Ohio shopper shoots teen dead outside mall for trying to steal newly bought Nike Air Jordans

ocamsrazor04

Sorry for you and your wifes trauma ....
All the best for you an your loved ones this comeing year and the many many more to follow,

originally posted by: Sremmos80

Let's celebrate the good guys winning and one less criminal who will steal from and or kill law abiding citizens.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04


This would be you starting in on the conjecture by the way.

I am willing to change that to who "has stolen at gunpoint", and fine with the statement. No conjecture needed. But the overall best way to determine future behavior is to look at past behavior. Either way, no conjecture needed.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Seriously!

What did happen is that one man showed the intent to kill, the man that pulled the trigger.
Justified or not, he was really the only one that showed intent to kill.

To say that he just beat the kid to it is purely speculation as the kid drew first and had ample opportunity to act on his intent if it was there!

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Extremes do not prove a point, it shows an extreme that is not reasonable.

You can't rid of criminals with out first getting rid of crime which is just not reasonable as it has and always will be around.

Which means you can never be 100% safe, but you can be safer.

originally posted by: IkNOwSTuff

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: Sremmos80
Rampant speculation to justify the kill kill kill them all attitude.

Judge dredd is looking like he would be rather accepted in this thread

Not kill them all. Only those with callous disregard for human life.

You bring a gun to rob someone, that is callous disregard for human life.

Id say killing someone who is trying to steal material possesions whether armed or not shows a callous disregard for human life, how you all cant is really beyond me

I'd say robbing someone with a gun in order to take their material possessions shows a callous disregard for human life.
The robber was the cause of the self defense action, the defender was not out hunting people to shoot. How you can't recognize facts and sequences of events is really beyond me.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

A mans past is his past, can't change what he did do but he sure as heck can change what he will do.

16 years is a pretty small sample size to judge a mans worth.

You must have been the patron saint of 16 year olds.

originally posted by: IkNOwSTuff
Your whole argument justifying this pointless death is based on conjecture, the facts are the Kid brandished a firearm and demanded some shoes, the potential victim conjucted (Sic) that his life was in danger and so did you therefore you justify the killing.
If his life was in danger or not is now nothing but conjecture as the only person who knew the answer is dead

No, it's whether it is reasonable to believe your life is in danger. No conjecture. If the kid brandished a twix bar it's not reasonable. If he brandishes a gun it is.

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

we know for a fact what DID happen, that is what should be focused on.

and yet you used conjecture with what could have happened to you wife for your argument...and now you turn it around to suit your argument saying we should only use facts.....you should use your own advice

You need to go back and read again. I did not use what happened to my wife as conjecture, and I flat out stated the man who broke into our house should NOT have been killed and it would have been wrong if I killed him. Go back, read what I said, try again.

originally posted by: ecossiepossie
ocamsrazor04

Sorry for you and your wifes trauma ....
All the best for you an your loved ones this comeing year and the many many more to follow,

Thank you! She is getting over it, this is my first night back at work, so she is just now dealing with some of it.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Seriously!

What did happen is that one man showed the intent to kill, the man that pulled the trigger.
Justified or not, he was really the only one that showed intent to kill.

To say that he just beat the kid to it is purely speculation as the kid drew first and had ample opportunity to act on his intent if it was there!

False. What happened is one man committed a crime in such a way that it is REASONABLE the man being robbed feared for his life. We do not know intent on anyone's side, maybe the intent was to wound the criminal.

Intent does not matter. What a reasonable person would believe in the circumstance is what matters.

originally posted by: IkNOwSTuff
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Don't respond to me again telling me I started something I did not. I responded to that conjecture that this kid could have turned his life around with the conjecture he could have gotten worse. As I said, I did not start the conjecture, I finished it.

Your whole argument justifying this pointless death is based on conjecture, the facts are the Kid brandished a firearm and demanded some shoes, the potential victim conjucted (Sic) that his life was in danger and so did you therefore you justify the killing.
If his life was in danger or not is now nothing but conjecture as the only person who knew the answer is dead

The second the thug threatened bodily harm was when the guy had every reason to shoot him to protect himself.

