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: 33
53
<< 30  31  32    34  35  36 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 12:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
A lot of people have little or no understanding of what it is like to be robbed at gunpoint. Experiences like that will for sure change your worldview.



i have been robbed at knife point in my own home...it was a very unpleasant experience to say the least




posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 12:53 AM
link   
a reply to: roadgravel

Sure, but if you are going to say that some people have been shot after complying, seems only fair to point out that some have not.

I would bet the latter happens more but that is just my gut feeling.



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 01:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: roadgravel

Sure, but if you are going to say that some people have been shot after complying, seems only fair to point out that some have not.

I would bet the latter happens more but that is just my gut feeling.


Sure and I an not saying more have then not. But compared to someone without a gun the odds are much greater.

Even if the odds were 1:10 or 1:100 of not vs getting shot, I would not want to play. Very few would I bet.



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 01:06 AM
link   
a reply to: NOTurTypical

Ok good deal.

Doesn't change that what we define as a 'clean shoot' though these days do not require you in anyway to give them a chance to not use the gun and still not be charged.

If you get threatened with a gun, people feel they have the right to not let it get any further then that.
Really unless this kid was running away, you know the guy was protected once he was threatened with a gun regardless if he was pointing or just showing.
edit on thMon, 29 Dec 2014 01:21:19 -0600America/Chicago1220151980 by Sremmos80 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 01:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: roadgravel

Sure, but if you are going to say that some people have been shot after complying, seems only fair to point out that some have not.

I would bet the latter happens more but that is just my gut feeling.
True, however, for me, I would rather not gamble with my own life under the control of someone threatening me with deadly force. Hoping they won't kill me, now that, IMO is a stupid bet. The odds are way out of your favor in that one. I for one would not be willing to lose that bet...when losing means you are dead, and your family left with suffering and grieving for the rest of their lives.

You (and this isn't directed at you personally) are free to take that chance....but please do not try to make that decision for me and my family because you do not like that option.

In this case, the criminal made a personal choice to attempt and armed robbery upon someone that was ready to make that hard choice, and the criminal lost, the victim won. In a split second it could have resulted in the opposite result...regardless of the items themselves.



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 06:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: NOTurTypical

Oh maybe you misunderstood? Dang it's hard to explain in sentences lol.

Ok if the boy showed the shopper his gun in his waistband (not touching it). The shopper sees it as a potential threat. The shopper takes his gun out first and point at him to lessen that threat. He doesn't have to shoot him because the threat is minimized. The shooting is not necessary.


taunts you with a weapon designed to end your life but thats cool, he hasnt touched it yet can i please have your shoes dont worry about my 9mml, its my bling, it would go nice with your shoes when you give them to me!
you actually think that pulling your gun, aiming is threat minimisation, lmao.
Negotiation 101, negative communication is met with negative communication.
As soon as the kid showed his weapon the victim has three options fight, flight or negotiate now depending on what the victims qualitys are and also what the intent the criminal is showing via body language is how this situation is gauged.
Now as was explained in a previous post by another member these events unfold very fast, and with adrenaline things get shaky. what you describe is a movie scene.
If the victim decides to fight then there are no other options than survival, that is your instinct



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 08:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: NOTurTypical

Oh maybe you misunderstood? Dang it's hard to explain in sentences lol.

Ok if the boy showed the shopper his gun in his waistband (not touching it). The shopper sees it as a potential threat. The shopper takes his gun out first and point at him to lessen that threat. He doesn't have to shoot him because the threat is minimized. The shooting is not necessary.


Until one of his buddies that is to your side shoots you with his gun. If one of 3 people, attempting to rob you, where one has a gun for sure, then the others are very likely to have them too. Is that not a valid and very plausible possibility? What you describe is a Hollywood script....and in no way reflects reality. And, BTW, drawing on him does NOT minimize the threat, it escalates it...but, I guess you don;t understand that. A licensed CCW carrier is taught that drawing is your last resort, and should only be done to stop (not minimize) an immediate threat to your life (or the lives of those with you). You NEVER draw your weapon to "minimize" a threat, if you do, then you were not in fear for your life enough to draw in the first place. That is a common misconception of folks that are not trained.

Draw, fire, keep firing until the threat is stopped (not minimized). Anything less (like brandishing, warning shots, or shooting an extremity on purpose) is actually against the law as is shows in court that you were not fearful enough for your life. Don't like it, take it up with the courts system. That is what you will be judged against legally and the rules all licensed and responsible CCW holders must follow.



