65 y/o man kills teen mugger, wounds another

[mokthraka]

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.

jail population does not mean more violence, it just means you get put in jail for more, such as Drug related offenses. which is a majority of our prison population.

[Rippleman]

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...

Its not the trespassing people care about, but when its inside your house its a whole new ballgame.

[ncoday]

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.

Trying to shoot someone in the knee when you are under stress is darned near impossible. if you miss the knee and hit some innocent bystander across the street, then you are in big trouble.

You aim for the largest part of the body that you have the highest probability of hitting, the chest.

[Davo]

"Castle Doctrine" in instances like this, makes sense. These teens weren't trying to steal his toaster, they were trying to attack him and he's a senior citizen.

[Hardcore Til I Die]

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.

Put your statistics away. I'm talking about THIS case, not the other 23,561 violent crimes that occurred that day. The kids weren't going to kill him, just rough him up a bit and mug him like they did with the others.

The lad should've been locked up not killed.

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.

Shooting first is stupid... If he pointed that gun at the kid and declared that he had it, I bet all three would've ran for their lives.

You can use a gun to protect yourself without killing people.

Worst case, he could've shot him in the leg to immobilise him.

[Yusuf M. Veteran]

[...]

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.

I must respectfully disagree. We don't know if they'd try to steal from someone again. Assuming that they'd do so is appealing to probability which is a logical fallacy. We cannot assume something will happen simply because it can happen. I'm not against the death penalty because I feel certain crimes are severe enough to warrant execution. However, a crime like theft is nowhere near as severe as murder. You're right, everyone does make mistakes. And I'm sure a lot of people have made mistakes at the age of 15 or 16. It's not like the now-deceased teenager had a weapon on him and threatened to take the old man's life. I strongly feel that the old man could have taken steps to avoid loss of life.

Also, criminals are put into jails where they're isolated from society. Killing them regardless of their crime is immoral, unnecessary, and offers no social good. Everyone has the right to a fair trial and that includes people that commit crimes.

[Fred Derf Veteran]

To prevent abuse, we should have a division of power. Police officers arrest a suspect but only a judge can sentence him/her if he/she was found to be guilty.

We don't need individuals to be judge, jury and executioner. That is too much power for any one individual to hold.

[Yusuf M. Veteran]

To prevent abuse, we should have a division of power. Police officers arrest a suspect but only a judge can sentence him/her if he/she was found to be guilty.

We don't need individuals to be judge, jury and executioner. That is too much power for any one individual to hold.

Agreed to the Nth degree. (Y)

[ew2x4]

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

"Psycos" like me? What is psychotic about protecting my family? The fact is that evil exists. I have a right to defend my family, myself and my possessions from said evil. How would you propose defending your family from an intruder?

You also mention that you would shoot someone in the knees and avoid a kill shot. This speaks of even more ignorance. You have obviously never fired a gun. Additionally, you only pull your gun when you intend to kill. To do other wise would make the situation infinitely worse. A lot of us have training for these scenarios, legal and tactical. We're not off the handle radicals.

[Hardcore Til I Die]

I must respectfully disagree. We don't know if they'd try to steal from someone again. Assuming that they'd do so is appealing to probability which is a logical fallacy. We cannot assume something will happen simply because it can happen. I'm not against the death penalty because I feel certain crimes are severe enough to warrant execution. However, a crime like theft is nowhere near as severe as murder. You're right, everyone does make mistakes. And I'm sure a lot of people have made mistakes at the age of 15 or 16. It's not like the now-deceased teenager had a weapon on him and threatened to take the old man's life. I strongly feel that the old man could have taken steps to avoid loss of life.

Also, criminals are put into jails where they're isolated from society. Killing them regardless of their crime is immoral, unnecessary, and offers no social good. Everyone has the right to a fair trial and that includes people that commit crimes.

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.

"Psycos" like me? What is psychotic about protecting my family? The fact is that evil exists. I have a right to defend my family, myself and my possessions from said evil. How would you propose defending your family from an intruder?

You also mention that you would shoot someone in the knees and avoid a kill shot. This speaks of even more ignorance. You have obviously never fired a gun. Additionally, you only pull your gun when you intend to kill. To do other wise would make the situation infinitely worse. A lot of us have training for these scenarios, legal and tactical. We're not off the handle radicals.

Why do you "only pull your gun when you intend to kill" ? That's the biggest load of tripe I've ever read and you should have your gun taken off you for spouting such nonsense. What an irresponsible viewpoint.

[ew2x4]

Put your statistics away. I'm talking about THIS case, not the other 23,561 violent crimes that occurred that day. The kids weren't going to kill him, just rough him up a bit and mug him like they did with the others.

The lad should've been locked up not killed.

Shooting first is stupid... If he pointed that gun at the kid and declared that he had it, I bet all three would've ran for their lives.

You can use a gun to protect yourself without killing people.

Worst case, he could've shot him in the leg to immobilise him.

