• 65 years old knocked off his bicycle by three kids. Results? One dead, one wounded, one in jail
    566 replies, posted
[QUOTE=StupidUsername67;38179368]no because a badly behaved dog doesn't try to kill people[/QUOTE] Yeah they do
[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] Three teenagers punch and kick an old man for his bike, and then get shot by the old man when they charge him. Would it have been better if the entire thing never happened, or, at the very least, no one was seriously injured or killed, sure it would. But, the outcome that happened is a whole lot better than the victim being killed; given the option between the perpetrators being seriously injured/killed, or the victim, which would you pick? While I do have a bit of sympathy for the kid that was killed, as I know just how easy it is to get pulled into shit you wouldn't otherwise do, I can't fault the old man for fearing for his life when one of the people who just attacked him is coming right at him. [quote]knowingly putting yourself into a situation where there's a chance of death =/= deserving death[/QUOTE] Completely true, but I'm not quite sure that's what Noss was saying.
[QUOTE=J!NX;38179333] 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] and in some weird utopian world where nothing bad happens they might have been punished, but in the real world shit happens. the kids fucked with the wrong guy, and now one of them is dead. thus is the way of life. [editline]25th October 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=RobbL;38179407]Yeah they do[/QUOTE] I don't know what badly behaved dogs you've been around, but the ones foaming at the mouth with red eyes aren't badly behaved, they're rabid. if you want to be a jackass that only sees things in extremes, then yes, those kids were rabid dogs waiting to be put down.
[QUOTE=J!NX;38179333]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] Yeah, his reaction is justified but the logically fallacy that keeps cropping up is the assumption that this means the death of the kid is also justified. Take a mentally unstable person who's being intimidated by some guy. He suddenly flips out and accidentally kills the other guy. His reaction is justified considering the combination of his mental condition and the situation, but it doesn't mean the other guy's death is justified also [editline]25th October 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=StupidUsername67;38179431] I don't know what badly behaved dogs you've been around, but the ones foaming at the mouth with red eyes aren't badly behaved, they're rabid.[/QUOTE] Uh, there are plenty of non-rabid dogs that attack people, especially children.
[QUOTE=StupidUsername67;38179368]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] dogs don't rob people because they have no percieved requirement or lust for material possession. they may however, try to steal your food if it smells good as fuck
[QUOTE=StupidUsername67;38179431]and in some weird utopian world where nothing bad happens they might have been punished, but in the real world shit happens. the kids fucked with the wrong guy, and now one of them is dead. thus is the way of life. [/QUOTE] Yeah. Reality is cruel, unfair, and brutal. Doesn't mean everything that happens is ok. The way that nature wants something to happen isn't very often the best route The the mistake you're making there is the same mistake that those who support Social Darwinism make
[QUOTE=WhatAmI;38175169]Stop being so righteous everyone makes mistakes, people don't deserve to get killed for them. You're ignorant and stupid if you believe it's justified to shoot kids just because they made a horrible mistake. They might've learned Have some respect.[/QUOTE] Ok. First off, let me get this straight. These kids [B]were already on probation[/B], so that means they had to have made mistakes before, right? They didn't learn then. Now you are saying that they would've learned better by stealing a man's money, his bike, and possibly his gun? The only lessons that I can see coming from that is: A) How to rob better. B) They can get away with it. And now that they have a gun, they can do both A and B more efficiently. Seriously, do people in this thread have brain damage or something?
[QUOTE=RR_Raptor65;38177245]I wouldn't count on it... There's always gonna be people like the ones who attacked this old man, even though it's 2012 that's no reason to think we're any more advanced than people who lived in the last century or even the last millennium.[/QUOTE] Well in the span of a hundred years there has been a massive amount of positive change and various improvements on schooling, human rights, woman rights, criminality, society, and general technology. In 60 years (since WW2) technology has exponentially improved. In about 20 years we invented a full network able to carry information from one side of the planet to another in a millisecond. I think we're pretty well set off for a bright future, given how fast things are improving. [editline]27th October 2012[/editline] Holy tits would you guys relax And you guys who talk shit about the old man or the three kids, go read the entire article and in detail please, that will probably avoid some shitstorms.
