It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 18
53
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 27 2014 @ 01:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: mysterioustranger
a reply to: buster2010

I legally carry on every bank party store and EVERY mall in Michigan.. .and later today when I visit down in Ohio...and there's no such thing as them not allowing me to

Before carrying a gun into another state you should always check up on it's gun laws simply because you don't know them. Just assuming I can do this in Michigan therefore I can do it in Ohio is pretty stupid because after all ignorance of the law is no excuse.




posted on Dec, 27 2014 @ 01:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
I bet most here that are celebrating this wouldn't even care if the kid didn't have a gun.
That if he just tried to take the shoes the man would still have been in the right.
Cause of the "He doesn't have to stand for losing something he worked for" mentality.


Please refrain from thinking for me...I would NOT have the same attitude if the criminal was not armed. It would then not have been an armed robbery, but more akin to a strong-arm robbery. The former justifies the use of deadly force in protecting your life (again, regardless of the item itself), the latter does not warrant deadly force. In the latter case, I would not support the man if he decided to pull and fire on the teen trying to rob him. That, as most CCW holders know is not justified, and is not the first reaction. However, those that are not knowledgeable in this area always assume it's "guns blazing regardless of the situation", which, is not the truth. It is your internal fear speaking in that case, not in any way a logical though process and an assessment of the threat, and decision on a measured response.

Again, please do not try to think or speak for me...and I will not do so for you.



posted on Dec, 27 2014 @ 01:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: opethPA
Well what I said was more in the sense that he didn't have gun that you responded to but we can just drop that discussion cause it doesn't pertain here


If the criminal didn't pull a gun in this scenario I think it's easier to say that , justified or not, the victim could have shown more restraint.

Like you said though no point in talking about hypothetical scenarios when the real one is tough enough.



posted on Dec, 27 2014 @ 01:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Krakatoa

It wasn't aimed at you, it was my thoughts and opinion on the general attitude of the thread.

With the possibility of me putting my foot in my mouth here, have I not seen you make blanket statements about the "liberal mentality"?

edit on thSat, 27 Dec 2014 13:17:04 -0600America/Chicago1220140480 by Sremmos80 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 27 2014 @ 01:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: Krakatoa

It wasn't aimed at you, it was my thoughts and opinion on the general attitude of the thread

But, since I am the thread author, and an active participant in the thread, you were directing it at me (among others). So, my point still stands...even if you side step the comment by saying, "well, I didn't mean you..." when, yes, you did.



posted on Dec, 27 2014 @ 01:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Krakatoa
Thanks but I already knew I was right.

Also seeing how the kid was breaking the law and not acting like a law abiding citizen like the shooter (who was breaking the law btw) was there really a need to show which law the kid was breaking? If you were having trouble understanding that all you had to do was ask and I would have provided that law as well.



posted on Dec, 27 2014 @ 01:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: buster2010

originally posted by: mysterioustranger
a reply to: buster2010

I legally carry on every bank party store and EVERY mall in Michigan.. .and later today when I visit down in Ohio...and there's no such thing as them not allowing me to

Before carrying a gun into another state you should always check up on it's gun laws simply because you don't know them. Just assuming I can do this in Michigan therefore I can do it in Ohio is pretty stupid because after all ignorance of the law is no excuse.


He better be careful in Michigan carrying a concealed gun in..

•a bank or financial institution
•a church or other house of religious worship
•a court
•a theater
•a sports arena
•a school or day care center
•a hospital, and
•an establishment that serves liquor. (maybe 50/50 rule)

How about Ohio..

◾ Any law enforcement station or detention facility
◾ Courthouse or building housing a courtroom
◾ Govt. building (dedicated restroom, shelter, car park okay)
◾ Place of worship (unless specifically allowed)
◾ Any airplane and most airport buildings
◾ Institution for the care of mentally ill persons
◾ School zone (drop off/pick up okay if you stay in car), college or university (lock and leave in car okay)
◾ Child day-care center
◾ Liquor facility (okay if not drinking and not posted “no guns”)
◾ Wherever federal law prohibits the carrying of handguns
Any building or property posted as a "no gun zone"

Last one is the biggie...



posted on Dec, 27 2014 @ 01:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: buster2010
a reply to: Krakatoa
Thanks but I already knew I was right.

