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: 40
53
<< 37  38  39    41  42  43 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 07:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Sremmos80




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


Can we PLEASE stop with the false premise fallacy?? It had NOTHING to do with shoes once the gun came into play. At that second it became a man threatening another person with a gun. Nothing can get accomplished when one side is arguing from the position of a false premise.




posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 07:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: NavyDoc
Actually rape is rather high in the Netherlands, perhaps attributed to a light touch on crime and a culture of "she deserved it" than Japan with a per capita rate of 9.2/100k compared to 1/100k.


Each rape is one too many. A staggering 45 percent of Dutch women have reported to have experienced some form of physical or sexual violence since reaching the age of 15. Part of these high figures is caused by the fact that in the Northern parts of Europe woman have clear definitions of what is and is not considered to be rape. In some countries a pat on the behind is seen as a compliment, in our country that's rape. If you stare at womans breasts some see that as rape. If you make a sexual remark - rape. That's not a bad thing at all; by setting a high standard our woman may prevent worse. They decide themselves and if somebody crosses their borders our women will not hesitate and report this to the police. In many other parts of the world, rape is very rarely reported, due to the stigma cast on women whom have been raped or the fear of being disowned by their families, subjected to violence etc.

Still, though the Dutch definition of rape may be broad, we do have a problem here which should be properly investigatated. Rapists should be brought to justice. But nobody in his right mind will suggest that we need to allow people to carry concealed weapons as a solution. That's a bit like saying that killing a guy cures his cancer.


Methinks the poster lives in an idealized dream world.


Nope. In The Netherlands. Not by choice but by accident of birth. But still very happy here, without guns and all..



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 07:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
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.



If it were justified. I didn't support the cop just indicted in SC for shooting an unarmed black man. And I thought Darren Wilson was guilty as sin for killing Michael Brown before the autopsy and forensics reports were leaked. So your assertion isn't true.



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 07:20 PM
link   
a reply to: ForteanOrg




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


Another straw man. This case has nothing to do with murder. Murder is the ILLEGAL killing of another human being, justifiable self-defense is a LEGAL killing of another human being. No charges have been filed because no crime has been committed.

This nonsense needs to stop, how can there be any kind of constructive dialogue here if people are arguing from a false premise and false facts?



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



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 07:27 PM
link   
a reply to: ForteanOrg




Was he brought before a judge? Thought not.


Because you can't do that here in the United States without there being charges filed or an indictment by a grand jury. And for those to happen the police must decide that a crime or crimes have been committed. This isn't Nazi Germany, we don't get hauled before a judge without charges being filed by a prosecutor.



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 07:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6
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


Dude it's been stated for over 30+ pages. Repeatedly. By several members.




posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 07:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: crazyewok
a reply to: NOTurTypical

No thats what the courts are for.


It not a invidual job to dish out justice as judge jury and executioner.


Killing should be in self defence or defence of others.

As a so called "christian" you should understand that.


The victim did shoot the deceased in a case of self-defense.



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 07:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: NavyDocp+
So you'd rather they'd be able to complete the rape rather than being stopped before or during commission?


Don't be ridiculous. Of course I would wish they would be stopped before or during commission.


Because that's what you advocate if you want to prevent the woman from defending herself--she must endure it and then hopefully survive it and then possibly she might get justice in the end.


I haven't said that at all. Actually, we discussed this and I already said numerous times that I can fully understand, appreciate even, that a person who is attacked in whatever way - a woman being sexually assaulted is just one example - will try to prevent or escape the ordeal. If by accident - BY ACCIDENT - in an act of despair - ACT OF DESPAIR - somebody happens to kill his/her assaulter trying to escape the assault the judge should look into the matter and judge the case. I hope and expect the verdict will be mild. But nevertheless: a person has been killed by somebody not working for the Police let alone in their line of duty. So, the judge should try the case. And yes, it happens that a woman is raped and than is brought to justice for killing the rapist. Justice can be quite bitter.


Nope. I'd rather she be able to stop it and not have a rape in the first place. But then, I dislike violent criminals and do not give them equal footing as innocent victims. I'm odd that way. It has nothing to do with having a reptilian brain than not having a smug condescending worry for the safety of violent criminals.


We agree, she should be able to stop it or even better: prevent it. But not by allowing everybody to carry a lethal weapon and use it at will because they feel threatened, either real or imagined. Well, 'nough said for now, I'm off to bed.



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 07:39 PM
link   
a reply to: NOTurTypical

If my assertion was just about you then it would be but I know that I am not wrong on it.

And if you think this guy was in the right what could possibly be different for a cop?



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 07:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: ForteanOrg

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


The thing you seem to fail to consider is this: What if you use the minimal amount of force, and you miscalculated, and now you have a guy who already wanted to rape/rob/murder you, even more upset that you beaned him with a lamp?

When your life is at risk, you act accordingly. Eliminating a threat to your life is just and reasonable.

Should we try to negotiate with bears? If I'm in the woods and a bear is chasing me should I try to minimally hurt the bear and then do my best to escape?

People make decisions. People are responsible for the outcomes of those decisions. I am so glad to live in a country that still feels that I have a right to defend myself against attackers.

Let me posit a hypothetical; You are at home with your family. Wife, kids, parents are over for the holiday.. A man breaks in, he violently puts you all on the ground, your kids are screaming in fear, your wife is being brutally restrained and screaming in protest.. You see an opportunity to grab a large kitchen knife, stab the assailant in the back, save your entire family..

Do you eliminate the threat or do you try to bargain with him? Do you try to wrestle with him and just hope you win? What is the right course of action here? I'm genuinely curious what you would do.