[QUOTE=JJ Isaac;38202432]Ok. First off, let me get this straight. These kids [B]were already on probation[/B], so that means they had to have made mistakes before, right? They didn't learn then. Now you are saying that they would've learned better by stealing a man's money, his bike, and possibly his gun? The only lessons that I can see coming from that is: A) How to rob better. B) They can get away with it. And now that they have a gun, they can do both A and B more efficiently. Seriously, do people in this thread have brain damage or something?[/QUOTE] You seem to be forgetting there's such a thing as a justice system Btw I hope you're not suggesting these kids deserve to die simply because they'd likely reoffend
[QUOTE=HazzaHardie;38167706]eh I think killing a child is a little harsh for attempted robbery[/QUOTE] I'd rather kill 3 children rather than potentially loose my own life. Call me egoistic, but that's how it is.
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;38205538]Well in the span of a hundred years there has been a massive amount of positive change and various improvements on schooling, human rights, woman rights, criminality, society, and general technology. In 60 years (since WW2) technology has exponentially improved. In about 20 years we invented a full network able to carry information from one side of the planet to another in a millisecond. I think we're pretty well set off for a bright future, given how fast things are improving. [editline]27th October 2012[/editline] Holy tits would you guys relax And you guys who talk shit about the old man or the three kids, go read the entire article and in detail please, that will probably avoid some shitstorms.[/QUOTE] That wasn't what I was getting at, technology and rights don't make the human any less human is what I was saying. Just go read the graffiti from Pompeii then start browsing Facebook for comparison, the Romans scratched on buildings and we type on keyboards. :v:
[QUOTE=Scot;38167688]Um what the fuck, how is a crazy old man killing a child who simply knocked him over a good thing? You guys are fucked up.[/QUOTE] Obviously you didn't read the post.
I would have just shot them in the legs. The thing is, You gotta disable them with enough pain that they cant act against you. It has to be temporary though. Nobody deserves death. Pain is another story
[QUOTE=Mysterious Mr.E;38230766]I would have just shot them in the legs. The thing is, You gotta disable them with enough pain that they cant act against you. It has to be temporary though. Nobody deserves death. Pain is another story[/QUOTE] good luck doing that whilst under pressure and operating on fight or flight reflex
I think Facepunch geniuenly gets off to stories of people being killed with thin excuses that their lives are in danger when it's obvious that it really isn't.
[QUOTE=Mysterious Mr.E;38230766]I would have just shot them in the legs. The thing is, You gotta disable them with enough pain that they cant act against you. It has to be temporary though. Nobody deserves death. Pain is another story[/QUOTE] I'm tired of people saying this. There is no such thing as a non-lethal shot, short of a miss. You cannot hit somebody with a bullet and be sure they won't die. If you shoot them in the leg you run a decent risk of hitting the femoral artery for example. The result is that they bleed out in extreme pain. not to mention you run the risk of missing since you are in a high-stress situation. Aiming for a small area of the body just increases the chance of missing, which isn't something you want when you believe your life is in danger. So can we please stop this "non-lethal shot" bullshit? [editline]29th October 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Governor Goblin;38231577]I think Facepunch geniuenly gets off to stories of people being killed with thin excuses that their lives are in danger when it's obvious that it really isn't.[/QUOTE] 3 people run up to and knock you off of your bike. You now have your back to a fence while one of the people is kicking you. Do you seriously think that isn't a legitimate threat?
[QUOTE=dogmachines;38231591] 3 people run up to and knock you off of your bike. You now have your back to a fence while one of the people is kicking you. Do you seriously think that isn't a legitimate threat?[/QUOTE] Not enough to try to start shooting. Like come the fuck on. You people are ridiculous. Every time there's a situation like this, no matter how fucking flimsy the justification, it's PERFECTLY acceptable to answer minor threats with lethal force.
[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;38231643]Not enough to try to start shooting. Like come the fuck on. You people are ridiculous. Every time there's a situation like this, no matter how fucking flimsy the justification, it's PERFECTLY acceptable to answer minor threats with lethal force.[/QUOTE] How is that a minor threat? I'd say a violent attack by multiple teenagers on a 65 year old is pretty damn threatening.
[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;38231643]Not enough to try to start shooting. Like come the fuck on. You people are ridiculous. Every time there's a situation like this, no matter how fucking flimsy the justification, it's PERFECTLY acceptable to answer minor threats with lethal force.[/QUOTE] ok yea young adults shoving you off your bike and proceeding to potentially try to kill you [and take your stuff] is a minor threat.
