argue about the most stupid of fucking things.
kids assaulted and tried to rob an old guy
kids got shot
what the fuck did they expect
shit happens
would've happened to them later anyway considering they were fuckups
game over, people are now safer that they aren't on the streets
/thread[/QUOTE]
Get it into your head that it doesn't mean the kids 'deserved' to die and that the old man's actions are exempt from criticism in any form
[editline]25th October 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Noss;38178918]its unfortunate that somebody died, but i have no empathy for the inidivudal
it is their fault and their fault alone that they were killed, if they weren't being such an antisocial fuckbag in the first place then none of this would have happened
he was a repeat offender and honestly he had this coming to him sooner or later anyway[/QUOTE]
knowingly putting yourself into a situation where there's a chance of death =/= deserving death
[QUOTE=RobbL;38178819]There's a lot wrong with that.
First of all, where do you draw the line? If I walk onto some farmers land and he shoots and kills me with a rifle, is it 100% my fault that I died? Should I be considered the one in the wrong? Did I deserve to be killed?
Say I knowingly walk into the territory of some violent gang and again get shot and killed. I put myself into a situation where I knew there was a chance of death, does that mean my death is 100% my fault and the gang member who shot me should be let off because of that?
Also about your bank robbery example. An individuals right to life is worth more than some money, taking away that right to save some money isn't a justified trade-off. A robber wouldn't deserve to have his life taken away from him in that situation.
On a side note, it's like i've entered some fantasy world where everything's black and white and there's only absolute good and absolute evil[/QUOTE]
None of these examples are relevant as they don't involve the person getting killed committing a violent crime. As for a bank robber being killed, obviously they would not deserve death, but they should understand that they may be killed if they are doing shit like this. While not justice, its still their fault.
Your gang member example is just plain stupid. It clearly doesn't fit at all.
[QUOTE=DOG-GY;38178972]None of these examples are relevant as they don't involve the person getting killed committing a violent crime. As for a bank robber being killed, obviously they would not deserve death, but they should understand that they may be killed if they are doing shit like this. While not justice, its still their fault.
Your gang member example is just plain stupid. It clearly doesn't fit at all.[/QUOTE]
Yes, but his reasoning was that when people partake in something that they know brings a chance of death that means it is 100% their fault when they do die, which also implies that they deserve it and the killer has no responsibility at all and should be let off
[QUOTE=RobbL;38179016]Yes but his reasoning was that when people partake in something that they know brings a chance of death, that means it is 100% their fault when they do die, which also implies that they deserve it and the killer has no responsibility at all and should be let off[/QUOTE]
How does stating that it is their fault that they died imply that they deserve it?
In this case the killer doesn't have any responsibility, he was defending himself and his property. The kid put himself in to that dangerous situation and he is solely responsible for his death and the shooter should not be punished.
[QUOTE=Noss;38179036]
In this case the killer doesn't have any responsibility, he was defending himself and his property. The kid put himself in to that dangerous situation and he is solely responsible for his death and the shooter should not be punished.[/QUOTE]
I'm not disagreeing with you, but the quote I replied to didn't bring self-defence into the equation at all.
When you're directly threatening someone's life though and they kill you in self-defence then your death is nearly entirely your fault, that's a different story.
[QUOTE=Noss;38179036]How does stating that it is their fault that they died imply that they deserve it?[/QUOTE]
Stupid example, but if you decide to kick a wall and break a toe, then you deserved that.
[QUOTE=Linda,Octopus;38178546]Good riddance,
while I doubt that the survivng kids would really learn anything from this I still think its good.
Kids like that are the worst people on the planet, right after Dictators, both needing to get put down one way or another.[/QUOTE]
I agree he did the right thing but
holy shit, boy you are a psycho
[QUOTE=RobbL;38178819]There's a lot wrong with that.
[B]No there isn't. IT's completely rational to think that when you die committing a very public and threatening crime, your the person who chose to take unneeded risk, your the person who is responsible for your actions.
It's like committing vandalism / slitting someones bike tires. The only person to blame is yourself for what happens afterwards (Fines)[/B]
First of all, where do you draw the line? If I walk onto some farmers land and he shoots and kills me with a rifle, is it 100% my fault that I died?
