65 y/o man kills teen mugger, wounds another

[Memphis]

I'm sure you had an awful experience and for that, I feel for you, but not everybody is the same. You can't say that what I said is "BS" just because it didn't work in your experience. Different circumstances result in different outcomes.

And would you suggest everyone make the mistake I did to give the bad guy the benefit of the doubt? Intimidate them hoping they'll run and then have a high probably of dying? I believe that the only thing that kept me alive is that I managed to keep them from getting my gun. I thought like you until that advice almost got me killed. The law never even caught the guys that where after me despite that this was in a small town and they had them on video and that I picked them out of a photo lineup. Never arrested, all pending warrants even now.

[Hardcore Til I Die]

And would you suggest everyone make the mistake I did to give the bad guy the benefit of the doubt? Intimidate them hoping they'll run and then have a high probably of dying? I believe that the only thing that kept me alive is that I managed to keep them from getting my gun. I thought like you until that advice almost got me killed.

They were 15 years old and below.. still children in the eyes of the law. I'm sure a gun would have intimidated them.

[jwjw1]

Johnson was on probation for previous offenses. Juvenile probation officers had gone to his Oakbrook residence earlier Wednesday and found the three teens playing video games.

They told the two 15-year-olds to leave. The officers put an electronic monitoring device on Johnson's ankle, ordered him to stay home and report to their office with his parents at 4 p.m.

Instead, the three met up and decided to jump and rob random victims.

'enough said'

[Memphis]

They were 15 years old and below.. still children in the eyes of the law. I'm sure a gun would have intimidated them.

I doubt you have ever met a modern 15 year old gang kid. And again, the guys that accosted me where between the ages of 16 and 20, I know that because of some of the warrants issued.

[LaP]

Yes killing someone CAN be a good thing

Killing someone can be a necessity. It's never a good thing.

This is okay because the man is old and defended himself. Not because he killed a criminal.

Killing someone is bad. You do it because you have to protect yourself or someone else not because you think it's right to do it or because you think the person you kill deserve it.

I'm sure the old man is not happy about having killed someone. If he is then there's something wrong. But i'm 100% sure he is not.

[mokthraka]

BS I figured this out the hard way and almost got killed. (Theirs a thread I made about what happened to me if you look). Ever since then I have been a smart gun owner.

did it happen at a gas station? I rememember reading something like that. i can't remember who posted it. Or what forum it was on even

[Memphis]

Killing someone can be a necessity. It's never a good thing.

This is okay because the man is old and defended himself. Not because he killed a criminal.

Killing someone is bad. You do it because you have to protect yourself or someone else not because you think it's right to do it or because you think the person you kill deserve it.

I'm sure the old man is not happy about having killed someone. If he is then there's something wrong. But i'm 100% sure he is not.

QFT. Death is never something to be happy about, but it can become an unavoidable necessity.

did it happen at a gas station? I rememember reading something like that. i can't remember who posted it. Or what forum it was on even

Yeah that was me a few years back on Neowin.

[Hardcore Til I Die]

And would you suggest everyone make the mistake I did to give the bad guy the benefit of the doubt? Intimidate them hoping they'll run and then have a high probably of dying? I believe that the only thing that kept me alive is that I managed to keep them from getting my gun. I thought like you until that advice almost got me killed. The law never even caught the guys that where after me despite that this was in a small town and they had them on video and that I picked them out of a photo lineup. Never arrested, all pending warrants even now.

You added more to your post since I replied.

Look, you didn't kill someone and you're alive! If anything your experience only strengthens my point. Of course it's terrible that they haven't been brought to justice..but at least you don't have to live with the weight of taking someone's life.

[Memphis]

You added more to your post since I replied.

Look, you didn't kill someone and you're alive! If anything your experience only strengthens my point. Of course it's terrible that they haven't been brought to justice..but at least you don't have to live with the weight of taking someone's life.