How would this guy have known they would have just roughed him up a bit? And what makes that ok? People can die from being "roughed up", especially senior citizens. He has every right to do what it takes to defend himself.

Again, what is it with people thinking you can easily shoot someone in the leg in the heat of the moment? Ignorance. That's what. Obviously another person who has not shot a gun. Let alone shot one while under stress.

People have to know that if they go into a life of crime, especially physical crime, there is a very high probability they will get arrested or killed. They chose this.

Why do you "only pull your gun when you intend to kill" ? That's the biggest load of tripe I've ever read and you should have your gun taken off you for spouting such nonsense. What an irresponsible viewpoint.

Pulling the gun should be a last resort. If you pull a gun and are not intending to shoot and kill, what do you do when they pull a gun back at you? What if you have a gun on your person and let them beat you up anyways? The gun will probably fall out and they can use it against you. It's not something I think because I'm some crazy guy. Legally and logically, it's what is recommended. Again, a lot of people are trained with this. You are obviously not.

[Hardcore Til I Die]

How would this guy have known they would have just roughed him up a bit? And what makes that ok? People can die from being "roughed up", especially senior citizens. He has every right to do what it takes to defend himself.

Again, what is it with people thinking you can easily shoot someone in the leg in the heat of the moment? Ignorance. That's what. Obviously another person who has not shot a gun. Let alone shot one while under stress.

People have to know that if they go into a life of crime, especially physical crime, there is a very high probability they will get arrested or killed. They chose this.

You didn't comment on my comment about the gun scaring them. I would say a gun is primarily to get leverage on somebody. Why do you think the Police shout "freeze" or whatever before shooting people? ..because most people fear guns. They don't actually have to be used.

[ew2x4]

You didn't comment on my comment about the gun scaring them. I would say a gun is primarily to get leverage on somebody. Why do you think the Police shout "freeze" or whatever before shooting people? ..because most people fear guns. They don't actually have to be used.

Did you read my comment? What if they pull a gun on you? Would you be prepared to do what you need to do to live? They don't always run away like in movies. You can't just shoot them in the knee and they magically surrender.

[Charisma Veteran]

I must respectfully disagree. We don't know if they'd try to steal from someone again. Assuming that they'd do so is appealing to probability which is a logical fallacy.

*snip*

Except the part where they had already mugged several people before this guy...

[Hardcore Til I Die]

Pulling the gun should be a last resort. If you pull a gun and are not intending to shoot and kill, what do you do when they pull a gun back at you? What if you have a gun on your person and let them beat you up anyways? The gun will probably fall out and they can use it against you. It's not something I think because I'm some crazy guy. Legally and logically, it's what is recommended. Again, a lot of people are trained with this. You are obviously not.

If someone pulls a gun then you kill them, because the situation has changed. You can adapt to the situation...you don't have to pull a gun to kill from the off...

[jerzdawg]

If someone pulls a gun then you kill them, because the situation has changed. You can adapt to the situation...you don't have to pull a gun to kill from the off...

None of us were there to know how much time there really was. I think the article said the person who was shot was going towards the victim when he fired - was he running? did he shout anything first? the guy may have only had 1 second to decide to shoot or take his chances against 3 people. all of you people who claim they would fire a warning shot, shoot them in the leg, yell "freeze" make it sound so easy and like you have all this time to make these decisions. The guy got hit off of his bike and the attackers were coming towards him, how much time do you think passed....

[Hardcore Til I Die]

None of us were there to know how much time there really was. I think the article said the person who was shot was going towards the victim when he fired - was he running? did he shout anything first? the guy may have only had 1 second to decide to shoot or take his chances against 3 people. all of you people who claim they would fire a warning shot, shoot them in the leg, yell "freeze" make it sound so easy and like you have all this time to make these decisions. The guy got hit off of his bike and the attackers were coming towards him, how much time do you think passed....

Enough time to make the gun known :)

[Roadrunna]

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.

How many people have to suffer before these thugs see the 'light'? For their victims death isn't the worst thing, living a life in constant fear is. Better that one bad person loses their lives than someone spends their entire lives fearing the next attack.

Also do you really want to end up worrying that the thug that you helped get arrested decides to come after you for revenge?

Teenage thugs sometimes (not always) do reform but only after a great deal of harm has been caused to others. So taking a life is tragic but not doing so and others get hurt because you didn't do anything, well I know which would make me feel worst.

[Rippleman]

Why do you think the Police shout "freeze" or whatever before shooting people? ..because most people fear guns. They don't actually have to be used.

police yell freeze as an instruction because of their training in self defense and high stress situations, they are afforded the luxury of having perhaps a couple more seconds when deciding what to do. a cop would never yell freeze when someone is within 10 feet charging at him. 20 feet sure.. but 10 feet can be covered in 1 second. not enough time.

[Arkaic]

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.