Also seeing how the kid was breaking the law and not acting like a law abiding citizen like the shooter (who was breaking the law btw) was there really a need to show which law the kid was breaking? If you were having trouble understanding that all you had to do was ask and I would have provided that law as well.


Well, I'm glad you can pat yourself on the back for "being right". I stated a retraction and acknowledge your post was correct. What I took offense to was your "Google it" attitude when you clearly knew ahead of time (as you just stated) but instead of openly offering that information, you seemed to take the "I know something you don't know, so look it up..." stance. Which, IMO, is childish in itself and has no place in an adult discussion/debate on such an important topic.

If I misunderstood, I apologize, but that is how it came across in your original post.



posted on Dec, 27 2014 @ 01:27 PM
link   
Went to edit and hit quote on my phone and didn't notice

edit on thSat, 27 Dec 2014 13:29:56 -0600America/Chicago1220145680 by Sremmos80 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 27 2014 @ 01:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Krakatoa

I deleted the post, you are right to big of a generalization.



posted on Dec, 27 2014 @ 01:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: buster2010
a reply to: Krakatoa
Thanks but I already knew I was right.

Also seeing how the kid was breaking the law and not acting like a law abiding citizen like the shooter (who was breaking the law btw) was there really a need to show which law the kid was breaking? If you were having trouble understanding that all you had to do was ask and I would have provided that law as well.


Oh, and there is no proof the victim (the man who successfully defended himself from an armed robber) broke the law....yet. DO you know for a fact that he was in the mall with a concealed hand gun? Isn't it at least plausible that he did not have it on him while shopping and donned it after leaving? Isn't it also plausible that he did have the permission of the mall to carry inside (as per the law allows)? Shouldn't we afford him the same level of assumption as the armed robber's intent to not really shoot him but only intimidate him comment made throughout this thread (I don't know if you personally made them). So you statement that he also broke the law is not a fact until the investigation is concluded.



posted on Dec, 27 2014 @ 01:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Sremmos80

Thanks...that is the sign of an intelligent person. I applaud your actions and consider it a mark of an adult reaction.

Again, thanks.



posted on Dec, 27 2014 @ 01:35 PM
link   
Dude! What if the shoes weren't even the right size?? Fml! I think the blame lies squarely on the Nike manufacturer profiteering at it's best. What makes these shoes $200 worth? Gold thread? I doubt it's all the finest leathers from grass fed cattle. Its the same man made bullshoes out there. If they were more plentiful they could still make thier profit and less robbing. But no they would rather not. Nike was one of the first "race to the bottom" companies. I guess MLK words ring true here, "America is plagued by three isms, racism (black =thug) militarism (I love guns) and materialism it's gotta have the Nike Douche on it!

edit on 27-12-2014 by Killeonidas because: It did not look like what I initially wrote



posted on Dec, 27 2014 @ 01:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Killeonidas

The kid was going to sell them if they were not the right size.
Worth double online then in stores.



posted on Dec, 27 2014 @ 01:42 PM
link   
Another Thug Jr. snuffed out. No sympathy from me, collect your Darwin award. With more people packing heat,
these young thugs better get hip to idea that you leave innocent people alone, or it might be your last mistake.



posted on Dec, 27 2014 @ 01:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: Killeonidas
Dude! What if the shoes weren't even the right size?? Fml! I think the blame lies squarely on the Nike manufacturer profiteering at it's best. What makes these shoes $200 worth? Gold thread? I doubt it's all the finest leathers from grass fed cattle. Its the same man made bullshoes out there. If they were more plentiful they could still make thier profit and less robbing. But no they would rather not. Nike was one of the first "race to the bottom" companies. I guess MLK words ring true here, "America is plagued by three isms, racism (black =thug) militarism (I love guns) and materialism it's gotta have the Nike Douche on it!

So the person that decided to attempt an armed robbery (a felony) has no responsibility for the consequences of his actions here? Now, IMO, THAT attitude is the reason we have these type of situations increasing. If nobody feels any sense of personal responsibility, and it is always someone elses (or some business) fault, then what is the incentive to NOT commit crimes then?

edit on 12/27/2014 by Krakatoa because: Fixed spelling and other fat-finger errors



posted on Dec, 27 2014 @ 01:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Killeonidas
Dude! What if the shoes weren't even the right size?? Fml! I think the blame lies squarely on the Nike manufacturer profiteering at it's best.


Is that another excuse for a criminal ?
1 person is to blame in this scenario and that is the criminal.