No it doesn't, I survived battered and bruised because I was lucky enough to keep them from grabbing my gun. That's it, if I had lost grip I would be dead I am sure of it. Many others either wont be so lucky or will have a gun pulled on them. People do NOT run when a gun is pulled on them, hell they don't even put their hands up. Hell people have a tendancy to not even react in a way you would espect when seeing someone get shot. Watch how this lady reacts when this cop gunned down this poor sob in Seattle.

Is that how you would imagine you'd react? Startled and then "eh oh well" and keep walking.

[LaP]

I agree wholeheartedly.

A certain phrase is used often in UK law, and that is "a person of reasonable firmness." I'm sorry, but a person of reasonable firmness wouldn't feel that their life was in danger just from being punched in the face. As you said, the teenager didn't brandish a weapon, so there was really no reason to feel that his life was in danger.

You need to take into consideration that the guy is 65 yo.

If the guy would be 40 yo then i would totally agree with you. A 40 yo guy killing un-armed 15 and 16 yo teens who try to rob and/or beat him would imo not be acceptable. But he is 65 yo and at this age i understand you can be afraid of 3 un-armed teens trying to rob and/or beat you.

[Memphis]

You need to take into consideration that the guy is 65 yo.

If the guy would be 40 yo then i would totally agree with you. A 40 yo guy killing un-armed 15 and 16 yo teens who try to rob and/or beat him would imo not be acceptable. But he is 65 yo and at this age i understand you can be afraid of 3 un-armed teens trying to rob and/or beat you.

Also when I was 15 many of the other 15 year old where between 6 foot and 6 foot 5 and benched a 250. I don't think many understand the physical build of the average 15 year old male.

[Hardcore Til I Die]

No it doesn't, I survived battered and bruised because I was lucky enough to keep them from grabbing my gun. That's it, if I had lost grip I would be dead I am sure of it. Many others either wont be so lucky or will have a gun pulled on them. People do NOT run when a gun is pulled on them, hell they don't even put their hands up. Hell people have a tendancy to not even react in a way you would espect when seeing someone get shot. Watch how this lady reacts when this cop gunned down this poor sob in Seattle.

Is that how you would imagine you'd react? Startled and then "eh oh well" and keep walking.

She was probably scared ****less...what do you expect people to do, react like those idiots do when they got their cars back on pimp my ride?

"oh my gawwwwwwwd!!!!!!!"

Again, you are trying to use your experience and extrapolate it to everybody. Saying things like "people don't even put their hands up when a gun is pulled on them" is so silly.

[Memphis]

She was probably scared ****less...what do you expect people to do, react like those idiots do when they got their cars back on pimp my ride?

"oh my gawwwwwwwd!!!!!!!"

Again, you are trying to use your experience and extrapolate it to everybody. Saying things like "people don't even put their hands up when a gun is pulled on them" is so silly.

My point if that you can never be sure so why take the chance of dying yourself? In essence, your asking people to put the life and rationality (you don't know if their high etc) of their attacker before their own sense of reason and judgement. And again, your kind of advice came close to ending my life.

[Hardcore Til I Die]

My point if that you can never be sure so why take the chance of dying yourself? In essence, your asking people to put the life and rationality (you don't know if their high etc) of their attacker before their own sense of reason and judgement. And again, your kind of advice came close to ending my life.

"judgment" that's exactly what people need in a situation like this. Warn first shoot later. Clearly it's worth at least trying to warn them first.

[NEVER85]

Good riddance. Burn in hell.

[Oscar De Leon]

Sad story, sad that someone had to die, if it was not the teen the senior could have been the one or injured. Another sad issue here is the fact that every single comment did NOT mention parenting, where are the parents of the three teens involved?.. I'll bet my life on it, that the parents of the dead teen will sue someone out of that.. only in America..

[Yusuf M. Veteran]

Likewise, I respectfully disagree.

