65 y/o man kills teen mugger, wounds another

[Veiva]

I, personally, would never own a gun. I also agree that the "child" (which child definition are we using? One who is the child of a mother and father, or one who is young? If so, I think minor is the better, less emotionally-charged term, and also legally applicable) could be rehabilitated given the proper support.

However, this world is not ideal. Not even a trained marksman would be able to shoot someone in the knee with certainty, let alone two or three, under stress and with little warning. Furthermore, I am pretty sure the senior, or victim in this case, did not know that the teens would leave him alive. Are we to assume that in dangerous situations the criminal will not hurt us or kill us, simply because it's "unlikely?" Just so we are on a moral high ground? Let me inform you of one thing: a moral high ground, in death, does not mean very much to your family, friends, and the criminal. In fact, it doesn't mean anything to the criminal in the first place...

Furthermore, the teens in question, especially the one who was stupid enough to continue aggression in spite of the gun, could have been rehabilitated. The keyword is "could." There is not nearly enough support in the criminal system to rehabilitate the criminals. The United States, by a large mile, is a retributive justice system, not rehabilitative. While seemingly every country that has these strict gun laws has a highly successful rehabilitative justice system, it does not apply in this case.

Through and through, I doubt anyone's gonna side with me who believes the poor, innocent child should be rehabilitated, not killed, despite him demonstrating an aggressive and surely irresponsible attitude towards the victim in the case. I just wanted to say what I had to say.

[Anibal P]

What a sad world we live in where people will go out of their way to defend a criminal and blame the victim for the outcome

It is completely illogical to believe or try to make others believe that self defense is never an option, like so many here are doing, what kind of SICK brainwashing have you had that the right to self defense should be ignored for the nonrights of the criminal, because that's what a lot of you are doing.

I don't care what the law says, I WILL do everything possible to defend myself and my family from ANY intruder in my house or in my vicinity. The police will never be there on time to defend me, I will do it myself, the police can do their job and cleanup the mess after the fact, and if you are so sadly deluded into thinking the police are there to protect and not be the cleanup crew, then I feel real sad for you and your loved ones.

[Cl8ud9]

good enough for the little ****,

it dosen't matter what age he is.

[mrmomoman]

I have a concealed license and have been carrying for a long time now. I hope to never pull my weapon and use it because if I am in a situation where I have to pull my weapon I will aim to kill not to injure. As some have said that they do not teach you to fire warning shots or aim to injure as you don't really have that choice when faced with such a decision. Unless you are highly trained you do not have a choice where the actual bullet will hit. You might get close or you might miss by a mile. Center mass is taught because its the biggest part of the target. Police and Swat are also taught this as well and they do not just fire one or two rounds and hope they hit. There are more misses than people realize in a shoot out situation.

The old man did what he thought was right and given the gravity of the situation he was justified. The jury and the courts would have concured in this situation. If he were to fire a warning shot how was he to know they would not fire back? What assumptions can anyone make what the older man was thinking when he was in fear for his life? I do not think that he wanted to kill anyone that day and did not set out to the trail to do so. He is left with the memory of that day for the rest of his life. No one can know how he will deal with it later on as the days pass.

Unfortunately a life was taken but it was deemed justified and that is all we can really say about it.

Until you are walking in that old man shoes do not assume you would have handled it any different if you were in fear for your life. That is like someone giving you a scenario of someone pointing a gun at you what would you do at that moment. You can't know until it actually happens. You could crap in your pants or you can be a hero but you won't know which way it will go until you are faced with it. NO ONE - ABSOLUTELY NO ONE can know for certain until they are faced with that exact scenario.

3 kids against one old man = deadly weapons(kids) = man used his deadly weapon.

There are so many scenarios that can be played out but what is done is done. I hope that other kids who think about doing this will wake up and read that story and not be stupid and do the same violent acts on anyone not just the elderly.

[Biotoxic_hazard_835]

If you had a family, and someone broke into YOUR house, you would do the same thing. If not, you don't deserve a family.

Yes he had it coming. Read this fully before you think it sounds wrong: Yes killing someone CAN be a good thing. If an intruder was going to come into your home (or street or business) and pose a threat to your family, HIS death CAN be a good thing if YOUR FAMILY gets to survive instead. If someone is going to die, it should be the one doing the crime. Every criminal knows the cost of doing something criminal. Its up to them if they want to gamble.

This

This is why I disagree with guns being legal. Whether he was frightened for his life or not, the fact of the matter is that the kids wouldn't have actually killed him.

If he was carrying a taser or something that would simply help subdue the attackers, then fine... but killing them? Bit harsh.

Teenagers can (and do) reform. Younger people are very impressionable and often grow out of such offending as they get older.. waste of a life.

You sir are completely clueless. Many many crimes are committed by young and on many instances under age individuals and when they come to your house you can believe they will seriously hurt and even kill anyone that dares facing them.

[ncoday]

It is sad that someone died, but I believe the situation turned out the best it could given the circumstances.

These kids were acting like a pack of wolves preying on the defenseless {or so they thought}.

[Southern Patriot]

Sure ive heard of escalation..but escalation tends to happen over a period of time, not in the same day. Did you read the report in its entirety? They robbed two men earlier the same day and neither of the men were hurt. You think in the space of a few hours they'd escalate into murderers?

That's preposterous. All of the evidence suggests that the third robbery would have ended the same way as the first two.

Yeah, a few hours before...that's not what I would call "getting away with it" ..just not enough time for the law to catch up with them.

You seem to be missing the point that the 16 year old was already a convicted criminal who was wearing a tracking device.

[mrmomoman]

Road warrior you won't convince someone who thinks they know how people think and what they will do before they do it.

I guess he hasn't seen what happened in the news about Powell and his kids? He didn't hurt them earlier that day either. So according to Hardcore's logic that is preposterous too.

To each one of you that has something against owning guns or defending yourself in a situation that feels life threating - I hope you never have to experience what that old man or anyone is that situation has to experience.

We have a county in Georgia that requires every home owner that can be a gun owner to have a registered fire arm in their home. It is the country requirement. Guess what happened to the rate of home invastions or violent crimes involving guns? I am sure you can figure it out...no it did not go up....

[ANON86364]

You completely miss the point. I don't trust your judgement as to whether you consider some teenager a criminal and thus more dangerous than the woman down the street from me. Those are the sorts of decisions that should be made by a properly trained judge or a jury. I don't want individual citizens arbitrarily deciding who's life is worth more than someone else's.

So assault is not a crime. Awesome I'm glad you cleared that up. You act like this is something up for debate - that the teens are/were criminals - it's not.

[DocM]

FD is like the virgin 18 year old girl pontificating to 40 year old women about childbirth: he doesn't even know what he doesn't know.

[Nogib]

I completely rejoice in this little ****'s death. The world is a vastly better place without him. :D

The only thing that annoys me is that although this older gentleman may not be facing any criminal charges in his defense, you just know that this kid's crack-###### mother will try to bring about some civil action.

[DocM]

See upthread: the vast majority of US states give self-defenders civil immunity - neither the perp or their family can sue.

[ncoday]

Sure ive heard of escalation..but escalation tends to happen over a period of time, not in the same day. Did you read the report in its entirety? They robbed two men earlier the same day and neither of the men were hurt. You think in the space of a few hours they'd escalate into murderers?

That's preposterous. All of the evidence suggests that the third robbery would have ended the same way as the first two.

Yeah, a few hours before...that's not what I would call "getting away with it" ..just not enough time for the law to catch up with them.

The gentleman they attacked didn't know about the two previous people that weren't harmed. He had no reason to believe he would not be harmed.

[DocM]

A friend told me I could repost his reply -

Xxxxx, I've been giving this some careful thought over the last few days. I think you are mistaken in one important respect.

There's no such thing as a "civilian" anymore. There hasn't been a true "civilian" since the beginning of WWII, at least. The Cold War and the Age of Terrorism made every human alive a possible combatant in a greater conflict.

Any person, regardless of training or background, may be called upon to defend himself or his loved ones or his country at any moment. Whether that person is or ever was a soldier or police officer is irrelevent. An attacker doesn't care who or what you are. They only see victims.?

There were no "civilians" aboard United Flight 93. Once that plane was hijacked and the passengers realized what was in store for them, they all became combatants with a duty to stop their captors' mission at any cost.

In the same way, the victim in this instance became a combatant the moment he was assaulted. His assailants had killed no one that day. But the day was young.

This is a conflict as old as human civilization. It is a conflict between civilization and anarchy. Sometimes civilization wins a round. Sometimes anarchy wins. We can all regret that it came to violence, but it wasn't the unnamed victim who initiated the violence. He just ended it. Temporarily.

[mrmomoman]

DocM - the pistols in your pictures are in your collection? If so very nice!

See that you like Sigs. I shoot local using competition pistols mostly CZ's. Still have my 1911 and just purchased(waiting arrival) SIG P250 2SUM(.40S&W)

[Rohdekill]

The only times that I've ever been violently attacked in the country involved wooded sticks with curved blades on the end. Someone went to hospital just last night to get x-rays in fact.

I live in a city of 3 million people (metro area of 5+) and I have no need of guns or security alarms. No one in my family has been a victim of a violent crime. No cars have been stolen, no homes have been burglarized. Even if somebody were to pick my house, I am rest assured that the criminal wouldn't bother to arm themselves because the street cost of a gun is relatively high here (due to stricter controls) and since no homeowners have a gun then there isn't a need for the criminal to be scared either. It's quite common for people to leave a key outside under a rock anyway. I rarely bother to lock the garage. There just isn't any need to live in fear. A guy can't even walk a girl home at 1am because she won't even be scared.

Escalation happens because they either get away with some initial crimes and begin to feel themselves to be invincible or they do get caught and they soon find out that there is no better criminal university than prison.

The sooner you engage at-risk youth with community programs, drop-in sports activities, training and education options then the cheaper and safer it will be. A stitch in time saves nine and there should be no doubt that prison is expensive. Victims of crime also find the costs too high for an entirely different reason.

The solution is to spend more money on them before they become hardened criminals. Ultimately it is cheaper for society.

Actually, the cheapest way for society is to put a bullet through the b@stard's head. 25 cents - problem solved.

[deactivated170812]

Actually, the cheapest way for society is to put a bullet through the b@stard's head. 25 cents - problem solved.

Not really. It costs far more to execute a person than to keep him or her in prison for life. Therefore spending some money on a "rehabilitation" is much cheaper than execution.

Besides, what you're saying is that the state should simply kill anyone even trying to rob another person.

[Rohdekill]

Not really. It costs far more to execute a person than to keep him or her in prison for life. Therefore spending some money on a "rehabilitation" is much cheaper than execution.

Not when society handles it - in the case of this gentleman. You're referring to death-penalty sentencing.

[deactivated170812]

Well, if this is the type of society you want to live in, good for you.

[DocM]

DocM - the pistols in your pictures are in your collection? If so very nice!

Those are my autos. I also have revolvers ranging from an 1847 Colt Walker.44 and 1858 Remington New Army to a Magnum Research BFR in .500 Magnum. Also have a Thompson Center Contender single shot with .44 Mag and 45-70 Govt. barrels.

See that you like Sigs. I shoot local using competition pistols mostly CZ's. Still have my 1911 and just purchased(waiting arrival) SIG P250 2SUM(.40S&W)

CZ's are nice. My SIG 1911 is very tuned and a nail driver, but a bit heavy for day to day carry. For that I use the SIG P250 subcompact (.40 S&W) setup (also have the 2SUM full size kit.) Did you know that SIG just came out with a P250 subcompact with a rail handle? I'm going to call and see if the new handle will fit the existing guns - I'd love to have the option of a laser or tac-lite.

[Stokkolm]

Those are my autos. I also have revolvers ranging from an 1847 Colt Walker.44 and 1858 Remington New Army to a Magnum Research BFR in .500 Magnum. Also have a Thompson Center Contender single shot with .44 Mag and 45-70 Govt. barrels.

CZ's are nice. My SIG 1911 is very tuned and a nail driver, but a bit heavy for day to day carry. For that I use the SIG P250 subcompact (.40 S&W) setup (also have the 2SUM full size kit.) Did you know that SIG just came out with a P250 subcompact with a rail handle? I'm going to call and see if the new handle will fit the existing guns - I'd love to have the option of a laser or tac-lite.

That's a very nice SIG collection. My two brothers and I bought my Dad a P250 Full Size .45ACP two or three years ago and he loves it. I've fired it and I definitely like my H&K HK45c a bit better, but his is still a very nice weapon.

[Dot Matrix]

I'm not sure I see the controversy. The man had a right to defend himself, and if that resulted in the death of the aggressor, then so be it. By the way these kids were acting, his action probably saved someone else's life down the line.

[DocM]

Well, if this is the type of society you want to live in, good for you.

?An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.?

? Robert A. Heinlein

[DocM]

That's a very nice SIG collection. My two brothers and I bought my Dad a P250 Full Size .45ACP two or three years ago and he loves it. I've fired it and I definitely like my H&K HK45c a bit better, but his is still a very nice weapon.

I started out with a .357 S&W #27 double action revolver so that kind of trigger is in my comfort zone. The P250's double action trigger is about the smoothest I've ever fired in an auto so it feels VERY "right," which is half the accuracy battle. I love it.

[Southern Patriot]

I'm not sure I see the controversy. The man had a right to defend himself, and if that resulted in the death of the aggressor, then so be it. By the way these kids were acting, his action probably saved someone else's life down the line.

The only controversy here comes from the fact that we have jackasses in this (and EVERY gun related thread) from other countries who just LOVE telling us how to run ours. They refuse to acknowledge the fact that higher private gun ownership has resulted in lowering the violent crime rates here. And of course, these same idiots think that the things they see on TV or in the movies (shooting to wound/disable, firing "warning shots", etc.) are actually reasonably possible or recommended. If they insist on watching so much TV, I might suggest they watch a couple of episodes of MythBusters, specifically "Bullets Fired Up" and "Unarmed and Unharmed", and just about any other gun related episode.