I want a really expensive record player , if I go steal it from the store is the the fault of the manf that charges $7k for it or is my fault for stealing it?



posted on Dec, 27 2014 @ 01:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: opethPA

originally posted by: Killeonidas
Dude! What if the shoes weren't even the right size?? Fml! I think the blame lies squarely on the Nike manufacturer profiteering at it's best.


Is that another excuse for a criminal ?
1 person is to blame in this scenario and that is the criminal.

I want a really expensive record player , if I go steal it from the store is the the fault of the manf that charges $7k for it or is my fault for stealing it?

And if you do it in a place with a sign that states it is a gun free zone, you should have no problem stealing it at gun point. After all, they know you just want to intimidate them and have no real intent to pull that trigger. And you are guaranteed to be the only one in there with a gun too! Double win!
< sarc off >

edit on 12/27/2014 by Krakatoa because: Fixed spelling and other fat-finger errors



posted on Dec, 27 2014 @ 02:17 PM
link   
I miss the Days of Euthenaisa Eugenics Selections of Hereditary Mental and Physical Defective 's and Line of history of those Problems of Slow Learning to Even Criminal and Yet Im talking Only about people that have it in the Genes , in their DNA, you Know the Ideal of Stupid People Shouldn't Breed Theory ... back in the late 19th Century to the 1930s America Had those programs for the Genetically ILL! ... America Started it ... Hitler made the Attempt to Bring it back Using Sterilization for the Undesirables but He Killed them instead.. ... but for this Thug... does his Family have a whole History of Generations Crime ?

Eugenics in the United States
en.wikipedia.org...




Or We Should have Lets make a Death Deal TV show .. or a Death Race 2000, or Something like the Fictional Purge.. World Wide or Just Restrict People Limit them if they have the Family History of Problems...

Im NOT Talking about just a bad Apple in the Bunch from ( UP bringing)

Im talking about The Whole basket of Bad Apples in the Family ... Especially of when the Whole Family Gets SSI for having a Genetically passed down Low IQ .. but high Enough to Drive but still Low Enough that they need to have a Payee for the Rest of their Lives,,,, yeah those People That Commit Most of the Crimes.. of a 3rd generation... of Crime Most towns all have them and Know by the Reputation of their last NAME..

but for the people that went got themselves into a bad crowd that came from a good background.. Good Education
those people are more Likely are able to be Corrected..


White Collars will always be White Collars & Blue Collars Will always be Blue Collars
The Middle Stays Put or Becomes Either One .. in the Push ...




Project Prevention
en.wikipedia.org...


Compulsory sterilization
en.wikipedia.org...





edit on 62014SaturdayfAmerica/Chicago12360 by Wolfenz because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 27 2014 @ 02:24 PM
link   
What can I say that's original?
*I truly believe in gun rights but I don't own any guns. If I had a family, I would argue that it's irresponsible not to have a gun for home protection because the cops show up AFTER the crime occurs. Only rarely do they show up during. An individual has a right to defend themselves WITHOUT relying on an outside entity. *
ASSUMING THE ARTICLE IS TRUE AND THE ROBBER HAD A GUN
I am not here to celebrate the death of a teenager. Nor do I agree that this child (or whatever you want to call his maturity level ) died over a a pair of sneakers. This person was killed because they pulled a gun in a threatening manner. The other person had every right to defend themselves with equal force. One might argue "Just give the robber what he wants." Uh yeah, good logic, except now you A) are giving the robber the drop to do what ever he wants to you. & B) you are giving the robber another gun to use or sell for a future murder. This all goes back to rule #1 about guns: never carry (or pull) a gun unless you intend to use it.
Now, if we look at anything closely enough, like all matter, for instance, we see that everything's existence becomes questionable at a certain point. If quantum physics has taught us anything, its that things don't actually exist unless you are looking at them. Until then, its all just potential and probability. "He was a good kid" "he was a bad kid" "The guy never should have been carrying, in a mall, in ohio" " He should have sung Kumbaya and given him a hug" Blah Blah Blah. The only thing that matters are the facts: Robber pulls gun. Robber shot dead by potential victim. I'm not here to celebrate death. I'm here to celebrate justice. And if it is illegal to carry a gun in a mall in ohio, the NRA should fund this guys defense on the grounds that the law is unconstitutional. Go Justice! The system worked for once! (unfortunately this is the only time the system worked. jk)




top topics



 
53
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join