I wouldn't ever assume they would commit a crime again, but my views consider the fact they already have and could again; if someone has committed a crime, it's proven they are capable of committing that crime. Suggesting it's possible they would commit the crime again isn't illogical; it's possible that just about everyone can commit a crime, but of course if people have done so before, we know for sure they are capable of doing so.

I personally feel that the severity of theft and robbery?especially in cases where a weapon is used to make the victim(s) fear for their lives?is very close to the level of severity regarding murder. People's lives have been ruined due to robbery or theft. Consider the following:

A university student is walking around with his laptop in his bag, about to print out and hand in his finished thesis or dissertation, a few hours before the deadline date. On his way to the hand-in office, he is mugged and the laptop is stolen. He did not back up any of his work. Due to the university's policy of all late or retaken theses and dissertations only being able to achieve 40% or below (a policy that most universities in England enforce), the student will no longer achieve the very high grade he was set for. This mugger has ruined the student's degree and jeopardised his entire future prospects. The student may now very likely not be able to attain the career he has desired all of his life. The reason he went to university and worked very hard for four years was to gain a job that requires a great grade in that degree, and because of a mugging right at the end of the degree, he has little to show for that hard work.

The above is an extreme example, but it could well happen. The student would have been silly not to back up his work, but that fact wouldn't justify the mugging and the devastating effect it would have on the student's degree and life would still be entirely the fault of the mugger.

While it's the case that we should be weary of muggers in society, we shouldn't have to be; that is a direct result of muggers having mugged in the first place (the same is the case regarding robbery, murder, and other crimes). I shouldn't have to look around me to check there are no potential muggers, when removing my expensive phone from my pocket to change a track I'm listening to, while walking alone at night; I, likewise, shouldn't have to be weary of others around me, in case I am attacked or mugged, while I'm walking around at night with headphones in and music on a high volume. I do both of those, though, to ensure I am safe, and I only do that because crime exists. Regarding this case, the student should not have had to backup his work due to the possibility of being mugged, but he did have to, as the case proved.

It's important to consider, when thinking about the above example, many people deem mugging to not be a very severe crime, including many muggers. This is why I deem all mugging, theft, and robbery to be very severe; the robber or thief does not know how their crime will impact the victim(s), yet they commit the crime anyway. That is also why I don't feel the punishment should fit the impact the crime had on the specific victim(s); I feel the punishment should fit the worst possible impact that any victims of that crime could possibly endure. As mentioned, I further feel the punishment should be one that ensures the criminal is not able to steal or intentionally harm another person ever again.

Regarding your comment about the criminal being locked up and isolated from society: that's all well and good, but thieves and robbers are usually allowed out of prison at some point while they're alive, especially if the crime was their first offence, so sending them to prison doesn't solve the problem (as mentioned, they could possibly commit a crime again). As I've mentioned, putting them down does offer some social good: It ensures a previously proven criminal (someone who has been proven to be capable of inflicting such danger upon society) is removed from society, thus ensuring society is definitely that little bit safer (rather than allowing them out of prison and just hoping they don't reoffend).

We put dogs and other animals down after they have intentionally harmed others (something I agree with), likely because we cannot communicate with the animals to understand why they did it or teach them not to do it again. Likewise, it is impossible to teach some criminals not to reoffend. Removing them from society will ensure they can never intentionally harm others, just like removing any harmful animal from society.

I think it's important to mention that theft and robbery are quite different. Both involve depriving someone of their property; however, the latter involves the use of violence or threat of violence. That's why most governments view robbery as a more severe crime than theft. And that's why I feel that the punishment for robbery should be greater than the punishment for theft.

The example you gave is a bit extreme but it illustrates the damage that can be done with robbery. I just think that it's unfair to paint all criminals with the same brush. What if someone commits fraud (which is a form of theft)? Should they be killed for their crime? Sometimes, people that commit fraud steal a lot more than an armed robber or petty theif.

