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

originally posted by: Echtelion
Between the people willing to shoot kids over a pair of Nikes and some insane Wahhabi jihadists,

Oh yay, another post enabling criminal behavior.

If the criminal didn't want to suffer the consequences of trying to rob someone then he shouldn't have tried to rob someone.

It isn't the fault of Nike. It isn't the fault of the store that sold the guy the shoes. It isn't the fault of the gun manf. It isn't the fault of the victim.

The criminal made a bad choice and is the only 1 to blame . That isn't me celebrating the death of anyone that is just me being realistic about this scenario.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: NOTurTypical

Did you not read the part where I said I know it doesn't change the crime?

The point is that it has not been said he pointed it at him, only that it was shown or 'made aware' that he had it.

I didn't see that. What have the eye-witnesses said? And if you said it doesn't change the crime, then that is true and no argument from me on that point.

a reply to: NOTurTypical

What have the eye-witnesses said?

Can't find anything about that at this point.

I hate it when parents , friends, teachers etc.... all go.. " But he was such a nice boy. " And if he played a sport he is always " a promising athlete ".


No he was a THUG.... His parents brought up a THUG.... his friends will also be thugs.

Thugs life. Thugs death.


At least someone else brought a gun to the gun fight.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: NOTurTypical

What have the eye-witnesses said?

Can't find anything about that at this point.

I did just find this from a local affiliate, it puts to bed the claims of some here that there was no gun found from the teen:

"Police seized both the shooter’s gun and the gun that was with the juveniles."


The article does go on to say that the teen attempted to rob the victim "at gunpoint", that implies it was pointed at the victim or in his general direction and not brandished.

Link

a reply to: NOTurTypical

Implying is not fact though.

Lots of sources saying lots of things.
Once the police release and the eye witness speak then we can get closer.

Tbh it is likely that he did more then just show it but it is still speculation at this point.

a reply to: Sremmos80

Yeah we will have to wait and see. I seriously doubt he would have shot him if all that boy did was just to show him the gun.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: NOTurTypical

Implying is not fact though.

Lots of sources saying lots of things.
Once the police release and the eye witness speak then we can get closer.

Tbh it is likely that he did more then just show it but it is still speculation at this point.

And yeah, that's the implication now, that's what I'm going to go by until there is conflicting credible evidence to the contrary.

Oh I'm sure the two juveniles will have a totally different story, my hope is that there is CCTV footage either in front of the HH Gregg store, or in the parking lot itself. But I'm leaning toward the statement to the press by police is based on evidence recovered at the scene and witness testimony.

a reply to: IkNOwSTuff

Ok whatever guy, but allow me to meet you half way on this tense subject that has so many recent incidents connected to it. It's not about what you or I think about eachother's stance on this, it's about whether it was right or wrong, justified or not.

The key here on ATS is to focus on the subject of the debate, not eachother. I have contributed last night to the contrary of what I am laying out about the rules here, just as you and others did.

The Mods here have allowed the discussion to go forward, so let's all try to focus now on the was it right or wrong debate. It's emotional, but at the end of the day it makes for much better reading here on ATS. ~$heopleNation

a reply to: Deaf Alien

Why?
It's already been said here many a time over that it doesn't matter.
Why is it a stretch to think he had the same mind set?

a reply to: NOTurTypical

It's your implication.

And all you need is one source? If I were to show you others that don't read the same way would you change your mind?
Your source even changes the wording to displayed in the same section that they write at gunpoint.

a reply to: Sremmos80

Because if all he did was to show his gun in his waist band then there was no reason to shoot him. The shooter would have been charged.

originally posted by: blupblup
Good post.
You can't rationalise with gun morons though.... there's no point.
As you said, they think the answer to "Too much gun crime" is MORE GUNS.
Just ridiculous.

And your answer is to just allow criminals to have guns, cause they will always have access to them on the black market. You know, like illegal narcotics? How have those Laws worked out?

Sounds like a brilliant plan Einstein, you should run for office so you can fix everything. Talk about ridiculous, or clueless maybe? ~$heopleNation

a reply to: Deaf Alien

I don't think that is true at all.
And many here, including leos have said the same thing.
All he needs is to feel threatened and he is then in his 'right'.
The post below mine is a just one example.

Now if the guy had the same line of thought, then it would not be crazy to think he shot him over showing the gun

A lot of the noncombatants or otherwise peaceful types on here are missing the point in some of this debate. If you wait to get sucker-punched, then you've waited too long. If you wait to have a gun pointed at your face to draw and shoot, then you've waited too long.

If a bad man was on your porch threatening to get in your house and hurt your children, would you wait for him to get in their room or would you shoot him in the foyer?

If these "teens" had a gun and showed it to him, and then asked, even politely, for the shoes. He should have shot them.

You don't fight the Nazis off the coast of NY, you fight em in Europe. Anytime you can get the initiative or upper hand in a life and death struggle, you need to take it.

If you don't grasp any part of what I just said, then you are living in an action movie/ Kung fu dream world. Real life violence is scary and fast, so so fast. There isn't time to think. See attackers gun, draw and shoot your gun. No time to think.

a reply to: Sremmos80

If he was showing the gun in his waistband then all that man had to do is pull out his gun first and tell the boy to get down or whatever but not shoot.

a reply to: Sremmos80

It's your implication.

No, I'm not a lexicographer who writes dictionary definitions. "Gunpoint" generally means "at the point of a gun", now the author of the news article could be wrong, but if the officer said "gunpoint" that generally, for all intents and purposes, means it wasn't brandished, but pointed.

a reply to: Deaf Alien

Hey I agree with you there and would have no issue what so ever.

Eta:
As you can see that is an absurd idea that some would do that

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: Sremmos80

Because if all he did was to show his gun in his waist band then there was no reason to shoot him. The shooter would have been charged.

100% false. That is still armed robbery and a direct threat of deadly force. A person with a note claiming to have a gun at a bank is still charged with armed robbery if they claim on the note they have a gun and one is never seen by the bank teller.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: Deaf Alien

I don't think that is true at all.
And many here, including leos have said the same thing.
All he needs is to feel threatened and he is then in his 'right'.
The post below mine is a just one example.

Now if the guy had the same line of thought, then it would not be crazy to think he shot him over showing the gun

Correct. All the victim needed to think to have taken his life legally is felt he was in danger for his life or serious injury if he didn't pull the trigger.