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

a reply to: NavyDoc


The principle of not wanting to get raped and not wanting to give up your shoes is the same?

Cool, makes this convo short.

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.

And no he did not agree with you.

a reply to: Sremmos80

The "principle" becomes meaningless once violence, or the threat of it, has been seriously introduced.

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun

The difference here is you can't "respawn" in real life.

Pessimist.

a reply to: ScientificRailgun

Ok again, when we are talking about rape then it can not be compared to some one robbing you for shoes!

What is so hard about that thought process??

Losing your shoes, regardless of how it happens, will not scar you for life at anywhere near the amount of someone raping you.

To bring rape into the situation is just an appeal to emotion since it has nothing to do with what happened.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
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.

I'm coming from the fact that there is support for the person who shot the kid, but cops are getting sh^t for it, when they do the same thing. I can guarentee that if this was the exact situation but it was a cop instead of someone with concealed carry there would be riots.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: ScientificRailgun

Ok again, when we are talking about rape then it can not be compared to some one robbing you for shoes!

What is so hard about that thought process??

Losing your shoes, regardless of how it happens, will not scar you for life at anywhere near the amount of someone raping you.

To bring rape into the situation is just an appeal to emotion since it has nothing to do with what happened.

If I had to choose between rape and my shoes being stolen, I would let the person have my shoes. I wouldn't even press charges. You can buy new shoes. You can't buy replacement emotional stability, and the like.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: ScientificRailgun

Ok again, when we are talking about rape then it can not be compared to some one robbing you for shoes!

What is so hard about that thought process??

Losing your shoes, regardless of how it happens, will not scar you for life at anywhere near the amount of someone raping you.

To bring rape into the situation is just an appeal to emotion since it has nothing to do with what happened.

I'm not sure how much more clear I can be. When the threat of lethal force is used to commit a crime, it changes the crime. So your mugging for a pair of shoes just became assault with a deadly weapon. Just as a rape very frequently comes with the threat (and sometimes use) of lethal force, that TOO became assault with a deadly weapon. The rape, and/or robbery become secondary crimes.

a reply to: Lyxdeslic

Again though, the people supporting the guy who shot him would be the same people to support the police.

Not sure about guaranteed riots though if this was a cop that shot him though.

a reply to: ScientificRailgun

When the threat of lethal force is used to commit a crime, it changes the crime.

Agreed, never said it doesn't, still has nothing to do with rape.

So your mugging for a pair of shoes just became assault with a deadly weapon.

See above

Just as a rape very frequently comes with the threat (and sometimes use) of lethal force, that TOO became assault with a deadly weapon. The rape, and/or robbery become secondary crimes.

And no one is advocating anyone to let them self's get raped is my point!
If you want to defend your self from getting raped, FINE.
But don't come around and act like defending your self from giving up shoes is the same thing!

Or is the thought process that this kid could have took his shoes and then raped him?

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: NavyDoc


The principle of not wanting to get raped and not wanting to give up your shoes is the same?

Cool, makes this convo short.

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.

And no he did not agree with you.

He did. I didn't say that he thinks women should be raped. That is not even part of the point. He did agree with the anti-gun organization VP who said that a woman should submit to rape rather than taking the life of the rapist.

I said this:

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.

And he said this:

I think that VP is right as rain

He agreed with the premise. That one is changing the premise to "agree with rape" in an effort to disregard the premise is not working. I never said that he "agreed with rape," I said that he agreed that it is better for a woman to succumb to rape that her killing her rapist. I find that mentality disturbing.

The concept has nothing to do with shoes or rape--it has to do with the principle that people should let themselves be victimized and hurt rather than hurting the attacker. IMHO, this is warped and shows more concern for the attacker than the victim.

originally posted by: Sremmos80

But don't come around and act like defending your self from giving up shoes is the same thing!

I think you may be missing what we are saying.

A person who is prepared to commit a felony with a firearm is an imminent danger to the victim whether they are there to commit a robbery or a rape.

They have already crossed the line into a very dangerous place by bringing a firearm to the crime and their predictability cannot be judged.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: ScientificRailgun


And no one is advocating anyone to let them self's get raped is my point!

But that is incorrect.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
Once a deadly weapon is introduced to the situation, it DOES become the same thing, legally and effectively. You either fight for your life, or surrender and simply hope you don't die. Whether your shoes or your dignity and sanity is taken is irrelevant, as the method for taking both of these become identical when a weapon is introduced, and your response to the situation is equally identical. Stand and fight, or surrender and hope not to die.

I'm not saying taking someone's shoes is the same as raping someone, I'm saying assault with a deadly weapon is the same as assault with a deadly weapon, and the original crime becomes irrelevant in a fight or flight scenario.

a reply to: NavyDoc

Fine there is one person that I guess some how agrees to what that VP guy said.

I'll stand corrected there and apologize.

I still don't see what rape has to do with anything in this thread besides hypothetical situations.

This was about shoes not rape, no the man didn't necessary kill him over the shoes, but the right to not have to give up the shoes but it still all comes back to the shoes.
And yes it is also about self defense since a gun was involved.
Not rape.

originally posted by: NavyDoc
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.

Indeed he could. It can't be helped. I'll die then, such is life (sic). But that almost never happens; if you give the criminal his loot and clearly don't post a threat, he will almost always leave you alone. But yes, it may kill me to be a legal, law-abiding Dutch citizen...

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.

I wonder what caused that "Gang culture". Might social inequality have something to do with it?

I guess that being poor and living in slums is not really helping young folks to become part of a society that is far richer on average. So, the secret may well be to ensure that you don't have classes in your society; equality helps prevent crime and stimulates happiness. Make America the first truly socialist country; the founding fathers would be proud of ya!

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.

Again: you're playing one of the oldest tricks in the book by suggesting that I'd have to choose which evil is the lesser one. I will say this, clearly, loudly and with no hesitance: I don't want anybody to be raped and I don't want anybody to be killed. So, any solution to prevent rape without requiring the woman to murder is welcomed by me. But if a woman has to resolve to murder to protect herself, society as a whole as failed miserably.

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.

Well, to be honest, we'd rather not had been involved in WWII. We tried to keep neutral, just like we did in WWI. But the Germans decided to invade us. We did not do very well, we're a nation of merchants, not a nation of warriors. We hate fighting, actually, it spoils business. O sure, we fight - against water. Not against people. And when we were defeated most of us did not think bad about the Germans either. In the first months, all seemed to be going quite well, and actually the Germans weren't seen as evil at all. Please don't turn Dutchman into Kraut-hating heroes - we weren't. Many of us collaborated with the Germans, most for profit, some because they really believed that the fascists stood for honour and pride of your country and people, some because they simply did not have the guts to quite their jobs. After all, their families hat to eat too.

Even our Queen did not stay with her people and fled to England - the Belgian King stayed in his country. Was that cowardness? I think it was simple logic on behalf of the Queen, who'd thought that she could help our nation better as a free person in England than as a prisoner in her own country. I can't nor won't judge her.

We had a large resistance against our enemies. But a very typical type of resistance: it was mainly characterized by its prominent non-violence, peaking at over 300,000 people in hiding in the autumn of 1944, tended to by some 60,000 to 200,000 illegal landlords and caretakers and tolerated knowingly by some one million people, including German occupiers and military.

So, yes, we try to protect life. But we aren't fighters. So, yes, we need to be liberated if we're attacked. Such is life.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: NavyDoc

Fine there is one person that I guess some how agrees to what that VP guy said.

I'll stand corrected there and apologize.

I still don't see what rape has to do with anything in this thread besides hypothetical situations.

This was about shoes not rape, no the man didn't necessary kill him over the shoes, but the right to not have to give up the shoes but it still all comes back to the shoes.
Not rape.

Thanks.

I guess we are trying to expand upon the principle here. You are focusing on the difference between forcible taking of shoes vs forcible taking of a vagina. That's not the point.

The point is the concept that one must submit to victimization or the threat of deadly force rather than hurting or killing their attacker. That concept, in many people's opinion is flawed in that, when an attacker threatens deadly force or serious bodily injury to an innocent person, then that victim has every right to use any means they can, up to and including deadly force, to stop that victimization and that any injury or death done to the criminal is his own fault for deciding to victimize people.

originally posted by: ForteanOrg

originally posted by: NavyDoc
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.

Indeed he could. It can't be helped. I'll die then, such is life (sic). But that almost never happens; if you give the criminal his loot and clearly don't post a threat, he will almost always leave you alone. But yes, it may kill me to be a legal, law-abiding Dutch citizen...

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.

I wonder what caused that "Gang culture". Might social inequality have something to do with it?

I guess that being poor and living in slums is not really helping young folks to become part of a society that is far richer on average. So, the secret may well be to ensure that you don't have classes in your society; equality helps prevent crime and stimulates happiness. Make America the first truly socialist country; the founding fathers would be proud of ya!

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.

Again: you're playing one of the oldest tricks in the book by suggesting that I'd have to choose which evil is the lesser one. I will say this, clearly, loudly and with no hesitance: I don't want anybody to be raped and I don't want anybody to be killed. So, any solution to prevent rape without requiring the woman to murder is welcomed by me. But if a woman has to resolve to murder to protect herself, society as a whole as failed miserably.

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.

Well, to be honest, we'd rather not had been involved in WWII. We tried to keep neutral, just like we did in WWI. But the Germans decided to invade us. We did not do very well, we're a nation of merchants, not a nation of warriors. We hate fighting, actually, it spoils business. O sure, we fight - against water. Not against people. And when we were defeated most of us did not think bad about the Germans either. In the first months, all seemed to be going quite well, and actually the Germans weren't seen as evil at all. Please don't turn Dutchman into Kraut-hating heroes - we weren't. Many of us collaborated with the Germans, most for profit, some because they really believed that the fascists stood for honour and pride of your country and people, some because they simply did not have the guts to quite their jobs. After all, their families hat to eat too.

Even our Queen did not stay with her people and fled to England - the Belgian King stayed in his country. Was that cowardness? I think it was simple logic on behalf of the Queen, who'd thought that she could help our nation better as a free person in England than as a prisoner in her own country. I can't nor won't judge her.

We had a large resistance against our enemies. But a very typical type of resistance: it was mainly characterized by its prominent non-violence, peaking at over 300,000 people in hiding in the autumn of 1944, tended to by some 60,000 to 200,000 illegal landlords and caretakers and tolerated knowingly by some one million people, including German occupiers and military.

So, yes, we try to protect life. But we aren't fighters. So, yes, we need to be liberated if we're attacked. Such is life.

But here is where you fail--saying that a woman killing her rapist to stop rape is "murder. " There is where the mental defect lies. It is not "murder," it is self defense and is quite consistent with you considering rape the lesser evil than killing the rapist.

Nope, our move towards socialism created those slums and the generational poverty. We are worse off and have more crime thanks to socialist policies like the great society and the comment is nonsense--he wasn't pointing a gun at someone to get food to eat, he was pointing a gun at someone to get an overpriced status symbol. You failed with that point.

I've been off work for 30 minutes and I haven't left my office. Guess that's what engaging discussion will do. I need to catch a train. I'd love to continue this discussion when I get home, though!

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: NavyDoc

Fine there is one person that I guess some how agrees to what that VP guy said.

That would be me then, I guess. For clarities sake I'll repeat what I wrote before, when I was adressing NavyDoc:

Again: you're playing one of the oldest tricks in the book by suggesting that I'd have to choose which evil is the lesser one. I will say this, clearly, loudly and with no hesitance: I don't want anybody to be raped and I don't want anybody to be killed. So, any solution to prevent rape without requiring the woman to murder is welcomed by me. But if a woman has to resolve to murder to protect herself, society as a whole as failed miserably.

So, don't make me into a rape-lover because I hate murder.

If a child goes into a store and steals a lollypop and gets away with it, there is a very GOOD chance he/she will do it again. If this 16 y/o kid got away with the shoes with the help of a fire arm to make it happen, what makes you think he wouldn’t do it again?

The kid who tried to steal the shoes it ultimately to blame for his actions, but I am curious about the parents of this 16 y/o kid. Does anyone have any info on the parents?