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 09:36 AM
link   
I cannot celebrate any of this. The young man stealing the shoes and waving a gun around was wrong...but I can't celebrate his death...I feel sad about the wrong choices he made.

The person who shot him dead...I cannot celebrate what he did either; taking someone's life (to me) is nothing to celebrate...I should think it will be a memory that will haunt him for the rest of his life.



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 09:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: KrakatoaDraw, fire, keep firing until the threat is stopped (not minimized). Anything less (like brandishing, warning shots, or shooting an extremity on purpose) is actually against the law as is shows in court that you were not fearful enough for your life.


How primitive.


Let's see if we can solve this with logic, as gut feelings and politics seem to fail us.

As some die-hard shooters won't even consider that the boy that robbed might have value for society in the end, we will not consider him. So, what could have happened to the robbed person? Well, he could die or not. What are the odds?

I don't have any statistics at hand - maybe somebody has? - but my GUESSTIMATES for CCW states are:

Scenario 1: robbed person hands over goods, gets killed; 10 percent of cases
Scenario 2: robbed person hands over goods, lives; 40 percent of cases
Scenario 3: robbed person pulls gun, gets killed; 20 percent of cases
Scenario 4: robbed person pulls gun, lives; 20 percent of cases

Again, these are GUESSTIMATES and I will gladly include the correct numbers if anybody can find them for me. I have tried various sites without luck, so all I can do is fall back to what I THINK are reasonable numbers.

However - let's start by agreeing that decent folks won't like either scenario. So, what logic dictates is that we try to avoid all, or most of these scenarios. If you live in a civilised country where people don't carry guns, scenario 3 and 4 are impossible, and I believe that it is safe to say that in those countries the odds will be something of 80/20 for living after handing over the goods.

So, in as far as I can see the wisest thing a) not to use the gun you're carrying and b) when being robbed, simply hand over the goods. Insurance will mostly pay for it, you will be able to report it to the Police which in turn may be able to arrest the guy.

Be S.A.F.E. Secure - be secure and aware of your surroundings; Avoid - avoid dangerous areas, particularly after sundown; Flee - run away, if possible; Engage - only when all else fails, fight back. I mean, did the guy that shot the boy try to get away at all, or did he just think "oh well, bad day for that thug, I have a gun and I'm gonna use it!"..? Had he fled when he would not have had the gun? I don't know, but tend to think that it does not really help your useful cowardness if you have a gun...

Also, in a civilised country the chances that a youngster gets hold of a weapon are smaller (not impossible, but smaller), which makes occurence of all scenarios less frequent.

And BTW, if you really HAVE to carry something to defend yourself - why not use a taser? Works well and will keep your opponent alive to be judged. Or pepper spray. Dito. What is it with some folks that they think that you have to shoot a person before he can be disabled?

BTW: somebody in here wrote that the Police is not engaged with prevention. That's silly too - actually, the Dutch Police are. Their tactics of monitoring suspect persons, advise stores and private people to avoid robberies and our national policy to try to keep arms out of the hands of the population have reduced robbery to an all time low. Good.



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 09:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: ForteanOrg

And BTW, if you really HAVE to carry something to defend yourself - why not use a taser? Works well and will keep your opponent alive to be judged.


Tasers are illegal in my state. Additionally, they are a one time use weapon, suppose I miss?



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 10:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: ForteanOrg

And BTW, if you really HAVE to carry something to defend yourself - why not use a taser? Works well and will keep your opponent alive to be judged.


Tasers are illegal in my state. Additionally, they are a one time use weapon, suppose I miss?

If you are face to face like this guy was and miss should you really have a gun? Guns can hurt people at a further distance than tasers. If you are that bad of an aim then get a laser pointer for it.



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 10:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: ForteanOrg

And BTW, if you really HAVE to carry something to defend yourself - why not use a taser? Works well and will keep your opponent alive to be judged.


Tasers are illegal in my state. Additionally, they are a one time use weapon, suppose I miss?



Oh well.. are guns legal in your State? If so, I'm flabbergasted. Sounds a bit like the State forbids weed but allows crack..

Yes, you can miss. Suppose you miss with a gun - and hit an innocent bystander?



