Hardcore Til I Die Posted July 26, 2011 Share Posted July 26, 2011 Agreed, he deserved to die for pointing a gun at an old man and then proceeding to use it when he felt his cowardly life was in danger. Pointing a gun that he didn't intend to use. It's clear that he didn't intend to use it because, well, he didn't and there was nothing stopping him from doing so. Using it later when his life was in danger is fair game. You still haven't given a half decent reason why he couldn't leave it to the Police though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yusuf M. Veteran Posted July 26, 2011 Veteran Share Posted July 26, 2011 So far all we have here is the pursuit of a criminal, and in most US states citizens can make an arrest. Strike two. The precipitating act that reactivates the victims right to self defense by whatever means necessary. Strike three - bye-bye. Again, the veteran spotted the armed robber first and approached him. The fact that he did that nullifies any sort of self defence. By going after the armed robber, the veteran willingly put his own life at risk because he knew the individual was armed with a gun. He essentially cornered him. Also, the armed robber didn't know he would be pursued so there's no reason for him to shoot unless he thought his life was in danger. So, the facts show that the armed robber was acting in self defence by shooting at the veteran (in the vehicle). Agreed, he deserved to die for pointing a gun at an old man and then proceeding to use it when he felt his cowardly life was in danger. According to the law, it would be wrong and illegal to do that. However, whether that's morally wrong or right can be debated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleNeutrino Veteran Posted July 26, 2011 Veteran Share Posted July 26, 2011 being a criminal never ends well for anyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vladmphoto Posted July 26, 2011 Share Posted July 26, 2011 Again, the veteran spotted the armed robber first and approached him. The fact that he did that nullifies any sort of self defence. By going after the armed robber, the veteran willingly put his own life at risk because he knew the individual was armed with a gun. He essentially cornered him. Also, the armed robber didn't know he would be pursued so there's no reason for him to shoot unless he thought his life was in danger. So, the facts show that the armed robber was acting in self defence by shooting at the veteran (in the vehicle). According to the law, it would be wrong and illegal to do that. However, whether that's morally wrong or right can be debated. Just because something is law does not make it right. Let me put it another way. Why do you think we have prisons? They don't exist to just punish people, they exist to quarantine. The people that put criminals in prison also make the assumption that they will strike again and keep them isolated from society to prevent more harm. I DO NOT have sympathy for criminals because they aren't well in the head so excuse me for not giving a criminal the benefit of the doubt. For the ones that say he clearly had no intent to use the gun it may be true for what he set out to do but if confronted or crossed I highly doubt he wouldn't use it. Why put others at risk? He would have gone to prison anyway so his life would have been over. This way I won't have to be responsible for paying my tax money to keep his sorry ass in prison. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocM Posted July 26, 2011 Share Posted July 26, 2011 He shot at the old guy & son, twice at least including just as he got hit. I'd have dropped him too but probably by other means, and the cops would basically say 'thank you' for saving them the trouble. No pity for fools in these parts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unknown_97784568745 Posted July 26, 2011 Share Posted July 26, 2011 have a gun shoved in his face is an act worthy of death. What if the gun turns out to be unloaded, or better yet, fake? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-KJ Posted July 26, 2011 Share Posted July 26, 2011 What if the gun turns out to be unloaded, or better yet, fake? What if this? What if that? If I'm being threatened with a gun pointed at me, the last thing I'm going to be thinking is whether or not it's fake. Any idiot doing such a thing deserves what he gets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocM Posted July 26, 2011 Share Posted July 26, 2011 And legally you don't have to determine if it's fake, unloaded (how do you determine that externally with an automatic?) or even a BB/pellet gun (many do not have the red barrel ring or they've been removed) - if it looks like a gun and it's being pointed at you in a manner that you find threatening that's enough to justify deadly force. Period. Edit: on the BB/pellet gun ID - I've seen people say that these could be ID'ed as non-firearms by their tiny hole; .177" vs the usual .22" to .50" for pistols. That's an incorrect argument because there are 2 pistol rounds with a .17" bullet - the .17 HMR and the .17 HM2, both flat shooting high velocity rounds. Now - if you had either of these pointed at you and you were armed, what would you do? How do you tell real from Memorex? Example of a .17 HMR - the Taurus Tracker And this is a .177 Crosman C11 BB gun (CO2 powered) - authentic right down to having a Picatinny rail for a laser sight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yusuf M. Veteran Posted July 26, 2011 Veteran Share Posted July 26, 2011 Just because something is law does not make it right. Let me put it another way. Why do you think we have prisons? They don't exist to just punish people, they exist to quarantine. The people that put criminals in prison also make the assumption that they will strike again and keep them isolated from society to prevent more harm. I DO NOT have sympathy for criminals because they aren't well in the head so excuse me for not giving a criminal the benefit of the doubt. For the ones that say he clearly had no intent to use the gun it may be true for what he set out to do but if confronted or crossed I highly doubt he wouldn't use it. Why put others at risk? He would have gone to prison anyway so his life would have been over. This way I won't have to be responsible for paying my tax money to keep his sorry ass in prison. If you meant morally right, then I agree. What I meant earlier was that