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

originally posted by: ForteanOrg
And robbery is taken very seriously here, so chances are that the Police will indeed capture the robber.

originally posted by: ForteanOrg

Then there only is a minute chance that our Police will show up on your doorstep and arrest you.

You contradict yourself. Which is it? Do the police take robbery seriously or is there a very low likelihood that a perpetrator will be arrested?

originally posted by: Sremmos80

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

No, there is legal precedent for using whatever is at hand but as I said to another poster close quarters combat is not my preferred method with dealing with a potential assailant.

originally posted by: Dutchowl
a reply to: Krakatoa>>>> His friends should be charged as accomplices to a homicide and sentenced accordingly. The shooter/would be victim should have his identity protected and not be charged and hopefully the community will rally to his defense.

I agree with you, and in many states this is actually the law. If you are an accessory to a violent crime, or an intended violent crime, and one of your cohorts takes a dirt nap as a result of his/her poor decision making, the accessories will be charged for the death of the other assailant.

So let me get this straight.

A troubled youth accosts a man outside a shopping mall. The youth produces a handgun. Surprise! The victim is concealed carrying. The perpetrator is shot, and unfortunately, dies.

And somehow now the VICTIM of the crime is guilty and the perpetrator of the assault is some kid who "had a bright future".

I'm sorry, if you're brandishing guns and robbing people outside of malls at the age of 16, your future isn't so bright.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: ForteanOrg
And robbery is taken very seriously here, so chances are that the Police will indeed capture the robber.

originally posted by: ForteanOrg

Then there only is a minute chance that our Police will show up on your doorstep and arrest you.

You contradict yourself. Which is it? Do the police take robbery seriously or is there a very low likelihood that a perpetrator will be arrested?

Both. We take it very seriously but there is only a minute chance that you will be arrested for a crime. About 25 percent of all crimes do actually result in an arrest. But we are very good at reducing the threats. For example, the number of robberies in stores has been reduced from 991 in 2009 to 422 in 2013. This mainly because the Police is working with the population and the stores to PREVENT crime. Instead of convincing people to shoot others "to defend themselves" we tend to convince people to help PREVENT robbery. By ensuring there is not really much steal in the first place, by reducing the amount of cash to the absolute minimum, and ensure that any cash that is on site is in a time-locked vault. By using proper lighting, install CCTVs, allow pin-payments (debit card, credit card payments) whenever possible. Even a Mars bar can be bought here using a debit card transaction.


So, both.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
No way this kid at 16 could have turned his life around.
Obviously the only outcome for his life was to go become a career criminal.

He shouldn't have done what he did but don't see how people can go on and on about how the shooter did society some great service to the rest of us for doing this.

Well, maybe the death of this one, under theses circumstances, might help "turn around" the lives of the surviving two.

If you pull a gun on someone as a threat, in a country where concealed carry is allowed and self defense to the point of killing is allowed, then you need to understand that its a damn site easier to kill when you know you have the law on your side.

Whether the would be robber deserved to die is irrelevant, the truth is that the other guy didn't only, also deserve not to die, he had legal backing to protect himself with deadly force.

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
So let me get this straight.

A troubled youth accosts a man outside a shopping mall. The youth produces a handgun. Surprise! The victim is concealed carrying. The perpetrator is shot, and unfortunately, dies.

And somehow now the VICTIM of the crime is guilty and the perpetrator of the assault is some kid who "had a bright future".

I'm sorry, if you're brandishing guns and robbing people outside of malls at the age of 16, your future isn't so bright.

Indeed. As a matter of fact, he has no future left. Some in here seem to enjoy that. I can only repeat what another member here said before: that both parties have suffered a loss. The guy that is dead has a family that is left grieving. The guy that shot him dead wil have to carry that with him for the rest of his life. All whom ever have killed a man know that that is not something you take lightly.

Now, had the shooter just handed over the loot - slowly, assuring the robber that he'd get what he wanted - both now had lived. Is a human life really worth less than 300 bucks in the US of A?

originally posted by: ForteanOrg

Both. We take it very seriously but there is only a minute chance that you will be arrested for a crime.

If there is only a 'minute chance' a perpetrator will be arrested for committing a crime I fail to see how it is being taken seriously.

Crime prevention does not do anything for clearance statistics which would demonstrate whether perpetrators are being apprehended after committing crimes or not.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: ForteanOrg

Both. We take it very seriously but there is only a minute chance that you will be arrested for a crime.

If there is only a 'minute chance' a perpetrator will be arrested for committing a crime I fail to see how it is being taken seriously.

Crime prevention does not do anything for clearance statistics which would demonstrate whether perpetrators are being apprehended after committing crimes or not.

That's the herd mentality--that's how sheep survive. They hunker down and hope that the wolf gets the next guy.

originally posted by: ForteanOrg

Now, had the shooter just handed over the loot - slowly, assuring the robber that he'd get what he wanted - both now had lived.

How do you deign to know the mindset of the perpetrator and that he would have let the victim leave without injury?

originally posted by: stumason
a reply to: Krakatoa

As I also said above, Young men are terrible at risk analysis and forward planning, this is a large part of why it is usually bored, young males who are involved in crime of all ranks. It's all very well saying "he should have learned" but that simply wouldn't have crossed his mind.

Not defending him, just saying it how it is. Society really needs to look at ways of educating and controlling young men, like this one, who would/should have been flagged as a "risk" quite early on. It is unfair to ask the young male to do it to himself, as he is incapable.

