Hardcore Til I Die Posted July 24, 2011 Share Posted July 24, 2011 Personally, with our current justice system, criminals should consider themselves lucky. People are given far too many chances to **** up these days and it does a heart good to see an old Marine vet take this guy out, unintentional as it may have been. Nonetheless, one less pathetic soul walking the streets, terrorizing innocent people. The amount of stupidity in this thread is alarming. Nobody was seriously injured or killed in the commission of the offence. How can you possibly think he deserved to die? All I can say is thank god you have no bearing on the justice system. If you did, people would be going to Prison for petty thefts and stuff like that... Oh no, its a lack of respect for authority, and for innocent people, which is the problem, which exactly is the reason vigilante justice is needed. Hence why more police presence is needed. If people have no respect for authority it's because the authority isn't doing its' job efficiently enough. I'm not saying that that's the fault of anyone in your Police Force, but clearly a lack of respect signifies that people think they can get away with whatever it is they're doing, which usually comes because a Police Force isn't performing adequately (possibly due to lack of staff). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
farmeunit Posted July 24, 2011 Share Posted July 24, 2011 No, it isn't. "an eye of an eye" isn't the way our society works (I'm from the UK but am fully aware the US is not THAT different, especially when it comes to killing). Your post doesn't take into account that the robber had already left, having not seriously injured the vet. The robber no longer posed a threat when he was killed. Revenge killing isn't a right and you're an idiot if you think it is If the criminal does it once, he'll do it again. Just because he didn't shoot this guy, doesn't mean he wouldn't kill 10 other people that don't give him what they want. If you commit a crime, you need to realize there are consequences. You can't count on the courts to do much sometimes. They stick it to some people for small crimes, and people that commit major crimes get off with nothing. This criminal got what he deserved, IMO. You threaten to kill someone, and hit them with a gun, you've got something coming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elessar Posted July 24, 2011 Share Posted July 24, 2011 The amount of stupidity in this thread is alarming. Nobody was seriously injured or killed in the commission of the offence. How can you possibly think he deserved to die? All I can say is thank god you have no bearing on the justice system. If you did, people would be going to Prison for petty thefts and stuff like that... He put a LOADED GUN to the guys forehead, aka, gun to his face. The criminal deserved to die for putting someone in that position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hardcore Til I Die Posted July 24, 2011 Share Posted July 24, 2011 If the criminal does it once, he'll do it again. Just because he didn't shoot this guy, doesn't mean he wouldn't kill 10 other people that don't give him what they want. If you commit a crime, you need to realize there are consequences. You can't count on the courts to do much sometimes. They stick it to some people for small crimes, and people that commit major crimes get off with nothing. This criminal got what he deserved, IMO. You threaten to kill someone, and hit them with a gun, you've got something coming. It's not for you to say that. A lot of people who are not inherently bad people commit crimes of desperation. Nobody knows whether this robber has done it before or whether he would do it again if he was still alive. Don't make assumptions. The marine found him easily enough so I'm sure the Police could have. The robber should be in prison not in the ground. His offence didn't warrant his killing; if it did your country would have capital punishment for armed robberies. He put a LOADED GUN to the guys forehead, aka, gun to his face. The criminal deserved to die for putting someone in that position. He didn't use it. The weapon was clearly used for leverage and not to cause harm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sonyman Posted July 24, 2011 Share Posted July 24, 2011 pretty sure he put himself in danger in ww2 also since he was a 75 year old retired marine. You must not really be "Hardcore till i die" Your math skills are seriously lacking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lucas Posted July 24, 2011 Share Posted July 24, 2011 Your math skills are seriously lacking. Maybe it's history skills? :p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hjf288 Posted July 24, 2011 Share Posted July 24, 2011 Good Riddance, Hardcore Till I Die sounds like one of those ridiculous human right activists that believes even the worst of criminals should get a slap on the wrist because it wasnt their fault, they had a bad upbringing blah blah The old man went to catch the guy, not kill him.. the guy fired at him so he hit him with the car.. he was attempting to get off another shot so he hit him again with bad consequences for the robber... Boo hoo... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreenMartian Posted July 24, 2011 Share Posted July 24, 2011 It's not for you to say that. A lot of people who are not inherently bad people commit crimes of desperation. Nobody knows whether this robber has done it before or whether he would do it again if he was still alive. Don't make assumptions. And yet here we are making assumptions about what goes on in the old man's mind. He's seventy, and been through wars. Someone put a loaded gun to his head saying he'd kill him. This is a guy who's been shot at, cheating death at every turn. Being treated like that, thinking he went through the war just to die like that, I can't even begin to imagine what goes on through that mind of his (or whatever is left of it..) So I'm making assumptions myself. What of it? This thread is full of assumptions anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hardcore Til I Die