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 07:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: ForteanOrg

originally posted by: NavyDocp+
So you'd rather they'd be able to complete the rape rather than being stopped before or during commission?


Don't be ridiculous. Of course I would wish they would be stopped before or during commission.


Because that's what you advocate if you want to prevent the woman from defending herself--she must endure it and then hopefully survive it and then possibly she might get justice in the end.


I haven't said that at all. Actually, we discussed this and I already said numerous times that I can fully understand, appreciate even, that a person who is attacked in whatever way - a woman being sexually assaulted is just one example - will try to prevent or escape the ordeal. If by accident - BY ACCIDENT - in an act of despair - ACT OF DESPAIR - somebody happens to kill his/her assaulter trying to escape the assault the judge should look into the matter and judge the case. I hope and expect the verdict will be mild. But nevertheless: a person has been killed by somebody not working for the Police let alone in their line of duty. So, the judge should try the case. And yes, it happens that a woman is raped and than is brought to justice for killing the rapist. Justice can be quite bitter.


Nope. I'd rather she be able to stop it and not have a rape in the first place. But then, I dislike violent criminals and do not give them equal footing as innocent victims. I'm odd that way. It has nothing to do with having a reptilian brain than not having a smug condescending worry for the safety of violent criminals.


We agree, she should be able to stop it or even better: prevent it. But not by allowing everybody to carry a lethal weapon and use it at will because they feel threatened, either real or imagined. Well, 'nough said for now, I'm off to bed.


Killing someone with a random object lying about is just as "accidental" as killing someone with a firearm. The difference is you KNOW a firearm is there and available - you just have to hope there is something lying around to aid you in fighting off your assailant.

You are illogical and have an agenda. To answer your earlier question; No, I have never needed to use a gun in self-defense since I've been carrying it. I have been shot at once, had a knife pulled on me once, and been threatened with a pistol at a party another time. I've never been robbed, raped, mugged, car-jacked, etc. But again, I live in a very low-crime state with a very high rate of gun ownership. We don't have a lot of these types of crimes here because potential douchebags know they are dealing with an armed population.



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 08:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: ForteanOrg

Still, though the Dutch definition of rape may be broad...


It is not a broad definition but rather very similar to other nations:


A person who by an act of violence or another act or by threat of violence or threat of another act compels a person to submit to acts comprising or including sexual penetration of the body is guilty of rape and liable to a term of imprisonment of not more than twelve years or a fine of the fifth category.


Nothing about staring or pats on the ass.



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 08:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: NOTurTypical

If my assertion was just about you then it would be but I know that I am not wrong on it.

And if you think this guy was in the right what could possibly be different for a cop?



Because there are bad cops, just as there are bad teachers, bad lawyers, and bad doctors. And furthermore, this story and incident have nothing to do with separate incidents involving police action shootings. And lastly, MANY people who are gun rights supporters and are quick to defend self-defense cases with a legally carrying firearms owner are VERY anti-cop and anti-government.

Your statement was quite the non-sequitur.



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 08:20 PM
link   
a reply to: NOTurTypical

Was nothing about bad or good cops.

Just asking that if an average citizen was in the right why would a cop not have been in this paticular case.
Not talking about any other case, talking about this one.



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 08:21 PM
link   
Tis rather disturbing to see some here cheering a homocide.

It's not surprising, though I wish it were.



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 08:34 PM
link   
Nevermind


edit on 29-12-2014 by NOTurTypical because: my error



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 08:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: DrJunk
Tis rather disturbing to see some here cheering a homocide.

It's not surprising, though I wish it were.


This is a classic example of a strawman argument. No one is cheering on a homicide (which, legally speaking, this was indeed a homicide, albeit justified.)

No one is HAPPY that this kid is dead - we, however, are able to see past the sadness and logical disseminate the situation. You are responsible for your actions. If you make your intentions clear to someone that you plan to kill them, which pointing a gun in their face DEFINITELY achieves, you have to be prepared to suffer the consequences.

It's sad that a life was lost, but we should celebrate that the person who made the choice to put themselves in this position is the one to pay the price, and not the person who was trying to buy a pair of shoes.

I would gamble that the victim feels terrible that he had to do what he did - but when his assailant(s) pulled a gun, it was obvious that he had to defend himself.

In case none of you read the story, which seems apparent after reading some of your comments:


Miami Township police said two groups — three teens and two men — struggled on a sidewalk outside the Dayton Mall before the shooting. All five people went to the mall on a mission to buy the $200 Nikes, which quickly sold out.

The three teens left empty-handed, but at least one of the men got a pair.

In front of the mall, the youths spotted the men with the shoes and confronted them, police said. Jabbar pulled out a gun and demanded the men give them the sneakers.

That’s when one of the men pulled out his own concealed weapon and shot the Middletown High School student.



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 08:38 PM
link   
a reply to: NOTurTypical

Homicide is a person killing a person.

Doesn't mean anything criminal automatically.



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 08:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Sremmos80




Was nothing about bad or good cops.


You said ".. support the police", my point was that police action shootings need to be looked at on a case by case basis, there are good and bad cops, and justifiable killings and ones where the cop is indicted and charged for homicide.



Just asking that if an average citizen was in the right why would a cop not have been in this paticular case.


I'm not following that question, there wasn't a cop involved with this case, and in other cases where a gun is pulled on them they would be justified. You might have to explain that comment in further detail.



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 08:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: NOTurTypical

Homicide is a person killing a person.

Doesn't mean anything criminal automatically.


Okay I can agree with that, that would be the legal definition. No issues with that.




top topics



 
53
<< 37  38  39    41  42  43 >>

log in

join