[QUOTE=HorizoN;38231780]ok yea young adults shoving you off your bike and proceeding to potentially try to kill you [and take your stuff] is a minor threat.[/QUOTE] Yeah, I'm pretty sure these kids were legit looking to murder this dude, good point Horizon. You people DO realise there is middle ground to "being killed" and "killing absolutely everyone" right?
[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;38231853]Yeah, I'm pretty sure these kids were legit looking to murder this dude, good point Horizon. You people DO realise there is middle ground to "being killed" and "killing absolutely everyone" right?[/QUOTE] Why would you be willing to bet your life that the 3 teens that just attacked you for no reason won't beat you to death? Would you not feel threatened if something like this happened to you? Even if they don't mean to, they could still do serious damage. The kid didn't deserve to die by any means, but all three of them put their life on the line when they decided to attack a random guy. I don't get the argument that he should have taken what was going to be at least a beating, and at worst get killed, because a kid that was attacking him didn't deserve to die.
[QUOTE=dogmachines;38231895]Why would you be willing to bet your life that the 3 teens that just attacked you for no reason won't beat you to death? Would you not feel threatened if something like this happened to you? Even if they don't mean to, they could still do serious damage. The kid didn't deserve to die by any means, but all three of them put their life on the line when they decided to attack a random guy. I don't get the argument that he should have taken what was going to be at least a beating, and at worst get killed, because a kid that was attacking him didn't deserve to die.[/QUOTE] This doesn't disprove the point that there are other things you can do in situations that don't involve you shooting a child.
[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;38231910]This doesn't disprove the point that there are other things you can do in situations that don't involve you shooting a child.[/QUOTE] Like what? At 65 I'm guessing the guy wasn't exactly in shape to take on 3 kids a third of his age at once. We've already been over how stupid a "non-lethal" shot would be, and the bystander effect is a very real thing. What should he have done, screamed for help and hoped that somebody else saved him? There's no way the police will get there that fast.
[QUOTE=dogmachines;38231932]Like what? At 65 I'm guessing the guy wasn't exactly in shape to take on 3 kids a third of his age at once. We've already been over how stupid a "non-lethal" shot would be, and the bystander effect is a very real thing. What should he have done, screamed for help and hoped that somebody else saved him? There's no way the police will get there that fast.[/QUOTE] My point isn't specifically but there ARE always alternatives. Like if they were prodding him with fucking knives sure, whatever. Let me pose a situation, would you have killed one of those kids?
[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;38231950]My point isn't specifically but there ARE always alternatives. Like if they were prodding him with fucking knives sure, whatever. Let me pose a situation, would you have killed one of those kids?[/QUOTE] cmon goblin, not two threads
[QUOTE=NuclearAnnhilation;38231968]cmon goblin, not two threads[/QUOTE] Do you have a fetish for unarmed people being killed?
[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;38231950]My point isn't specifically but there ARE always alternatives. Like if they were prodding him with fucking knives sure, whatever. Let me pose a situation, would you have killed one of those kids?[/QUOTE] Hard to say, I wasn't in that situation. If 3 people were attacking me and I feared for my life, then I would shoot. And what are the alternatives? Because getting beaten with your back against a wall doesn't leave a whole lot of options...
yes no but really honestly, this thread has all ready beaten it to death. its pretty much agreed that the old dude was terrified and just fired. i doubt he wanted to kill anyone, it was just self defense and something unfortunate happened theres no point in arguing this, ill stop. its just dragging this thread out even more than it all ready has
[QUOTE=NuclearAnnhilation;38231997]yes no but really honestly, this thread has all ready beaten it to death. its pretty much agreed that the old dude was terrified and just fired. i doubt he wanted to kill anyone, it was just self defense and something unfortunate happened theres no point in arguing this, ill stop. its just dragging this thread out even more than it all ready has[/QUOTE] uh okay if you're going to just start shooting because you're scared then why own a fucking gun in the first place? If you don't know how to use it properly, don't use it.
[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;38232014]uh okay if you're going to just start shooting because you're scared then why own a fucking gun in the first place? If you don't know how to use it properly, don't use it.[/QUOTE] If you don't fear for your life then you aren't legally justified in firing... But stop. Like he said, this has been drug out far too long.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.