[B]what? where are you getting this? I'm obviously talking about doing extremely hostile/criminal things. Are you trying to question my morals here as if I'm a sociopath?[/B]
Should I be considered the one in the wrong? Did I deserve to be killed?
Say I knowingly walk into the territory of some violent gang and again get shot and killed. I put myself into a situation where I knew there was a chance of death, does that mean my death is 100% my fault and the gang member who shot me should be let off because of that?
[B]No, but you knowingly walked into a dangerous area, your only at fault when your being insane and being a very clear and present threat (Armed robbery, assault/robbery, sexual assault, etc[/B]
Also about your bank robbery example. An individuals right to life is worth more than some money, taking away that right to save some money isn't a justified trade-off. A robber wouldn't deserve to have his life taken away from him in that situation.
[B]the robber doesn't deserve to die and I never said anything like that. it would be psychotic to say he deserved it. That being said, yes, it is his fault.[/B]
On a side note, it's like i've entered some fantasy world where everything's black and white and there's only absolute good and absolute evil
[B]it's like I'm living in a world were people don't understand common cause and effect
Everything is grey, just because a robber doesn't deserve death, doesn't mean it wasn't his fault[/B][/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=RobbL;38178937]Get it into your head that it doesn't mean the kids 'deserved' to die and that the old man's actions are exempt from criticism in any form[/QUOTE]
where in there did you see that I said they deserved it? I don't know what weird ass country or state you live in where everything is a fucking wonderland and everybody is perfectly unacountable for their actions, but these dumbass kids [B]violently assaulted[/B] and [B]committed criminal acts[/B] on [B]random people[/B], and not one of those dumbfucks thought "oh hey maybe we should stop doing this", or "oh man maybe one of these guys could actually hurt us".
not only is it their fault that they were shot at, but they would have been killed or seriously injured regardless later in life because it's obvious that they would not have strayed from their path of being criminals. it just happened sooner rather than later, and to be honest I'm glad it turned out this way because now they can't meet up on their rampage weekends and harm more innocent people.
[QUOTE=J!NX;38179241]I agree he did the right thing but
holy shit, boy you are a psycho[/QUOTE]
Im not exactly saying that kids like that needs to get killed, more like jailed for a long time.
[QUOTE=J!NX;38179241]-snip-[/QUOTE]
I was replying to this-
[QUOTE=J!NX;38177566]
you know, if you rob a bank and die because you got shot,[B] the only person at fault is yourself.[/B] [B]You are to blame for YOUR life ending.[/B]
[/QUOTE]
You didn't consider self-defence as part of the equation there
[editline]25th October 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=StupidUsername67;38179264]
not only is it their fault that they were shot at, but they would have been killed or seriously injured regardless later in life because it's obvious that they would not have strayed from their path of being criminals. it just happened sooner rather than later, and to be honest I'm glad it turned out this way because now they can't meet up on their rampage weekends and harm more innocent people.[/QUOTE]
Oh so it's like putting down a badly behaved dog now
[QUOTE=RobbL;38179314]I was replying to this-
You didn't consider self-defence as part of the equation there[/QUOTE]
Obviously the old man shot the kid, but I still think he's at least 80% at fault for taking such extreme risks.
This is why I find the old man innocent.
[QUOTE=RobbL;38179314]Oh so it's like putting down a badly behaved dog now[/QUOTE]
I don't think it's that extreme, but at the same time, I disagree with StupidUsername67 very solidly
what SHOULD have happened is they were punished, not killed. but the old man is still OK
saying "its ok they'd be dicks later on anyways" to me sounds too emotionless and way more cynical then I am :v:.
[QUOTE=RobbL;38179314]Oh so it's like putting down a badly behaved dog now[/QUOTE]
no because a badly behaved dog doesn't try to kill and rob people. it pisses on the carpet and maybe eats your newspaper.
[QUOTE=H4ngman;38177468]That's exactly the point. He [I]felt[/I] threatened. That was just his personal, subjective view of the situation, it has no legal basis. [/QUOTE]
Quite the opposite, it has tons of legal basis in the United States.
The kicker is that the police and the prosecutor have to agree with your logic. If a reasonable person would believe that their life was in danger by an action, then it is considered valid self defense in virtually all cases.
The concept of a reasonable attempt or reasonable person shows up frequently throughout law. It is the only way to make many laws function.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.