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: 36
53
<< 33  34  35    37  38  39 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 02:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: th2356


True.

In my country, Norway, people will assume that you are either a criminal or insane if you walk around armed or have guns stashed around your house.

And since the population is not armed to their teeth, neither ordinary citizens nor the police have any reason to fear for their lives on a daily basis. They do not always have be ready to"shoot first, or be killed". Last year the police fired 3 warning shots in total. The last time police had to shoot and kill someone, was in 2006. Last year two people were killed by weapons (one rifle and one shotgun) in the population, one of the deaths was a hunting accident. We have never had a school shooting.

But what do you know, in US the answer to violence and killings seems to be "more guns for everyone". The stupidity of it is amazing, but at least the weapon industry must be happy.


My ancestors are from Norway and my blood is 50% derived from Norway. The fallacy of your argument is during WWII you basically let the Germans walk in. They raped and imprisoned untold numbers of Norwegians. The Germans went on a conquest of breeding with Norwegian women. Do a search on the Living Hell of Nazi Children.

I guess you can be proud of not having guns until a Hitler comes knocking.. I am sure the people that were murdered, raped and tortured may have a differing opinion..

The 2nd Amendment in our country not only protects us from our Government but it also protects us from the exact thing the Norwegian people of WWII could not protect their country from.

Your guy holds the number one spot for The Top 5 Worst Gun Massacres by an Individual.. We have to go down to #4 on the list before we even see America.
edit on 29-12-2014 by truckdriver42 because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-12-2014 by truckdriver42 because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 02:50 PM
link   
What's the old sang, don't pull a gun if you're not going to use it, because the next person who pulls a gun is going to use it.



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 02:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: truckdriver42



The 2nd Amendment in our country not only protects us from our Government but it also protects us from the exact thing the Norwegian people of WWII could not protect their country from.



Sadly it does not seem to protect you from killing each other while you wait for the Germans to invade....



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 03:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: ForteanOrg

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.



He wasn't killed because he was making a mistake. He was killed because he with malice of forethought threatened life and limb to victimize an honest person. A mistake is leaving the oven on, pulling a gun on someone to rob them is a deliberate act.



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 03:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: NavyDoc
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.


Indeed. So, to me it seems logical and reasonable to hand him over what he wants unless that what he wants has more value to me than my life. So, say I have a pair of overly expensive sneakers. Say they are worth 300 bucks. So, if I value my life to be worth less than 300 bucks, I might just try to kill him to ensure I keep that pair of sneakers. You're right, I value my life a lot more.


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 think that VP is right as rain. But please don't confuse that with "I think a woman should be raped", that's not what I said. It's the oldest trick in the book to do that and I'm not buying.


I don't believe in God and all lives are not equal.


I fail to see the relevancy of faith in God in this context. It were men that bore guns, not God.

Yes, each live is valuable even that of spiders and rats, mice lice and cockroaches, bacteria and fungi. Alas, we aren't able to prevent life without perishing ourselves and so we have to make choices. Not that we kill - we will - but what and whom we kill. That's exactly what this is all about: we choose to kill our own. That is exceptional and should be evaded if possible. We all agree.


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.


We disagree here. Yes, his actions were despicable. As were the actions of that guy that shot the 16 year old. Both grew up in a society in which they learned that making your point is done at gunpoint, so society as a whole is to blame. In the end the sneakers proved to be more important than the life of the robber. That's sad.


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.


Most stormtroopers - on both sides - had family and friends. I would gladly give a tinkers cup for their lives, but it will not help me much, they're long dead. You're referring to a very special situation: active war. In wartime there are different rules - rules I don't agree with but nevertheless, if we are at war I'll have to or be shot myself. So, I probably will play along with this dreadful game if I ever have to, but not because I think it is a good thing or the right thing.

Even then it's a good habit not to kill more of your own species than you really need to. Or of any species, for that matter.



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 03:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: ForteanOrg

originally posted by: NavyDoc
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.


Indeed. So, to me it seems logical and reasonable to hand him over what he wants unless that what he wants has more value to me than my life. So, say I have a pair of overly expensive sneakers. Say they are worth 300 bucks. So, if I value my life to be worth less than 300 bucks, I might just try to kill him to ensure I keep that pair of sneakers. You're right, I value my life a lot more.


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 think that VP is right as rain. But please don't confuse that with "I think a woman should be raped", that's not what I said. It's the oldest trick in the book to do that and I'm not buying.


I don't believe in God and all lives are not equal.


I fail to see the relevancy of faith in God in this context. It were men that bore guns, not God.

Yes, each live is valuable even that of spiders and rats, mice lice and cockroaches, bacteria and fungi. Alas, we aren't able to prevent life without perishing ourselves and so we have to make choices. Not that we kill - we will - but what and whom we kill. That's exactly what this is all about: we choose to kill our own. That is exceptional and should be evaded if possible. We all agree.