Once a jackass always a jackass.

sure, it's probably best if you CAN avoid it but when your in the heat of the moment and that's going down within seconds you ain't got to much time to think and you just react especially if you feel your life in in danger especially since it appears there is THREE of them and at 15-16 years old they ain't little kids anymore and if they wanted (like had the intension to really hurt him) they could have really messed up the 65year old so i can't blame him for not taking any chances although a warning shot might have been a good idea if possible just to give them 'a chance' to step off. but then again at the same time... if you start robbing people you have to realize there is some chance they could have a gun on them and might be ready to shoot you.

but from the looks of things it appears they where not just a couple of average teens that did something stupid (in which case i might feel a little more sorry for them) but had a bad rep for doing stuff of this sort. because if they are the type who would have ended up in a life of crime and hurt people etc etc then this guy probably did that neighborhood a favor in the long run.

but at the end of the day... THEY (the three teens) are the bad guy. not the guy who killed them.

lets hope he CANT be sued... no one should be able to be sued if they seriously thought their lives where in danger and like i was saying when you got three people coming to attack you, you ain't got time to mess around as it's not like they where little 11-12 year old kids as by 15-16 your not a little kid anymore and could cause serious harm to someone if that where their intent.

the way i see it... if those kids where into trouble quite a bit with robbing and hitting people etc, they had it coming eventually.

after reading that comment i am very confident those teens had it coming ;) (he should have been awarded a medal for getting rid of the scum of the area)

i don't feel sorry for them at all now if they are of the type they appear to be from that general quote.

Sorry but the senior citizen is also a 'bad' guy.

Maybe not by law, but he ended with intent another persons life. Was he under attack yes. perhaps a stun gun with power...

hmmmm. I say nothing stronger than a rocket launcher though /s

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 was the victim of rape and a damn near run down (thank god I did not get run down. :phew:)

Beyond pedo's they all are capable of "repair". stats prove it.

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.

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.

To prevent abuse, we should have a division of power. Police officers arrest a suspect but only a judge can sentence him/her if he/she was found to be guilty.

We don't need individuals to be judge, jury and executioner. That is too much power for any one individual to hold.

without involving a religious discussion, can I double "Like" This?

How would this guy have known they would have just roughed him up a bit? And what makes that ok? People can die from being "roughed up", especially senior citizens. He has every right to do what it takes to defend himself.

Again, what is it with people thinking you can easily shoot someone in the leg in the heat of the moment? Ignorance. That's what. Obviously another person who has not shot a gun. Let alone shot one while under stress.

People have to know that if they go into a life of crime, especially physical crime, there is a very high probability they will get arrested or killed. They chose this.

Pulling the gun should be a last resort. If you pull a gun and are not intending to shoot and kill, what do you do when they pull a gun back at you? What if you have a gun on your person and let them beat you up anyways? The gun will probably fall out and they can use it against you. It's not something I think because I'm some crazy guy. Legally and logically, it's what is recommended. Again, a lot of people are trained with this. You are obviously not.

In my area a kid punched another kid in the jaw and the 2nd kid DIED!!!. (damaged vertabrae)

he's in prison 25 to life. a fight.

No intent in jail. :(

[Hardcore Til I Die]

police yell freeze as an instruction because of their training in self defense and high stress situations, they are afforded the luxury of having perhaps a couple more seconds when deciding what to do. a cop would never yell freeze when someone is within 10 feet charging at him. 20 feet sure.. but 10 feet can be covered in 1 second. not enough time.

Right.. but a cop wouldn't kill an unarmed kid even if they were in their face I bet. UNARMED.

[Calum Veteran]

I must respectfully disagree. We don't know if they'd try to steal from someone again. Assuming that they'd do so is appealing to probability which is a logical fallacy. We cannot assume something will happen simply because it can happen. I'm not against the death penalty because I feel certain crimes are severe enough to warrant execution. However, a crime like theft is nowhere near as severe as murder. You're right, everyone does make mistakes. And I'm sure a lot of people have made mistakes at the age of 15 or 16. It's not like the now-deceased teenager had a weapon on him and threatened to take the old man's life. I strongly feel that the old man could have taken steps to avoid loss of life.

Also, criminals are put into jails where they're isolated from society. Killing them regardless of their crime is immoral, unnecessary, and offers no social good. Everyone has the right to a fair trial and that includes people that commit crimes.

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.

[Memphis]

Put your statistics away. I'm talking about THIS case, not the other 23,561 violent crimes that occurred that day. The kids weren't going to kill him, just rough him up a bit and mug him like they did with the others.

The lad should've been locked up not killed.

Shooting first is stupid... If he pointed that gun at the kid and declared that he had it, I bet all three would've ran for their lives.

You can use a gun to protect yourself without killing people.

Worst case, he could've shot him in the leg to immobilise him.

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.

[+Warwagon MVC]

Well I bet one of them won't do that again. As for the other one, who knows.

[Hardcore Til I Die]

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.

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.