My life is better with the thug dead. I'm safer, my family is safer, the community is safer, and the world is better off with one less criminal trying to take what isn't his from somebody who actually went out and worked for it.

Like the song says, live and let die.

a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

this is what i do not understand.......how is it ok to celebrate death no matter how it came about

I think most people have little to no sympathy for someone who is killed in the act of threatening to kill an innocent person. The conscious decision to do that rests with the deceased. He didn't have to choose to point a firearm at someone, but he did and he died as the result of that choice. Even Jesus said "he who lives by the sword will die by the sword."

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Not having that fear would be worrisome. It's only been a few days. She will be fine, I thank you for your concern though, genuinely.

Im glad to hear that and thank you for recognising my sincerity, all too often people who have opposing viewpoints are all too eager to misinterpret what others say to try and score points, demonise the otherside or validate their argument.
I dont agree with much you are saying but I consider it a conversation rather than an argument

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

A mans past is his past, can't change what he did do but he sure as heck can change what he will do.

16 years is a pretty small sample size to judge a mans worth.

You must have been the patron saint of 16 year olds.

I actually was. I never use my personal experience and compare it to others though, it would be wrong, and is a logical fallacy. I have never done anything really wrong, never stole candy, never smoked a cig., no drugs, never been drunk in my life, but I don't expect anyone else to meet those standards.

I do expect a person to not use a weapon/gun in the commission of a crime.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

We do not know intent on anyone's side, maybe the intent was to wound the criminal.

So will you go back and edit the post where you agree that the kid had intent to kill the man?

My guess is no.
Seems like a good ending point, I am sure your head is hurting just as much as mine from banging it on a wall.

originally posted by: IkNOwSTuff
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Not having that fear would be worrisome. It's only been a few days. She will be fine, I thank you for your concern though, genuinely.

Im glad to hear that

and thank you for recognising my sincerity, all too often people who have opposing viewpoints are all too eager to misinterpret what others say to try and score points, demonise the otherside or validate their argument.
I dont agree with much you are saying but I consider it a conversation rather than an argument

Firstly I love everyone.
Secondly I do not like everyone.
Thirdly I do not have to like someone to love them with all my being.

It was obvious your statements were genuine, and I can appreciate that, and you, without need to agree with you on everything.
My views on the death penalty are not the average views. There are people who have shown they can not be a part of society, there is no malice, or hatred, it is actually with love that I believe they need to leave this world.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

We do not know intent on anyone's side, maybe the intent was to wound the criminal.

So will you go back and edit the post where you agree that the kid had intent to kill the man?

My guess is no.
Seems like a good ending point, I am sure your head is hurting just as much as mine from banging it on a wall.

If you can point me to the post I will edit it.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

we know for a fact what DID happen, that is what should be focused on.

and yet you used conjecture with what could have happened to you wife for your argument...and now you turn it around to suit your argument saying we should only use facts.....you should use your own advice

You need to go back and read again. I did not use what happened to my wife as conjecture, and I flat out stated the man who broke into our house should NOT have been killed and it would have been wrong if I killed him. Go back, read what I said, try again.

no need to try and move the goal posts...and i quote you....

And this is from the man breaking in, seeing she was home, and running away as fast as possible, nothing was taken and no harm came to her. This turning the criminal into a victim mentality is so disgusting. You fools have no idea what these scumbags do to their victims.

you then turn round to say we should only use facts concerning the matter...so again i quote

No, I ended it. I showed there are 2 sides to that coin, and as such it should be kept out of the argument. Rather than focusing on what COULD have happened, we know for a fact what DID happen, that is what should be focused on.

so how about you get your facts straight straight hey bud

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Seriously!

What did happen is that one man showed the intent to kill, the man that pulled the trigger.
Justified or not, he was really the only one that showed intent to kill.

To say that he just beat the kid to it is purely speculation as the kid drew first and had ample opportunity to act on his intent if it was there!

The second the thug showed the gun, his intent to kill came into existence. The defender then operates on the intent to live, which is legal.

a reply to: Jamie1

I live in cincinnati and go to dayton area alot and there are some bad areas there buddy.
Right by dayton mall is a bad area too.
I wonder was the kid trying to steal black anyone know .