65 y/o man kills teen mugger, wounds another

[Southern Patriot]

Escalation happens because they either get away with some initial crimes and begin to feel themselves to be invincible

My point exactly. These punks had already gotten away with this behavior before, and the likelihood of escalation was there. Hardcore's comment that "They didn't kill the other people they mugged. They were little ****s, robbers, but not killers." holds no water.

[Rippleman]

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..

only in the us, the rest of america does't have this sue-happy culture

[DocM]

US states with Castle Doctrine, Stand Your Ground, Make My Day or similar laws now give civil immunity to the self-defender in cases like this. This is the vast majority of states. Neither the perp (if they survive) or their families can sue.

[Hardcore Til I Die]

Ever heard of escalation (as it applies to criminal behavior)?

I'm sure you have, but are either too ignorant to understand it, or don't want to admit that your hugs and kisses approach to dealing with violent thugs simply isn't realistic.

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.

My point exactly. These punks had already gotten away with this behavior before, and the likelihood of escalation was there. Hardcore's comment that "They didn't kill the other people they mugged. They were little ****s, robbers, but not killers." holds no water.

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.

[ANON86364]

I don't think many people here value the lives of innocents over criminals. In my country it is not left to question the protection of innocents against criminals. Innocents have the right to protect themselves from being injured or killed.

No one can say the elderly man would not have been killed. That is an assumption, not a truth. Maybe when you realize that you'll see there is good reason to have the ability to protect yourself against whatever maliciousness may happen.

[Arkaic]

Point proven. People like you should not have a gun. I couldn't care less if you hve reasons of protecting your family. Your shoot to kill mentality is over the top and scary.

Oh right. So we'll just put a bullet in them, no worries.

Are you ****ing kidding me?

Are you kidding me? What would you do in that situation? Let your loved one be killed?

I don't think many people here value the lives of innocents over criminals. In my country it is not left to question the protection of innocents against criminals. Innocents have the right to protect themselves from being injured or killed.

No one can say the elderly man would not have been killed. That is an assumption, not a truth. Maybe when you realize that you'll see there is good reason to have the ability to protect yourself against whatever maliciousness may happen.

So vigilante law next? Eye for eye?

[Hardcore Til I Die]

I don't think many people here value the lives of innocents over criminals. In my country it is not left to question the protection of innocents against criminals. Innocents have the right to protect themselves from being injured or killed.

No one can say the elderly man would not have been killed. That is an assumption, not a truth. Maybe when you realize that you'll see there is good reason to have the ability to protect yourself against whatever maliciousness may happen.

You don't have to kill to protect yourself.

[ANON86364]

You don't have to kill to protect yourself.

Sometimes you do or risk being killed yourself as in this very case. It seems you don't know how to put yourself in this situation and understand that the intentions of these criminals are unknown. This man did not know he wouldn't walk away alive if he let them attack and rob him.

Can you please stop making assumptions.

[Rippleman]

You don't have to kill to protect yourself.

would YOU be willing to take that chance?

[Fred Derf Veteran]

No one can say the elderly man would not have been killed. That is an assumption, not a truth. Maybe when you realize that you'll see there is good reason to have the ability to protect yourself against whatever maliciousness may happen.

Nobody can say for sure that the old lady down the street won't shoot me in the back one day. To claim otherwise would be an assumption not a truth since you can't guarantee that it won't happen. Perhaps we should all go on preemptive shooting sprees to ensure that it never could happen. There can be only one...

I'm sorry but that sort of "logic" doesn't really cut it.

[ANON86364]

Nobody can say for sure that the old lady down the street won't shoot me in the back one day. To claim otherwise would be an assumption not a truth since you can't guarantee that it won't happen. Perhaps we should all go on preemptive shooting sprees to ensure that it never could happen. There can be only one...

I'm sorry but that sort of "logic" doesn't really cut it.

Can you honestly not see the difference between criminals and innocent bystanders? Do the chain of events not matter to you? These kids attacked a man.

You just lost an amount of credibility talking about how my logic is flawed when you go on not even understanding that simple barrier between criminal and bystander.

[Fred Derf Veteran]

Can you honestly not see the difference between criminals and innocent bystanders? Do the chain of events not matter to you? These kids attacked a man.

You just lost an amount of credibility talking about how my logic is flawed when you go on not even understanding that simple barrier between criminal and bystander.

You don't trust my value judgments, why should I trust your value judgments? This is why common citizens should not walk around with concealed weapons.

[ANON86364]

You don't trust my value judgments, why should I trust your value judgments? This is why common citizens should not walk around with concealed weapons.