Consider these examples:

1) I'm walking downtown and I see a woman with an expensive brand name purse. I figure it'd be easy to steal from her so I approach her and grab her by the arm. She doesn't let go of her purse so I threaten her with violence (e.g. "I'll break your arm if you don't let go.") She lets go of her purse and a short while after the incident, I am caught by a police officer and arrested.

In a situation like that, would it be fair for me to be executed?

2) I'm walking downtown and I see a little boy with a expensive brand name pair of shoes. I figure it'd be easy to steal from him so I approach him and grab him by the leg. He resists but I easily overcome him and proceed to take his shoes off. I don't threaten him with violence; however, I did use force to steal from him. A short while after the incident, I am caught by a police officer and arrested.

In a situation like that, would it be fair for me to be executed?

I can bring up more examples with varying severity but my point is, the punishment should fit the crime. If we allow punishment to exceed a crime, then we are setting ourselves up for one large slippery slope. I think it's morally unacceptable to assume that every criminal is a recidivist. It's unfair because there's no proof that every single person that has been released from prison is a recidivist. If such proof exists, then I would agree with you.

[DocM]

FBI says the recidivism rate for violent crime is >80%, so your arguement there is bogus. Also: this is not punishment (a function of the.court) but self defense, and there is a legal distinction.. That distinction was made quite clear in the US Supreme Court Heller and McDonald decisions of the last couple years. Bottom like: an aggressive self defense is a Constitutionally protected right in the US.

They were 15 years old and below.. still children in the eyes of the law. I'm sure a gun would have intimidated them.

FYI: in the vast majority of states (at least 45 I know of) a juvenile can be charged as an adult either if juvenile court cedes its jurisdiction or at the discretion of the prosecutor. State age laws vary, but in Michigan there is no lower age limit - we've convicted 11 year olds of murder in adult court.

[Hardcore Til I Die]

Likewise, I respectfully disagree.

I wouldn't ever assume they would commit a crime again, but my views consider the fact they already have and could again; if someone has committed a crime, it's proven they are capable of committing that crime. Suggesting it's possible they would commit the crime again isn't illogical; it's possible that just about everyone can commit a crime, but of course if people have done so before, we know for sure they are capable of doing so.

I personally feel that the severity of theft and robbery?especially in cases where a weapon is used to make the victim(s) fear for their lives?is very close to the level of severity regarding murder. People's lives have been ruined due to robbery or theft. Consider the following:

A university student is walking around with his laptop in his bag, about to print out and hand in his finished thesis or dissertation, a few hours before the deadline date. On his way to the hand-in office, he is mugged and the laptop is stolen. He did not back up any of his work. Due to the university's policy of all late or retaken theses and dissertations only being able to achieve 40% or below (a policy that most universities in England enforce), the student will no longer achieve the very high grade he was set for. This mugger has ruined the student's degree and jeopardised his entire future prospects. The student may now very likely not be able to attain the career he has desired all of his life. The reason he went to university and worked very hard for four years was to gain a job that requires a great grade in that degree, and because of a mugging right at the end of the degree, he has little to show for that hard work.

The above is an extreme example, but it could well happen. The student would have been silly not to back up his work, but that fact wouldn't justify the mugging and the devastating effect it would have on the student's degree and life would still be entirely the fault of the mugger.

While it's the case that we should be weary of muggers in society, we shouldn't have to be; that is a direct result of muggers having mugged in the first place (the same is the case regarding robbery, murder, and other crimes). I shouldn't have to look around me to check there are no potential muggers, when removing my expensive phone from my pocket to change a track I'm listening to, while walking alone at night; I, likewise, shouldn't have to be weary of others around me, in case I am attacked or mugged, while I'm walking around at night with headphones in and music on a high volume. I do both of those, though, to ensure I am safe, and I only do that because crime exists. Regarding this case, the student should not have had to backup his work due to the possibility of being mugged, but he did have to, as the case proved.

It's important to consider, when thinking about the above example, many people deem mugging to not be a very severe crime, including many muggers. This is why I deem all mugging, theft, and robbery to be very severe; the robber or thief does not know how their crime will impact the victim(s), yet they commit the crime anyway. That is also why I don't feel the punishment should fit the impact the crime had on the specific victim(s); I feel the punishment should fit the worst possible impact that any victims of that crime could possibly endure. As mentioned, I further feel the punishment should be one that ensures the criminal is not able to steal or intentionally harm another person ever again.

Regarding your comment about the criminal being locked up and isolated from society: that's all well and good, but thieves and robbers are usually allowed out of prison at some point while they're alive, especially if the crime was their first offence, so sending them to prison doesn't solve the problem (as mentioned, they could possibly commit a crime again). As I've mentioned, putting them down does offer some social good: It ensures a previously proven criminal (someone who has been proven to be capable of inflicting such danger upon society) is removed from society, thus ensuring society is definitely that little bit safer (rather than allowing them out of prison and just hoping they don't reoffend).

We put dogs and other animals down after they have intentionally harmed others (something I agree with), likely because we cannot communicate with the animals to understand why they did it or teach them not to do it again. Likewise, it is impossible to teach some criminals not to reoffend. Removing them from society will ensure they can never intentionally harm others, just like removing any harmful animal from society.

That's a crazy example and I'm afraid the student has a degree of responsibility there. There's no possible way the mugger would know that the laptop is that important, and who wouldn't back up? His laptop could just as easily malfunction, or he could drop it in a river.

The uk sentencing guidelines for robbery don't even touch upon the objects' importance, only the monetary value, so it probably wouldn't even affect the sentence handed out!

[ANON86364]

It's unbelievable that this is a debate at all.

[DocM]

Agreed.

Also @Hardcore: US law != UK law. Deal with it.

[ls_dragons]

Says it better than I could ever hope to do. Not sure of the original source.

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it.

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion.

Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.

The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunken guys with baseball bats. Thegun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for an [armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat--it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed.

People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.

People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force, watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gunmakes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level.

The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.

When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation... and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.

[Hardcore Til I Die]

Agreed.

Also @Hardcore: US law != UK law. Deal with it.

I know that.. does US law take into account the importance of the stolen item? Nearly every law takes into account the intent of the offender, and the intent would be to steal the laptop for monetary and/or personal gain, not to ruin someone's life (usually). Therefore it would be unfair to sentence someone on the basis that they ruined someone's life when that wasn't their intention.

[DocM]

The mugging itself is a felony, and if the laptop is worth >$1,000 that's a 2nd felony. If the laptop has irreplaceable content that have a quantifiable value (ex: having to repeat a year to do another dissertation) that can he taken into account too.

As to Michigan and citizens arrest -

Under current Michigan law a private person can use more force than a police officer to arrest a fleeing felon without criminal consequences, but in more limited circumstances. Cops need probable cause, but citizens arrests do not. They only need to witness the event.

Michigan courts have ruled that the use of deadly force by a private person to prevent the escape of a fleeing felon is justifiable where the following three circumstances are present:

?(1) the evidence must show that a felony actually occurred (duh)

(2) the fleeing suspect against whom force was used must be the person who committed the felony (duh 2)

(3) the use of deadly force must been necessary to ensure the apprehension of the felon. (That is, if the arrestee resists the arrest or would escape without the use of deadly force)

Example: I'm walking a city street and witness a rape in an alley. I pull my SIG Sauer .40 auto pistol and have two choices -

1) I call "HALT!!" The perp flees and BANG!! I stop a fleeing felon cold with lethal force.?

2) I have an open head shot and nail him in the act. Covered because our self-defense law covers the aggressive protection of 3rd parties.

Both perfectly legal.?

[TEX4S]

The fact that this is alright, is a problem. They were young people who, with the right help, could have gone on to lead good lives.

Oh sure - lets spend time and money on someone who was already in serious enough trouble to have a tracking device and on house arrest - STILL went and did this.

And you want to slap his hand and tell him "no" :rolleyes:

Are you menstrating this week by any chance ?