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.


We disagree here. Yes, his actions were despicable. As were the actions of that guy that shot the 16 year old. Both grew up in a society in which they learned that making your point is done at gunpoint, so society as a whole is to blame. In the end the sneakers proved to be more important than the life of the robber. That's sad.


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.


Most stormtroopers - on both sides - had family and friends. I would gladly give a tinkers cup for their lives, but it will not help me much, they're long dead. You're referring to a very special situation: active war. In wartime there are different rules - rules I don't agree with but nevertheless, if we are at war I'll have to or be shot myself. So, I probably will play along with this dreadful game if I ever have to, but not because I think it is a good thing or the right thing.

Even then it's a good habit not to kill more of your own species than you really need to. Or of any species, for that matter.


Ah, but he values your life less than the 300 dollar pair of sneakers and handing them over is no guarantee that he will leave you alone and go about his business. You hand them over and HOPE he does leave you alone but he could just very well kill you for a variety of reasons. In fact, according to our own DOJ, one is more likely to suffer death or injury by passive response to an armed attacker than an active response. Statistically, in the US, you are better off resisting an armed assailant by any means than passively complying. In our gang culture, violence and pain and hurting a victim are seen as acts that give one "glory" and "street cred." If you turn belly up and comply and are seen as weak, you are more likely to get hurt.

You'd rather a woman submit to rape than shooting her attacker? That's sick, man, truly sick. The rapist, by the decision to rape, has forfeited any consideration for his safety and well being.

I honestly see here an example as to why the Netherlands keep having to be bailed out in war after war. Passivity in the face of evil intent does not make one safe.



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 03:28 PM
link   
a reply to: ForteanOrg


The argument is based on a false premise. The suspect was not killed because of a pair of shoes, and the victim didn't shoot him because of a pair of shoes. The suspect is dead because he pointed a gun at the victim and at that point in time the victim feared for his life or great bodily injury would happen if he didn't use deadly force to neutralize the threat. The was ZERO guarantee that his life or health would have been spared had he handed the shoes over. And no sane person rolls the dice in chance when they are in fear of their life.



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 03:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: NavyDoc
He wasn't killed because he was making a mistake. He was killed because he with malice of forethought threatened life and limb to victimize an honest person. A mistake is leaving the oven on, pulling a gun on someone to rob them is a deliberate act.


I don't know what he thought. But from what I read the 16 year old wanted that pair of sneakers. He did no set out to kill the guy - he set out to get these sneakers.

A 16 year old hasn't even got a fully grown brain yet, is not able to judge risks, has no life experience. If he grows up in a society that stimulates gun use, you should not be surprised he thinks he need a gun too. And he got one, probably because one of the neighbours had one lying around. Guns are quite normal in some States, I'm afraid.

If he had had no access to guns, he would have lived. But your society of fearless warriors has guns plenty. So he could get his hands on one. If the guy that was robbed had not had a concealed weapon he could not have killied the robber. But CCW is part of your daily life there, so the guy gets killed because he wants a pair of vastly overpriced footwear. I fail to see why that is good - if it had been my country it's almost certain nobody would have died. The robber would probably not have had a gun to begin with: only a small fraction of our robberies involve guns. So, maybe he would just have gone home, disappointed, but alive. But even IF he would have had access to a gun - the guy that was robbed would probably have either run away (sneakers and all) or handed them over - and then bought himself a new pair with the insurance money,.

So, not sure where you're going here, but certainly not up my alley.



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 03:32 PM
link   
a reply to: NavyDoc




You'd rather a woman submit to rape than shooting her attacker? That's sick, man, truly sick. The rapist, by the decision to rape, has forfeited any consideration for his safety and well being.


Why does rape always have to get brought into things that have nothing to do with it?!

No, if someone is going to rape you it is a different story, but this is about a material object not getting sexually assaulted.
I know you can see the difference doc.



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 03:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: ForteanOrg

So, yes, "minute" - the overwhelming number of cases remains unsolved.


Most likely stemming from the blasé attitude towards apprehension that you mentioned initially.



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 03:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Sremmos80




No, if someone is going to rape you it is a different story, but this is about a material object not getting sexually assaulted.


Once again, false premise fallacy. It wasn't about shoes, it was about pointing a deadly weapon at him. Once the gun was in play it was no longer about shoes. And threat of death or great bodily injury is worse than rape.



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 03:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
No, if someone is going to rape you it is a different story, but this is about a material object not getting sexually assaulted.


It is not about a material object, it is about a person threatening another person with a firearm. The object of their intended theft is irrelevant, the weapon the perpetrator was using elevates this from simple robbery to armed robbery which is a much more serious offense due to the amount of risk it poses to the victim.