Posted July 24, 2011 Share Posted July 24, 2011 Good Riddance, Hardcore Till I Die sounds like one of those ridiculous human right activists that believes even the worst of criminals should get a slap on the wrist because it wasnt their fault, they had a bad upbringing blah blah The old man went to catch the guy, not kill him.. the guy fired at him so he hit him with the car.. he was attempting to get off another shot so he hit him again with bad consequences for the robber... Boo hoo... Nope. Just think that we need to weight up the offence that was committed and the punishment the offender received. The offender didn't kill anybody or even seriously harm them, yet he is now dead. Had the guy killed somebody I wouldn't be anywhere near as against what happened as I am now. There are ways to deal with someone who has wronged you without killing them. And yet here we are making assumptions about what goes on in the old man's mind. He's seventy, and been through wars. Someone put a loaded gun to his head saying he'd kill him. This is a guy who's been shot at, cheating death at every turn. Being treated like that, thinking he went through the war just to die like that, I can't even begin to imagine what goes on through that mind of his (or whatever is left of it..) So I'm making assumptions myself. What of it? This thread is full of assumptions anyway. It was clear that he wasn't going to die like that though, because the offender left... if he died like that it would've been because he chased after the offender and got killed in the process. He put himself into danger; he should've let the Police deal with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hjf288 Posted July 24, 2011 Share Posted July 24, 2011 He had intent to seriously harm, he shot at the guy and now he is dead... That's fair Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hardcore Til I Die Posted July 24, 2011 Share Posted July 24, 2011 He had intent to seriously harm, he shot at the guy and now he is dead... That's fair He shot at the marine in self-defence because the marine was driving a car at him. It's not fair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chconline Veteran Posted July 24, 2011 Veteran Share Posted July 24, 2011 Wait... I think we are all forgetting one really important thing: How's the Lexus? In other news, someone died. Glad it's not the ex-marine. Case closed :p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elessar Posted July 24, 2011 Share Posted July 24, 2011 He shot at the marine in self-defence because the marine was driving a car at him. It's not fair. Um, hello?! He used the same gun previously to rob the guy. Again, karma. Guy deserved what he got. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hardcore Til I Die Posted July 24, 2011 Share Posted July 24, 2011 Um, hello?! He used the same gun previously to rob the guy. Again, karma. Guy deserved what he got. Define "used." He pointed the gun at the guy, sure, but he didn't shoot him with it. The only time he actually used the weapon was when he was about to be ran over. He used the gun to protect himself. Up until that point he only used it for leverage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ruciz Posted July 24, 2011 Share Posted July 24, 2011 Lawsuit in 5... 4... 3... 2... 1... from who? the funeral home? he fired shots!! after you shoot at another human the only law is survival... Guess the robber should have taken target practice, then this story would be the other way around. I would have ran over him, then popped it in neutral and burned the **** out of him revving the engine. This looks like a cut and dry case Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hardcore Til I Die Posted July 24, 2011 Share Posted July 24, 2011 from who? the funeral home? he fired shots!! after you shoot at another human the only law is survival... Guess the robber should have taken target practice, then this story would be the other way around. I would have ran over him, then popped it in neutral and burned the **** out of him revving the engine. This looks like a cut and dry case He only shot at the marine because he was driving the car at him! ... not cut and dry at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ruciz Posted July 24, 2011 Share Posted July 24, 2011 Define "used." He pointed the gun at the guy, sure, but he didn't shoot him with it. The only time he actually used the weapon was when he was about to be ran over. He used the gun to protect himself. Up until that point he only used it for leverage. using for leverage is the same as using it in a US court of law though. You had motive and intent - the gun was loaded, as the robber you would have LITTLE grounds to defend yourself legally Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Gary7 Subscriber² Posted July 24, 2011 Subscriber² Share Posted July 24, 2011 Define "used." He pointed the gun at the guy, sure, but he didn't shoot him with it. The only time he actually used the weapon was when he was about to be ran over. He used the gun to protect himself. Up until that point he only used it for leverage. He was a criminal. He shot at the Marine twice. Read the OP--Armed Crook Loses Life with Marine Vet. It does not say that he was a fine upstanding citizen! Will he be charged? Yes he will. Will he be convicted? Hell no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ruciz Posted July 24, 2011 Share Posted July 24, 2011 He only shot at the marine because he was driving the car at him! ... not cut and dry at all. and the marine was only driving the car at him because he just robbed him at gunpoint and threatened his and his brother life, when shots were fired of course he was going to plow down the gunman... stray bullets kill thousands. Hitting him with a car is less traumatic than being hit with a 9mm bullet in the forehead. The marine could have taken a rifle and shot back.. how you think that would have ended? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charisma Veteran Posted July 24, 2011 Veteran Share Posted July 24, 2011 Psshhhyeah. Y'all hippies be crazy. Dude comes barging into your house, with a gun, steals your money, you'd want to get him too. And you think a Marine is going to put up with that? Punk absolutely deserved it, and the guy even felt bad afterwards for killing the thief rather than just hurting/stopping him. No jury with any common sense is going to come down too hard on him, especially at his age. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Gary7 Subscriber² Posted July 24, 2011 Subscriber² Share Posted July 24, 2011 There clearly isn't enough of a Police presence where you live then... vigilante-ism isn't the answer though. Like I said where I live the police are at least armed. You do not live in The US and you know nothing about what life is like here other what you read on your biased news media. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hardcore Til I Die Posted July 24, 2011 Share Posted July 24, 2011 using for leverage is the same as using it in a US court of law though. You had motive and intent - the gun was loaded, as the robber you would have LITTLE grounds to defend yourself legally The fact that the gun wasn't used to cause harm would be a mitigating factor in the court case. The guy would get a much longer sentence if he shot someone during the course of the robbery. He was a criminal. He shot at the Marine twice. Read the OP--Armed Crook Loses Life with Marine Vet. It does not say that he was a fine upstanding citizen! Will he be charged? Yes he will. Will he be convicted? Hell no. If he's not convicted it'll be a major injustice. The robber was no longer an immediate threat, so there was no reason for the marine to kill him. If the marine had killed him during the course of the robbery it would be completely different, but the robber had already left and was no longer a serious threat to the marine. and the marine was only driving the car at him because he just robbed him at gunpoint and threatened his and his brother life, when shots were fired of course he was going to plow down the gunman... stray bullets kill thousands. Hitting him with a car is less traumatic than being hit with a 9mm bullet in the forehead. The marine could have taken a rifle and shot back.. how you think that would have ended? The marine wasn't justified in driving the car at him as the robber was no longer a threat. He should have left the Police to it. Like I said where I live the police are at least armed. You do not live in The US and you know nothing about what life is like here other what you read on your biased news media. I rarely read about the US to be honest. Like I said, if the Police were efficient enough in doing their jobs and there was a realistic prospect of conviction when a crime was committed, people would be less likely to commit offences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Gary7 Subscriber² Posted July 24, 2011 Subscriber² Share Posted July 24, 2011 The fact that the gun wasn't used to cause harm would be a mitigating factor in the court case. The guy would get a much longer sentence if he shot someone during the course of the robbery. If he's not convicted it'll be a major injustice. The robber was no longer an immediate threat, so there was no reason for the marine to kill him. If the marine had killed him during the course of the robbery it would be completely different, but the robber had already left and was no longer a serious threat to the marine. The marine wasn't justified in driving the car at him as the robber was no longer a threat. He should have left the Police to it. I rarely read about the US to be honest. Like I said, if the Police were efficient enough in doing their jobs and there was a realistic prospect of conviction when a crime was committed, people would be less likely to commit offences. I rarely read about the US to be honest. Like I said, if the Police were efficient enough in doing their jobs and there was a realistic prospect of conviction when a crime was committed, people would be less likely to commit offences. Then you know nothing of what you are saying. There is not a jury in this country that would convict this Marine. As a former Police Office I can tell you that the Police cannot be everywhere at one time. Police here as well as the Bobbies in Your country do NOT prevent crime, they respond to it. The Police are not on every corner of every city, they are NOT the National Guard. If this Criminal did not try to rob this Marine, there would not have been a crime committed and he would still be alive. Thanks to this Marine there is one less scumbag on the street. In some states you can use deadly force if your property is in jeopardy in others you can't. This Marine will never be convicted and this criminal will still be dead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lamp0 Posted July 24, 2011 Share Posted July 24, 2011 It seems to me like the 75 year old couldn't control himself; he couldn't stop himself from going after this guy. That's a sign of weakness right there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hardcore Til I Die Posted July 24, 2011 Share Posted July 24, 2011 Then you know nothing of what you are saying. There is not a jury in this country that would convict this Marine. As a former Police Office I can tell you that the Police cannot be everywhere at one time. Police here as well as the Bobbies in Your country do NOT prevent crime, they respond to it. The Police are not on every corner of every city, they are NOT the National Guard. If this Criminal did not try to rob this Marine, there would not have been a crime committed and he would still be alive. Thanks to this Marine there is one less scumbag on the street. In some states you can use deadly force if your property is in jeopardy in others you can't. This Marine will never be convicted and this criminal will still be dead. As I said, if he's not convicted then a serious miscarriage of justice will have occurred and there's something seriously wrong with your country if that's allowed to happen. He killed a man who wasn't an immediate threat to him in a revenge attack. That is completely over the top. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts