65 y/o man kills teen mugger, wounds another

[Nashy]

News Flash: teens this violent seldom reform - they remane a danger to others well into their 50's. Before 18 they call it conduct disorder, and after it's antisocial personality disorder. They are malignant sociopaths, and you can't fix that.

Said the guy that would obviously blow an intruders head off than have correct procedures followed.

This is my opinion, but I think EVERYONE deserves the right to live, and be given a chance to better themselves. While I understand how the American prison system is geared, I still think a Correctional System would be more beneficial.

To not even want to try is basically treating these kids like Dogs. Must be sick, put it down. That's not the way I personally think things should work, I understand people will be different.

This is also not me arguing about American gun laws and what I think of them in any way.

I just think this is a total waste of life, and am saddened that so many people don't have any issue with this at all. But hey, each to their own, and I respect their personal opinions.

[Nashy]

Once a scumbag, usually always a scumbag. Some of these teens these days just need to be snuffed out before they waste anymore peoples time.

Actually I think you'll find that stats from other western countries who adopt a correctional system will state that you are off the mark.

[jerzdawg]

Said the guy that would obviously blow an intruders head off than have correct procedures followed.

This is my opinion, but I think EVERYONE deserves the right to live, and be given a chance to better themselves. While I understand how the American prison system is geared, I still think a Correctional System would be more beneficial.

To not even want to try is basically treating these kids like Dogs. Must be sick, put it down. That's not the way I personally think things should work, I understand people will be different.

This is also not me arguing about American gun laws and what I think of them in any way.

I just think this is a total waste of life, and am saddened that so many people don't have any issue with this at all. But hey, each to their own, and I respect their personal opinions.

And what would your opinion be if one of these criminals killed one of their victims? Your dog comparison is flawed as well, this kid was killed as he was attacking someone.

[Nashy]

And what would your opinion be if one of these criminals killed one of their victims? Your dog comparison is flawed as well, this kid was killed as he was attacking someone.

I feel the exact same way if they had killed someone, just as I feel the same way for murderers here in Australia. I feel for the victims, I really, really do, but I also understand that there is more than likely something behind this, mentally, or whatever, I think those people deserve to be treated for a condition, not killed.

[DocM]

>

I fear that the gentleman that was defending himself from a violent crime may also be further victimized by being sued by the criminals parents.

>

NO - a key part of the Castle Doctrine, Stand Your Ground and similar laws is that the defender gets civil immunity for the incident - neither the perp nor their relatives can sue for their injuries or death. The operating theory is that they brought it on themselves.

Also; in most all states (49) the victim or a witness to the crime has the right of citizens arrest, and in many of these this includes the right to fire on a fleeing felony suspect.

[ncoday]

I feel the exact same way if they had killed someone, just as I feel the same way for murderers here in Australia. I feel for the victims, I really, really do, but I also understand that there is more than likely something behind this, mentally, or whatever, I think those people deserve to be treated for a condition, not killed.

I may be wrong, but I bet your tone would change if someone you loved, was brutally raped and then murdered.

There are some individuals who are beyond repair or treatment.

[DocM]

I may be wrong, but I bet your tone would change if someone you loved, was brutally raped and then murdered.

You're not wrong - some of the most ardent supporters of these laws are former opponents who were victimized or had a family member victimized. The turnaround is in some cases dizzying.

There are some individuals who are beyond repair or treatment

Absolutely 200% correct. The best we can do is to protect ourselves from them if/when necessary, and to understand that some of these malignant souls start as young as 10. Michigan has convicted very violent murderers as young as 11.

[Nashy]

I may be wrong, but I bet your tone would change if someone you loved, was brutally raped and then murdered.

There are some individuals who are beyond repair or treatment.

I can't comment on that, and I can't say I wouldn't change my mind.

[jerzdawg]

I feel the exact same way if they had killed someone, just as I feel the same way for murderers here in Australia. I feel for the victims, I really, really do, but I also understand that there is more than likely something behind this, mentally, or whatever, I think those people deserve to be treated for a condition, not killed.

You make it seem like he was convicted and sentenced to the death penalty, he was killed by someone defending themselves. Are you saying if you "feel" like your life is in danger you are not going to do anything you can (including killing them if you must) to survive?

[+Raze Subscriber²]

NO - a key part of the Castle Doctrine, Stand Your Ground and similar laws is that the defender gets civil immunity for the incident - neither the perp nor their relatives can sue for their injuries or death. The operating theory is that they brought it on themselves.

Also; in most all states (49) the victim or a witness to the crime has the right of citizens arrest, and in many of these this includes the right to fire on a fleeing felony suspect.

Good to know, thank you.

[ew2x4]

Said the guy that would obviously blow an intruders head off than have correct procedures followed.

Blowing an intruder's head off is the only correct procedure.

If someone is in my house uninvited, they are being put down unless they surrender on the spot. To think otherwise is delusional.

[DocM]

>

To think otherwise is delusional often suicidal.

Fixed.

Good to know, thank you.

Best to check your particular state. Here in Michigan we have those provisions, including the right to carry a weapon unlicensed as long as it isn't concealed, but elsewhere it may differ.

[Nashy]

Blowing an intruder's head off is the only correct procedure.

If someone is in my house uninvited, they are being put down unless they surrender on the spot. To think otherwise is delusional.

Psycos like you shouldn't own a gun. Simple.

You make it seem like he was convicted and sentenced to the death penalty, he was killed by someone defending themselves. Are you saying if you "feel" like your life is in danger you are not going to do anything you can (including killing them if you must) to survive?

No no no. Sorry, I'm not great at wording my posts. I feel defending yourself is your right, and while I don't like the outcome of this situation, what's happened has happened.

What I don't like is seeing comments like "Deserved it", "Had it coming", etc. Making it sound like killing someone is a good thing. While I understand what's happened, why this young person is dead, I don't like that people just seem to think it's fine.

What's happened here is a horrible, horrible thing for all involved, and I highly doubt the person who killed the kid feels all mucho and big as some people making comments in this thread. Personally, I think it's disgraceful that people think a death like this is pretty much nothing.

[Rippleman]

Psycos like you shouldn't own a gun. Simple.

What I don't like is seeing comments like "Deserved it", "Had it coming", etc. Making it sound like killing someone is a good thing.

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.

[DocM]

One thing a lot of people, especially those overseas, misunderstand - 'murder' has a specific legal meaning in the US; an unjustified homicide.

OTOH, 'self defense' is a justified homicide, and perfectly legal. Therefore: this was not murder.

A victimizer surrenders his right to safety as soon as he tries to take it from someone else.

[Hardcore Til I Die]

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.

[DocM]

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.

>.

THAT is the single most clueless statement I've read in this thread yet!! People are bludgeoned to death during street crimes every single day, with the elderly being more susceptible because of their inherent frailty. Add AA with theft and you have robbery.

FBI stats for 2009 say 806,843 aggravated (severe) assaults that year, 2,210 a day, and that doesn't include rapes or attempted rapes - themselves s special class within self-defense law.

Total: 6.6 million violent crimes (murder, rape, assault and robbery), or 23,562 a day. As such - we either need a cop every half block, including the alleys, or the physical & legal means to protect ourselves.

[Nashy]

One thing a lot of people, especially those overseas, misunderstand - 'murder' has a specific legal meaning in the US; an unjustified homicide.

OTOH, 'self defense' is a justified homicide, and perfectly legal. Therefore: this was not murder.

A victimizer surrenders his right to safety as soon as he tries to take it from someone else.

I understand this, really I do. I'm not saying the bloke that shot the kid is a murderer, I'm not saying he did anything wrong by killing him, he was within his rights.

What I'm saying is, this whole shoot to kill ideal that is in this thread. That's what I don't understand. I'm not saying those people are terrible people, but I really think it's horrible to think that people here would genuinely shoot to kill. I bullet to the knee is going to stop the person, and give you time to apprehend.

Of course even I can see if another firearm was involved, then I can completely understand.

But there was no gun mentioned in this thread, so who knows, the kid could have had a gun, or something that looked like a gun. However, some of the responses in this thread tell me that armed or not, shoot to kill is the way.

[DocM]

You don't have to have a weapon to be a threat to someones life, especially if there's a size or strength disparity, and more so when the victim is outnumbered 3-1. As such, armed status isn't a big part of the justification calculus. Fact is, in CD-SYG states the victim gets a presumption of it being a 'good shoot' until/unless proven otherwise.

Also, the combat training classes we have to take stress shoot to kill for the tactical reasons noted upthread. These are state mandated classes taught by certified instructors, most often cops or those who train them.

[mbowman]

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.

They clearly knew what they were doing. 3rd assault in the same day, just waiting to attack the wrong person which they did and got what was coming to them.

[Fred Derf Veteran]

I may be wrong, but I bet your tone would change if someone you loved, was brutally raped and then murdered.

There are some individuals who are beyond repair or treatment.

By the same token, he is living in a less violent society and thus is less likely to have an immediate family member that becomes a victim of a brutal crime. Australia and Canada incarcerate a much smaller percentage of their population and those they do incarcerate have at least some chance at rehabilitation and skills training before it goes too far.

[deactivated170812]

Topics like this are a great example how different the mindset is around the world and event in the same country.

[Calum Veteran]

My condolences go out to . . . the man who had to experience such a dreadful crime. No one should have to go through what that man experienced at the hands of those troublemakers, and I am happy that there is now one less person in the world who has previously unjustifiably harmed others.

It's a shame that the teenager's life had to be taken. If I was in the old man's position, I would've fired a warning shot first. I'll never understand this "kill the criminal" mentality that some people have. You don't own the air. And if you condone the killing of teenagers, then I truly feel sorry for you.

Keeping them alive ensures they're able to terrorise and hurt more people. If people wish to remain alive, they have the choice not to unjustifiably terrorise and hurt people. I don't think I'll ever understand why so many people feel it's fine to keep certain criminals alive, after they've been proven to unjustifiably terrorise and hurt others. Everyone makes mistakes, but some mistakes are unforgivable, and sane adults know better. In this case, 15-year-old kids should know better than this, so their age wouldn't be a reasonable justification. Rehabilitation often doesn't work, so the only way to truly help protect society would be to put these people down. It's a shame anyone may have to die, but they made their choice to hurt others, and the protection of society should be the priority.

[jerzdawg]

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.

and how do you know that? more importantly, how would the victim know that? He was just out enjoying his day riding his bike when 3 punks decided to punch him in his face. People who go an attack people just for fun are unpredictible, maybe they were just getting started with the first two - this time they were on a trail with less people, maybe assault isnt enough this time. Point is there is no way to know the outcome, especially when you have little time to react. If I ever feel that my life is in danger, shoot first and I'll evaluate the situation once I am out of harms way.

[Minimoose]

I understand this, really I do. I'm not saying the bloke that shot the kid is a murderer, I'm not saying he did anything wrong by killing him, he was within his rights.

What I'm saying is, this whole shoot to kill ideal that is in this thread. That's what I don't understand. I'm not saying those people are terrible people, but I really think it's horrible to think that people here would genuinely shoot to kill. I bullet to the knee is going to stop the person, and give you time to apprehend.

Of course even I can see if another firearm was involved, then I can completely understand.

But there was no gun mentioned in this thread, so who knows, the kid could have had a gun, or something that looked like a gun. However, some of the responses in this thread tell me that armed or not, shoot to kill is the way.

Shooting someone in the knee is not practical, the knee is a very small target especially when it's someone running towards you, the man had no choice but to go for the torso which is much more likely to hit and disable the target (hopefully not kill).

I agree with you on how it's strange that some people can have the mindset of blowing someone's head off if they are trespassing, that's a bit extreme...