Why?

You managed to get past 16 without making a decision that ot you killed! I managed, Any poster here OVEr 16 has managed it.

And yes, I had the "opportunities". Growing up in an inner-city housing estate, plenty of cars to steal, plenty of shops to steal from and plenty of people to mug. Yet here's the strange thing, apart from the odd choccy bar as a dare when very young, I didn't "mug", "twoc" or burgle.

Weird that!

a reply to: ForteanOrg

Now, had the shooter just handed over the loot - slowly, assuring the robber that he'd get what he wanted - both now had lived. Is a human life really worth less than 300 bucks in the US of A?

I agree that nobody deserved to die in that encounter, and both parties are now shouldered with either indescribable grief, or an incredible sense of guilt. That being said, the victim had every legal right to defend himself. Is it worth shooting someone over a 300 dollar pair of shoes? Well, people have been shot for much less. But also, is it worth risking your life over that same 300 dollar pair of shoes? Choices were made, one bad, and the other while not necessarily the "right" choice was a legal choice.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: ForteanOrg

Now, had the shooter just handed over the loot - slowly, assuring the robber that he'd get what he wanted - both now had lived.

How do you deign to know the mindset of the perpetrator and that he would have let the victim leave without injury?

When one shoves a gun or a knife in your face and demands your stuff, it is logical and reasonable to assume that the mindset is that he will kill you if you do not comply.

I find the concept of "just comply the criminal's a life is not worth (X)" is rather disgusting. Several years back, the VP of Brady Inc, then HCI, said it was better for a woman to succumb to rape than for her to have a handgun to shoot the rapist because her rape was less of an immoral act than her killing the rapist. Same mentality and just as wrong.

I don't believe in God and all lives are not equal. The life of a thug and criminal who would threaten death (because that's why he brought the gun or knife in the first place) to take from an honest citizen who is just minding his own business has less value than a good, decent person. By their own actions they have made themselves a threat to both an individual and a society as a whole. I don't give a tinker's cup for the lives of SS stormtroopers who died when the US and the UK had to stop them from abusing and raping the people of the Netherlands because made the conscious effort to do evil things.

Indiana state code for self defense of self,others and property.
They added the (2) does not have a duty to retreat a few years back

www.in.gov...


(c) A person is justified in using reasonable force against any other person to protect the person or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person:
(1) is justified in using deadly force; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that that force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person or the commission of a forcible felony. No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting the person or a third person by reasonable means necessary.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
If there is only a 'minute chance' a perpetrator will be arrested for committing a crime I fail to see how it is being taken seriously.

Well, let's put it this way: assume that both our nations have 1000 crimes per some same unit. Now, say you're doing twice as well as we do - your country would catch 500 crimininals - mine would catch 250. We're pussies, remember

Now say that my country is able to slice the number of crimes commited in half - which we did in the last years by working with the population to prevent crime. So we only have 500 crimes per some same unit left, actually the same number as your nation. But.. we also still catch 25 percent, so we have 125 of them before the judge eventually. In effect, we only have 375 succesful crimes per some same unit - where your country has 500. In effect, my country has to take care of 125 criminals, yours of 500.

I think we take it very seriously.

a reply to: ForteanOrg

Since you seem to be shifting the goal posts I will copy what you wrote earlier:

originally posted by: ForteanOrg
And robbery is taken very seriously here, so chances are that the Police will indeed capture the robber.

originally posted by: ForteanOrg
Then there only is a minute chance that our Police will show up on your doorstep and arrest you.

The above two statements are contradictory; either the chances are good (as in the first statement) or they are not (as in the second statement).

originally posted by: NavyDoc
That's the herd mentality--that's how sheep survive. They hunker down and hope that the wolf gets the next guy.

Heya, Doc, glad to see ya!

Not sure where that wolf suddenly came from - was the kiddo that tried to nick the sneakers not human? I believe he was. If so, he was part of the herd. A misbehaving part, agreed. Something should be done against it - agreed. But killing him because he makes a severe mistake - no, I would not do that. Baah.

Can we please keep the decorum up and the name calling (including inference) down? We can have differences of opinion, and discuss the finer points of the topic at hand. Let's not devolve into a state the mods feel the need to close it down due to immaturity.

Please and thank you.

originally posted by: ForteanOrg

But killing him because he makes a severe mistake...

A 'severe mistake' is putting the wrong amperage breaker in your home and it starts a fire.

Brandishing a firearm in the commission of a robbery is a calculated and felonious action that may get the perpetrator killed. It is very, very far from being a mistake.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: ForteanOrg

Since you seem to be shifting the goal posts I will copy what you wrote earlier:

originally posted by: ForteanOrg
And robbery is taken very seriously here, so chances are that the Police will indeed capture the robber.

originally posted by: ForteanOrg
Then there only is a minute chance that our Police will show up on your doorstep and arrest you.

The above two statements are contradictory; either the chances are good (as in the first statement) or they are not (as in the second statement).

It's relative. So, yes, "minute" - the overwhelming number of cases remains unsolved. But still: about a third of all robbery cases will be solved. The average over all crimes is 25 percent, so it's safe to say that it is taken seriously by the police. Also, our efforts to PREVENT crimes like that will double or triple, and it pays off, see my previous posting.

Shifted goalposts or not - we still have only 125 prisoners that cost our taxpayers money - where you have 500. and you still have 500 unsolved cases where we only have 357