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 10:43 AM
link   
a reply to: ForteanOrg


Can you please stop using the phrase, "in a civilized country " . It is a derogatory slight against an entire country, and not needed in this conversation. Let's stick to the immediate topic at hand, shall we?
edit on 12/29/2014 by Krakatoa because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 10:54 AM
link   
a reply to: ForteanOrg
The boy might of had some value in the future..its too bad he brought about the end to it.
Your guestimates might as well be nothing as a guess is not a fact, put up facts.
Im Canadian and I would not argue about the fact that there is a gun problem..Im glad I live where everyone isn't packing. Having said that it is what it is and the gun issue is never going to change in the U.S., I was taught never to use/pull a weapon unless I was going to use it(defence obviously). If someone pulls a weapon you automaticly assume its pulled with bad intentions..your choice is fight or flight, depending on the aggressor. I would not gamble with MY life. If the kid had the gun in his waistband I would of told him he better GTFO(3rd option negotiate)..if he pulled the weapon from his waistband he is dead..his choice.
I agree somewhat with Deaf Alien if the weapon was not pulled I personally would not of shot..in my mind anyway..who knows once put on the spot.


edit on 29-12-2014 by vonclod because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-12-2014 by vonclod because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 10:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: buster2010

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: buster2010

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: Krakatoa

Nothing to see here, just natural selection.. move along.
edit: Dangit, the new girl beat me to it! :-( Welcome to ATS!!

I know this was a sarcastic post (meant to be funny), but, if we ignore these type of stories, and only broadcast and "discuss" cases of bad cops doing bad things, then we do an injustice to all those that do follow the law, and only further glorify the thug mentality.

That's just it he wasn't following the law. The mall has strict rules against guns on their property so the guy could be charged with a misdemeanor.


No, a mall cannot overrule federal laws or the United States Constitution. There are clearly listed areas that you cannot conceal carry....shopping malls are not on that list. This is a common misconception.


Sorry but yes they can because it is private property. As long as the no guns sign is posted where people can see it then you are not allowed to carry a gun on that property and that's the law.


Depends on the state. In many states, a "no guns" sign does not carry any legal weight in a place of public accommodation.

In Ohio, the property must have a specifically made sign with the specific ordinance listed on the sign conspicuously displayed at all entrances to the property.



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 10:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: buster2010

If you are face to face like this guy was and miss should you really have a gun? Guns can hurt people at a further distance than tasers. If you are that bad of an aim then get a laser pointer for it.


Considering I am range qualified with my pistols and I have never used a taser the likelihood is I will not miss with my pistol.



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 10:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: ForteanOrg

Oh well.. are guns legal in your State?


Firearms are legal in my state. Tasers and chemical sprays are not.



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 11:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: buster2010

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: buster2010

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: Krakatoa

Nothing to see here, just natural selection.. move along.
edit: Dangit, the new girl beat me to it! :-( Welcome to ATS!!

I know this was a sarcastic post (meant to be funny), but, if we ignore these type of stories, and only broadcast and "discuss" cases of bad cops doing bad things, then we do an injustice to all those that do follow the law, and only further glorify the thug mentality.

That's just it he wasn't following the law. The mall has strict rules against guns on their property so the guy could be charged with a misdemeanor.


No, a mall cannot overrule federal laws or the United States Constitution. There are clearly listed areas that you cannot conceal carry....shopping malls are not on that list. This is a common misconception.


Sorry but yes they can because it is private property. As long as the no guns sign is posted where people can see it then you are not allowed to carry a gun on that property and that's the law.


Depends on the state. In many states, a "no guns" sign does not carry any legal weight in a place of public accommodation.

In Ohio, the property must have a specifically made sign with the specific ordinance listed on the sign conspicuously displayed at all entrances to the property.




And in Ohio it applies to only concealed firearms.



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 11:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krakatoa
a reply to: ForteanOrg


Can you please stop using the phrase, "in a civilized country " . It is a derogatory slight against an entire country, and not needed in this conversation. Let's stick to the immediate topic at hand, shall we?


I do that intentionally. If that upsets you, I can't help it. I can try to suppress it, but in fact it is one of the main points I try to get across: how uncivilised countries are that think that killing a person solves a problem. It merely creates new ones.

But rest assured: it's nothing personal. You can be an American, live in a CCW state and still be civilised. But statistically you're a minority there.



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 11:14 AM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

That is pretty strange...
So your only choice in self defense is a gun or knife?




top topics



 
53
<< 30  31  32    34  35  36 >>

log in

join