Everything I said still stands. You haven't done anything. On one side of your scenario, you have old lady. It stops there. On the other side, you have two kids who attacked a man. Jee, I wonder who is the criminal here and who it is that is endangering another human being.

[Hardcore Til I Die]

Sometimes you do or risk being killed yourself as in this very case. It seems you don't know how to put yourself in this situation and understand that the intentions of these criminals are unknown. This man did not know he wouldn't walk away alive if he let them attack and rob him.

Can you please stop making assumptions.

These kids weren't armed. You can't assume that somebody is going to kill you just because you get punched in the face. That is an example of massively jumping to a conclusion.

If you get into a fight in a bar, you can't just respond by killing them because you got punched. That's stupid.

would YOU be willing to take that chance?

Yes - with three unarmed kids.

[DocM]

These kids weren't armed. You can't assume that somebody is going to kill you just because you get punched in the face.

Yet teen 'wolf pack' attacks, many fatal, occur all the time and often the cause of death has nothing to do with them being armed with even a stick. Stomping to death works quite well, especially when the victim is outnumbered, at a strength disadvantage or physically infirm. Smashin the victims head into the sidewalk or a wall works too.

If you get into a fight in a bar, you can't just respond by killing them because you got punched. That's stupid.

What's stupid is making arguments absent facts; bars and many other places are exclusion zones - you can't legally carry there even with a permit. Carrying while impared is also a huge offense.

And for the record: carry permit holders have a lower violent crime rate than most any other demographic, including cops. Total number in the US: almost 7 million and growing fast.

Yes - with three unarmed kids.

Once again - the human body, especially young & strong ones in a pack, is plenty lethal.

[Fred Derf Veteran]

Everything I said still stands. You haven't done anything. On one side of your scenario, you have old lady. It stops there. On the other side, you have two kids who attacked a man. Jee, I wonder who is the criminal here and who it is that is endangering another human being.

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.

[Hardcore Til I Die]

Yet teen 'wolf pack' attacks, many fatal, occur all the time and often the cause of death has nothing to do with them being armed with even a stick. Stomping to death works quite well, especially when the victim is outnumbered, at a strength disadvantage or physically infirm. Smashin the victims head into the sidewalk or a wall works too.

What's stupid is making arguments absent facts; bars and many other places are exclusion zones - you can't legally carry there even with a permit. Carrying while impared is also a huge offense.

And for the record: carry permit holders have a lower violent crime rate than most any other demographic, including cops. Total number in the US: almost 7 million and growing fast.

Once again - the human body, especially young & strong ones in a pack, is plenty lethal.

Just because you can die because of someone's bare hands, does not make it okay to kill somebody who's not armed, in my view. One punch can kill somebody (there are special sentencing guidelines here in the UK for "one punch manslaughters"), but you don't see everybody getting charged with attempted murder when they punch people. Why? Because physical attacks without weapons don't usually kill.

I think regular people being allowed to carry guns is pretty stupid and this report is a shining example of why. I'm pleased I don't live in the US.

[ncoday]

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.

You've been watching too many friekin' movies. The chances he hits him in the leg and doesn't miss and hit a bystander are almost nonexistent.

[Nashy]

Whats even worse is I learned the hard way how dangerous that can be. If enough requests are made, I may file a public records request and get a copy of the security camera video and upload it so these idiots can see what happens when you pull a gun without immediately firing.

Personal insults to prove a point. Righto tough guy, get the video.

[DocM]

You've been watching too many friekin' movies. The chances he hits him in the leg and doesn't miss and hit a bystander are almost nonexistent.

Which is why the license instructors and every cop & police official says shoot for the center of mass (chest & upper abdomen) and to kill. I'll take their instructions over the clueless opinions expressed by some here, especially since I've 'been there.'.

[Hardcore Til I Die]

Which is why the license instructors and every cop & police official says shoot for the center of mass (chest & upper abdomen) and to kill. I'll take their instructions over the clueless opinions expressed by some here, especially since I've 'been there.'.

I bet they wouldn't teach you to shoot to kill unarmed children though. :)

[Fred Derf Veteran]

I bet they wouldn't teach you to shoot to kill unarmed children though. :)

It wouldn't surprise me. For quite a lot of people, life is cheap.

[SiCKX]

Epic old dude. Props, whoop-whoop !

[ncoday]

I bet they wouldn't teach you to shoot to kill unarmed children though. :)

These criminals were children only by sake of a date. They were behaving like hardened criminals. One of them was on probation for pete's sake.

These punks don't need a knife or bat to kill you. You can kill someone by repeatedly kicking and punching them.

[DocM]

People get too hung up on their age when it's their behavior that is important. Calendars don't matter when dealing with violent sociopaths, and there really aren't effective treatments so recidivism is very high - about 80% according the the Feds.