it's wrong in the sense that it's not in accordance with the law. As for prisons, people are put in there for crimes they have committed or if they're awaiting trial. They aren't put in there for crimes they might commit so no assumption is made that they'd "strike again". Also, you can't assume that all criminals aren't "well in the head" because crimes vary in severity. An armed robber may be sane but a serial killer may be suffering from an undiagnosed mental illness. Also, it's not right to justify his death with his likely incarceration had he been alive. With that kind of logic, people in prison would be executed because of the expenses they'd incur regardless of their crime. As much as I dislike the armed robber's actions, he had the right to live as well as the right to a fair trial. He shot at the old guy & son, twice at least including just as he got hit. I'd have dropped him too but probably by other means, and the cops would basically say 'thank you' for saving them the trouble. No pity for fools in these parts. That's understandable if your life was in danger as that would be self defence. However, it wouldn't be self defence if you purposely put yourself in a situation like that while knowing your life would be in danger. What if this? What if that? If I'm being threatened with a gun pointed at me, the last thing I'm going to be thinking is whether or not it's fake. Any idiot doing such a thing deserves what he gets. If you genuinely feel that your life is in danger, then you have the right to defend yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unknown_97784568745 Posted July 26, 2011 Share Posted July 26, 2011 What if this? What if that? If I'm being threatened with a gun pointed at me, the last thing I'm going to be thinking is whether or not it's fake. Any idiot doing such a thing deserves what he gets. And legally you don't have to determine if it's fake, unloaded (how do you determine that externally with an automatic?) or even a BB/pellet gun (many do not have the red barrel ring or they've been removed) - if it looks like a gun and it's being pointed at you in a manner that you find threatening that's enough to justify deadly force. Period. Sure, while he's threatening you, it's self-defense. Fake gun or not. I'm talking about hunting him down and killing him. Green_Eye seems to think that a robbery at gunpoint, where not a single round is shot mind you, justifies hunting down the robber and killing him. So I posed him the question, what if the gun used in an armed robbery turns out to be unloaded or even fake. Not only does he kill someone who already ceased to pose any danger to him, the robber in fact never did pose any danger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocM Posted July 26, 2011 Share Posted July 26, 2011 Lessee; Guy robbed me at gunpoint is aiming at me again - check Guy fires several times - fortunately missing, but stil - check Guy is still waving gun around - check I either run him down like the retired Marine or.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yusuf M. Veteran Posted July 26, 2011 Veteran Share Posted July 26, 2011 Lessee; Guy robbed me at gunpoint is aiming at me again - check Guy fires several times - fortunately missing, but stil - check Guy is still waving gun around - check I either run him down like the retired Marine or.... http://pictures.auctionarms.com/5866195904/10307678/acf15ed.jpg Let's see: Would a reasonable person defend their life by killing an armed perpetrator? I'd think so. Would a reasonable person wait for the police to arrive and do their job after the armed perpetrator fled? I'd think so. Would a reasonable person pursue an armed individual and put their life at risk again for stolen cash? I don't think so. Would you put yourself in a situation like that? And by that, I mean pursuing the individual. I don't think so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocM Posted July 26, 2011 Share Posted July 26, 2011 Happens every day when people follow a perp so they can tell the cops where to start - otherwise they're in the wind and could escape to hurt someone else. This guy, however, turned and attacked again, more than once. His bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
htcz Posted July 27, 2011 Share Posted July 27, 2011 Even though he got robbed, the vet is going to get years for this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocM Posted July 27, 2011 Share Posted July 27, 2011 KTRK in Houston sez ".... there are no charges pending against Kobobel." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Green_Eye Posted July 27, 2011 Share Posted July 27, 2011 Sure, while he's threatening you, it's self-defense. Fake gun or not. I'm talking about hunting him down and killing him. Green_Eye seems to think that a robbery at gunpoint, where not a single round is shot mind you, justifies hunting down the robber and killing him. So I posed him the question, what if the gun used in an armed robbery turns out to be unloaded or even fake. Not only does he kill someone who already ceased to pose any danger to him, the robber in fact never did pose any danger. What if's are irrelevant, his gun was loaded and he used it with intent to kill. How he got into that situation I care not, the only fact of the matter here is the old man did not go out to be the local vigilante he was perfectly content minding his own business until this guy come to rob him at gun point, in the following pursuit the robber lost his life. You play with fire you get burnt, karma is a bitch and all that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
articuno1au Posted July 27, 2011 Share Posted July 27, 2011 Regardless of the eventual legal outcome of his actions, I think the old man is a hero.. Not like his previous service record didn't suggest that >.< Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vladmphoto Posted July 27, 2011 Share Posted July 27, 2011 Also, this isn't a usual situation. The old man is war vet. At one point in his life he was trained to be a killing machine by Uncle Sam. To be fair, most people that have been through war are not normal when they return. Who knows, having a gun pointed at him may have reminded of a horror from the war in which he may have lost his entire platoon. If we're going to be sympathetic to the armed crook then the vet also deserves the benefit of the doubt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts