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

originally posted by: NavyDoc
But here is where you fail--saying that a woman killing her rapist to stop rape is "murder. "

I am perfectly willing to discuss this, but not with a guy that already made up his mind that I have "failed" because I'm against killing people. Or that thinks that I have a 'mental defect' because I detest killing, for example:

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.

That being said: self defense it fine with me. If the poor woman can not get away, neither Police nor bystanders are around to help her and she defends herself - fine with me. Even if the thug is killed in the process because she hits him with a heavy lamp or something - we'll call it an accident or at least an act of despair - and though I will dislike it that a person was killed, I can understand and accept it in this peculiar case.

But if women have to walk around with a deadly weapon all the time because they expect to be raped, clubbed, murdered etc. - that's not fine with me. Than we've crossed a border: the very fine line between civilisation and chaos.

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.

So, you think that it are SOCIALISTS whom think that acquiring overpriced status symbols is worth killing for? Oh, man, you really don't get it do you.. it are CAPITALISTS that think that it is allright to pay hundreds of bucks for silly footwear that you could buy anywhere else for 30, if the brand "Nike" was not on them.

Oh, and BTW: socialism in America? When did that happen? Last time I checked you had a right wing government that wasn't even capable of rolling out the simplest of facilities: a basic health insurance plan for all..

a reply to: ForteanOrg

Well I couldn't speak for what you meant by what you said when you stated the VP was 'as right as rain'.
Cause I would disagree with what that guy said.

I didn't meant to paint you as a rape lover, but I could never agree that a man or women should not do what ever it takes to not get raped.
I champion most life, but rape is a big bugaboo of mine.

originally posted by: ForteanOrg

That being said: self defense it fine with me. If the poor woman can not get away, neither Police nor bystanders are around to help her and she defends herself - fine with me. Even if the thug is killed in the process because she hits him with a heavy lamp or something - we'll call it an accident or at least an act of despair...

'Accident'? 'Act of despair'? How about calling the act what it really is? Self-preservation.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

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.

And how exactly does that differ from that other person that brought a weapon to the crime? Or do you believe the guy that "defended" himself had good intentions when he bought that lethal weapon? Come on, he even is trained to use it - the 16 year old wannabe-thug probably had no training at all. The 'legal user' is even trained not to use it unless prepared to kill with it where the thug might decide not to kill with his weapon but merely use it to threathen with..

You can go on for ages that the CW bearer has the good intentions - but that's surreal. You can't know what he thought; perhaps, if he did not had had the gun he would have run away, or handed over the goods. But since he HAD the gun he killied a young man.

If these blasted weapons had not been on the street, nobody would haved died. Even if just the CW bearer had not had that gun of his, probably all would have lived. I can't imagine why you can't dig it: weapons are made to KILL. They don't care what the intentions are of the one that fires them.

originally posted by: ForteanOrg


That being said: self defense it fine with me. If the poor woman can not get away, neither Police nor bystanders are around to help her and she defends herself - fine with me. Even if the thug is killed in the process because she hits him with a heavy lamp or something - we'll call it an accident or at least an act of despair - and though I will dislike it that a person was killed, I can understand and accept it in this peculiar case.

But if women have to walk around with a deadly weapon all the time because they expect to be raped, clubbed, murdered etc. - that's not fine with me. Than we've crossed a border: the very fine line between civilisation and chaos.

Self-defense obviously isn't fine with you. In this case a young man approached a person, brandished a firearm (could have been a knife, club, whatever), and demanded that he give it up or die.

At that very instant, do you think the victim was in fear for his well-being and/or life? If you have a reasonable fear for your life or well-being, do you not believe it's reasonable at that point to defend yourself with the same amount of force?

No one walks around expecting to be raped, clubbed, murdered, or whatever - but those things unfortunately do happen, and the point of walking around with a "deadly weapon" (read baseball bat) is the hopefully prevent these things from happening.

I legally carry every single day. I have never so much as hinted to another person that I have a firearm. I still avoid confrontation. This isn't the wild west you fantasize about - instead it's logical, rational, law-abiding people banking on their right as a human to be able to protect themselves. I live in one of the lowest crime areas in the US, and coincidentally my county is the THIRD highest for gun ownership, per-capita, in the entire US...

Yes, more LEGAL guns = less crime. If that 16 year old dip$%&^ knew his victim was carrying a firearm do you think he would have picked that target?

I don't care if you can accept it or not. You are basically saying that you will always choose to retreat, run, surrender - fortunately for you, there are people who will stand their ground and fight for what is right.. If we all felt the way you do, no one would have ever fought to earn or preserve your freedom..

All people, everywhere, should have the ability to defend themselves. A gun is an equalizer - women cannot be expected to be able to defend themselves from a physically much larger male. I would probably not fair well against a knife with only my fists, and so on. What you are failing to grasp is that no one WANTS to go out and have to defend themselves, but when faced with possibly dying or defending myself, I will choose self defense every time.

I appreciate that you think you live in some ultra-sophisticated and "civilized" culture, but your illogical, irrational, fairy tail ideals are not realistic. Would you have also disarmed the Jewish people, just like Hitler did?

originally posted by: ForteanOrg

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

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.

And how exactly does that differ from that other person that brought a weapon to the crime? Or do you believe the guy that "defended" himself had good intentions when he bought that lethal weapon? Come on, he even is trained to use it - the 16 year old wannabe-thug probably had no training at all. The 'legal user' is even trained not to use it unless prepared to kill with it where the thug might decide not to kill with his weapon but merely use it to threathen with..

You can go on for ages that the CW bearer has the good intentions - but that's surreal. You can't know what he thought; perhaps, if he did not had had the gun he would have run away, or handed over the goods. But since he HAD the gun he killied a young man.

If these blasted weapons had not been on the street, nobody would haved died. Even if just the CW bearer had not had that gun of his, probably all would have lived. I can't imagine why you can't dig it: weapons are made to KILL. They don't care what the intentions are of the one that fires them.

This is such backwards nonsense! You truly do live in a fairy tale.

a reply to: ForteanOrg

Did I miss the part where the victim had broken any laws?


Thought not.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: ForteanOrg

That being said: self defense it fine with me. If the poor woman can not get away, neither Police nor bystanders are around to help her and she defends herself - fine with me. Even if the thug is killed in the process because she hits him with a heavy lamp or something - we'll call it an accident or at least an act of despair...

'Accident'? 'Act of despair'? How about calling the act what it really is? Self-preservation.

In my book, killing a person should never be done intentionally. A woman that is on the brink of getting raped will try to get away if she can. When that is not possible she will try to defend herself. But even then the civil behaviour is to inflict the least possible amount of damage possible - just enough to get away and get help. Now, in such situations it's almost impossible to keep a clear head, let alone to think about "civility" - so it's perfectly understandable that in an act of despair the accident happens, she swings that heavy lamp - and a human being is killed. I dig that. I don't blame the woman for taking that life, it was NOT her intention to kill at all.

But if she started out with the idea that she might be raped and if so, she'd need a lethal weapon to 'defend' herself - then trains herself to use it to kill efficiently - not scare off, no, KILL - I learned here that that was the intention of the concealed weapons act - well, in that case she isn't really much better than her attacker in my book. Both bring a gun. Both are assumed to kill with it. And neither have superpowers, nor are they judges, so they can't always really judge the situation properly. But regardless, a gun will fire and kill.

a reply to: nunya13Have you not read anything in this thread? The guy didn’t shoot the kid to keep the shoes, he shot the kid because the thug had a gun and his life was put in danger. If I were in the same situation, the moment I saw the gum being pointed my way, I would have shot without hesitation. It all comes down to life and death. And I would prefer life over death.

originally posted by: TinkerHaus
This is such backwards nonsense! You truly do live in a fairy tale.

Thanks for the opinion. but it is not founded on any argument so it will be ignored here.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: ForteanOrg

Did I miss the part where the victim had broken any laws?


Thought not.

Was he brought before a judge? Thought not.

I can tell you right now, the man that shot that kid, has probably spent a decent amount of time crying today. Any SANE person would. No sane person wants to kill another human being, certainly not a KID. (Yes, he's below 18, so legally a child)

The kid made a stupid decision, and picked the wrong person to pull a gun on. It's a damn shame he had to die, but the shooter simply defended himself against what he perceived to be a life threatening situation. The shooter had no way of knowing if the kid intended to kill or not, but he was not willing to take that chance, and I don't blame him a bit.

originally posted by: ForteanOrg

In my book, killing a person should never be done intentionally. A woman that is on the brink of getting raped will try to get away if she can. When that is not possible she will try to defend herself.

You a rape expert now?

But even then the civil behaviour is to inflict the least possible amount of damage possible - just enough to get away and get help.

I see, so as some vile pervert is trying to forcibly insert his penis into you the 'civil' thing to do is to only minimally incapacitate him. See, the trouble is how does the victim know what proportion of 'civility' to dole out to the rapist? Maybe they underestimate and end up dead themselves all because they were just trying to be 'civil'.

Now, in such situations it's almost impossible to keep a clear head, let alone to think about "civility" - so it's perfectly understandable that in an act of despair the accident happens, she swings that heavy lamp - and a human being is killed. I dig that. I don't blame the woman for taking that life, it was NOT her intention to kill at all.

You do not swing a blunt object at someone's coconut by accident. There is methodical thought process involved; 'I am going to grab that lamp and drive it with force into my attacker's skull'. I think the average person is well aware the ramifications of driving a heavy object, with force, into another person's head and one of the results could likely be death. It is not an accidental process.

But if she started out with the idea that she might be raped and if so, she'd need a lethal weapon to 'defend' herself - then trains herself to use it to kill efficiently - not scare off, no, KILL - I learned here that that was the intention of the concealed weapons act - well, in that case she isn't really much better than her attacker in my book. Both bring a gun. Both are assumed to kill with it. And neither have superpowers, nor are they judges, so they can't always really judge the situation properly. But regardless, a gun will fire and kill.

Then you learned wrong. A concealed carry permit is not about WANTING to kill someone, it is about self-defense and if a crime is deterred simply by the perpetrator seeing the potential victim's weapon, or being made aware that they have one, so much the better.

originally posted by: ForteanOrg
Was he brought before a judge? Thought not.

No. And do you know why? Because he did not break any laws.

Try again.

originally posted by: ForteanOrg

A woman that is on the brink of getting raped will try to get away if she can. When that is not possible she will try to defend herself. But even then the civil behaviour is to inflict the least possible amount of damage possible - just enough to get away and get help. Now, in such situations it's almost impossible to keep a clear head, let alone to think about "civility" - so it's perfectly understandable that in an act of despair the accident happens, she swings that heavy lamp - and a human being is killed. I dig that. I don't blame the woman for taking that life, it was NOT her intention to kill at all.

But if she started out with the idea that she might be raped and if so, she'd need a lethal weapon to 'defend' herself - then trains herself to use it to kill efficiently - not scare off, no, KILL - I learned here that that was the intention of the concealed weapons act - well, in that case she isn't really much better than her attacker in my book. Both bring a gun. Both are assumed to kill with it. And neither have superpowers, nor are they judges, so they can't always really judge the situation properly. But regardless, a gun will fire and kill.

Let me start off with a few truths.

1: I live in one of the lowest crime nations in the world.
2: I am a woman
3: I carry a weapon (a knife, guns are illegal here) just in case some nutjob tries to rape me.

I want to live in the world where I can walk around wherever I please without having to worry that some deranged idiot won't leap from the shadows for a piece of my sweet, sweet Railgunny booty. I genuinely do. Do you think I LIKE that I have to carry a knife with me at all times? Do you think I LIKE the idea that someone could try to victimize me? I live in one of the lowest crime nations in the world, and though it is unlikely, someone MAY try to rape me. Until people can effectively be arrested before they commit crimes (Ala Minority Report or Psycho-Pass), I'll continue to carry my weapon with me. I can't predict what other people will do. So I choose to arm myself against that unpredictability.

Oh, and if someone DOES happen to try and rape me? I'll kill them or die trying. Because my "civility" flies out the window the second some jerk tried to stuff his man-meat into me unwanted.

a reply to: Echtelion

I'm fairly certain that the shooting was over being threatened with a gun.

This may have been stated already, I dunno. Didn't even know this was opened back up. So much reading to do

originally posted by: TinkerHaus
Self-defense obviously isn't fine with you.

We seem to define it differently. We're both in favour of self defense, but I'll try to get as many people out alive, whereas you don't mind being judge and jury in one person and simply shoot "the bastard".

In this case a young man approached a person, brandished a firearm (could have been a knife, club, whatever), and demanded that he give it up or die.

Check. And he should be brought to Justice for that. No be killed for it.

At that very instant, do you think the victim was in fear for his well-being and/or life? If you have a reasonable fear for your life or well-being, do you not believe it's reasonable at that point to defend yourself with the same amount of force?

We're almost in agreement (oh my God, is that a possibility ). But in cauda venenum - I believe it is reasonable at that point to defend yourself, but not with the same amount of force. Just enough force to free yourself. That's not always easy to do and you may apply too much force.

No one walks around expecting to be raped, clubbed, murdered, or whatever - but those things unfortunately do happen, and the point of walking around with a "deadly weapon" (read baseball bat) is the hopefully prevent these things from happening.

Apart from police and military nobody carries a gun here. And our rape and murder numbers are actually better than that of CCW states. I would be more afraid of the dangers when my wife were carrying a gun than I would be of most thugs..

I legally carry every single day. I have never so much as hinted to another person that I have a firearm. I still avoid confrontation. This isn't the wild west you fantasize about - instead it's logical, rational, law-abiding people banking on their right as a human to be able to protect themselves. I live in one of the lowest crime areas in the US, and coincidentally my county is the THIRD highest for gun ownership, per-capita, in the entire US...

Ever used the gun? If not, why are you carrying it?

Yes, more LEGAL guns = less crime. If that 16 year old dip$%&^ knew his victim was carrying a firearm do you think he would have picked that target?

Then why is that arm CONCEALED? In that case you would be better off carrying a colt 45, swinging from the hip, like in the Good Ole days ..

All people, everywhere, should have the ability to defend themselves. A gun is an equalizer - women cannot be expected to be able to defend themselves from a physically much larger male.

Well, clearly you never met the wife ..

I appreciate that you think you live in some ultra-sophisticated and "civilized" culture

Well, that's a stretch too far. It's the Netherlands. We're sophisticated, mostly civilised, but we have stupid rednecks too, who think they can sit on the chair of judge and jury by themselves. Thank Goodness it's not really normal to carry a gun here, otherwise they would probably defend themselves 20 times each week

originally posted by: ForteanOrg

originally posted by: NavyDoc
But here is where you fail--saying that a woman killing her rapist to stop rape is "murder. "

I am perfectly willing to discuss this, but not with a guy that already made up his mind that I have "failed" because I'm against killing people. Or that thinks that I have a 'mental defect' because I detest killing, for example:

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.

That being said: self defense it fine with me. If the poor woman can not get away, neither Police nor bystanders are around to help her and she defends herself - fine with me. Even if the thug is killed in the process because she hits him with a heavy lamp or something - we'll call it an accident or at least an act of despair - and though I will dislike it that a person was killed, I can understand and accept it in this peculiar case.

But if women have to walk around with a deadly weapon all the time because they expect to be raped, clubbed, murdered etc. - that's not fine with me. Than we've crossed a border: the very fine line between civilisation and chaos.

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.

So, you think that it are SOCIALISTS whom think that acquiring overpriced status symbols is worth killing for? Oh, man, you really don't get it do you.. it are CAPITALISTS that think that it is allright to pay hundreds of bucks for silly footwear that you could buy anywhere else for 30, if the brand "Nike" was not on them.

Oh, and BTW: socialism in America? When did that happen? Last time I checked you had a right wing government that wasn't even capable of rolling out the simplest of facilities: a basic health insurance plan for all..

Our incremental fall into socialism started with LBJ and the great society that was supposed to end poverty. See how that worked out?

It is laughable to suggest that socialism could have prevented this crime because he was willing to kill someone for something that gave him good feeling, not something he needed.

Capitalists think paying 300 dollars for a pair of 10 dollar shoes is stupid. Free # army entitlement minded share the wealth social justice types kill for 300 dollar shoes, as evidenced in this incident.

You contradict yourself. You said that you agreed that it was better for a woman to be raped than her own a handgun to kill her rapist. Pretty disgusting if you ask me.

You didn't fail because you dislike killing, you failed because you'd rather a woman be raped than the rapist be killed. Therein lies the difference.

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun

originally posted by: ForteanOrg

A woman that is on the brink of getting raped will try to get away if she can. When that is not possible she will try to defend herself. But even then the civil behaviour is to inflict the least possible amount of damage possible - just enough to get away and get help. Now, in such situations it's almost impossible to keep a clear head, let alone to think about "civility" - so it's perfectly understandable that in an act of despair the accident happens, she swings that heavy lamp - and a human being is killed. I dig that. I don't blame the woman for taking that life, it was NOT her intention to kill at all.

But if she started out with the idea that she might be raped and if so, she'd need a lethal weapon to 'defend' herself - then trains herself to use it to kill efficiently - not scare off, no, KILL - I learned here that that was the intention of the concealed weapons act - well, in that case she isn't really much better than her attacker in my book. Both bring a gun. Both are assumed to kill with it. And neither have superpowers, nor are they judges, so they can't always really judge the situation properly. But regardless, a gun will fire and kill.

Let me start off with a few truths.

1: I live in one of the lowest crime nations in the world.
2: I am a woman
3: I carry a weapon (a knife, guns are illegal here) just in case some nutjob tries to rape me.

I want to live in the world where I can walk around wherever I please without having to worry that some deranged idiot won't leap from the shadows for a piece of my sweet, sweet Railgunny booty. I genuinely do. Do you think I LIKE that I have to carry a knife with me at all times? Do you think I LIKE the idea that someone could try to victimize me? I live in one of the lowest crime nations in the world, and though it is unlikely, someone MAY try to rape me. Until people can effectively be arrested before they commit crimes (Ala Minority Report or Psycho-Pass), I'll continue to carry my weapon with me. I can't predict what other people will do. So I choose to arm myself against that unpredictability.

Oh, and if someone DOES happen to try and rape me? I'll kill them or die trying. Because my "civility" flies out the window the second some jerk tried to stuff his man-meat into me unwanted.

Gasp! You are so uncivilized and mean to boot. You should lie back and enjoy it lest you hurt the poor downtrodden criminal.

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
I want to live in the world where I can walk around wherever I please without having to worry that some deranged idiot won't leap from the shadows for a piece of my sweet, sweet Railgunny booty.

You may consider moving to my part of the world then. I have never known a woman here that felt the need to carry knives, guns or bats (the unwinged ones) around with them because they were afraid of being raped. We have rape too in my country, but somehow it has not resulted in women wanting to carry guns, knives etc. all the time.