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 03:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Sremmos80
No, if someone is going to rape you it is a different story, but this is about a material object not getting sexually assaulted.


It is not about a material object, it is about a person threatening another person with a firearm. The object of their intended theft is irrelevant, the weapon the perpetrator was using elevates this from simple robbery to armed robbery which is a much more serious offense due to the amount of risk it poses to the victim.


Correct, it would be about shoes if it was an attempt at a strong arm robbery. When the gun is introduced the threat to the person is life or great bodily injury.



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 03:43 PM
link   
So it's okay for a person who isn't a cop to shoot a black teen for breaking the law, but it's not okay for a cop to do it when it's HIS JOB?


This world, my friends, amazes me.



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 03:45 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Yes I get that, my comment was about comparing giving up your shoes to letting your self get raped...

Just cause some one would advocate you giving up the shoes at the request of an armed man does not mean they would advocate letting some one rape you.



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 03:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: ForteanOrg

originally posted by: NavyDoc
He wasn't killed because he was making a mistake. He was killed because he with malice of forethought threatened life and limb to victimize an honest person. A mistake is leaving the oven on, pulling a gun on someone to rob them is a deliberate act.


I don't know what he thought. But from what I read the 16 year old wanted that pair of sneakers. He did no set out to kill the guy - he set out to get these sneakers.

A 16 year old hasn't even got a fully grown brain yet, is not able to judge risks, has no life experience. If he grows up in a society that stimulates gun use, you should not be surprised he thinks he need a gun too. And he got one, probably because one of the neighbours had one lying around. Guns are quite normal in some States, I'm afraid.

If he had had no access to guns, he would have lived. But your society of fearless warriors has guns plenty. So he could get his hands on one. If the guy that was robbed had not had a concealed weapon he could not have killied the robber. But CCW is part of your daily life there, so the guy gets killed because he wants a pair of vastly overpriced footwear. I fail to see why that is good - if it had been my country it's almost certain nobody would have died. The robber would probably not have had a gun to begin with: only a small fraction of our robberies involve guns. So, maybe he would just have gone home, disappointed, but alive. But even IF he would have had access to a gun - the guy that was robbed would probably have either run away (sneakers and all) or handed them over - and then bought himself a new pair with the insurance money,.

So, not sure where you're going here, but certainly not up my alley.


No, he put a deadly weapon in the face of an innocent--his intentions are thus very obvious. Sixteen year olds can rape and kill and main and often do so just as well as 26 year olds.

Absent a gun he could have had a knife or a baseball bat and the situation would be the same--threatening an honest citizen with death or severe injury unless he complies. You may have gentleman bandits in your country, but, having been around the world, I think you paint a rosier picture than in actuality--here we have a thriving thug culture where serious injury to your victim is part of the point.



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 03:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Sremmos80
No, if someone is going to rape you it is a different story, but this is about a material object not getting sexually assaulted.


It is not about a material object, it is about a person threatening another person with a firearm. The object of their intended theft is irrelevant, the weapon the perpetrator was using elevates this from simple robbery to armed robbery which is a much more serious offense due to the amount of risk it poses to the victim.
Agreed. It may have BEGUN over a physical object, but once a weapon was introduced the dynamic of the situation becomes one of fight or flight. The victim had the means and ability to fight rather than flee, and made the choice to stand and fight.

It's terrible there's a dead kid at the end of the day, but he made a conscious decision to pull a weapon on someone. Even at 16, you know the difference between right and wrong, and what constitutes a good vs. bad decision. When I was 16, I was shooting people. Paper targets, but they were shaped like people. But even then, I knew if I ever drew a weapon on an ACTUAL person, that person might draw a weapon right back and shoot me dead. Hell, even in video games, people know that guns = death. The difference here is you can't "respawn" in real life. And yes, teens know that you don't have "extra guys" in real life.

The kid knew what he was doing, and acted without regard for the consequences.



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 03:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Lyxdeslic

No one is saying that what so ever...
And I am sure that those that feel this man was in the right would have no issue with a cop doing it so not sure where you are coming from.



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 03:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: NavyDoc




You'd rather a woman submit to rape than shooting her attacker? That's sick, man, truly sick. The rapist, by the decision to rape, has forfeited any consideration for his safety and well being.


Why does rape always have to get brought into things that have nothing to do with it?!

No, if someone is going to rape you it is a different story, but this is about a material object not getting sexually assaulted.
I know you can see the difference doc.



The underlying principle is the same--that one should permit themselves to be victimized because the life of the criminal is more valuable that whatever the victim has or the criminal wants.

Secondly, he agreed with the rape premise, so my point was a validly made one.



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 03:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Sremmos80

I think the point Lyx was trying to make was that HAD this been a police officer that shot the kid, media would be crawling over it as another instance of police overreach and brutality.




top topics



 
53
<< 33  34  35    37  38  39 >>

log in

join