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: 41
53
<< 38  39  40    42  43  44 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 08:41 PM
link   
a reply to: TinkerHaus

The very first reply to this thread negates your sentiments.




posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 08:42 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.


Are you confusing no remorse with glee?



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 08:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: NOTurTypical

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

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


Are you confusing no remorse with glee?



originally posted by: Jamie1
a reply to: Krakatoa

I love witnessing natural selecting in real-time.

Go Darwin!


Could you point out the lack of remorse? Because I can point out the glee.



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 08:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
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.


A cop would be in the right in this case. Threatened with deadly weapon. Anyone should be justified in shooting the criminal.



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 09:05 PM
link   
a reply to: DrJunk




Could you point out the lack of remorse?


Logically speaking? No, because nobody can prove a negative. And saying "go darwin!" is the same as saying, "the deceased was not intelligent for pulling the gun and trying to rob someone in a CCW state." I can speak for myself however and affirm that there is no remorse whatsoever, but that doesn't mean I'm happy a human died. I wish nobody would choose to commit armed robbery or any other violent felony.



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 09:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: DrJunk




Could you point out the lack of remorse?


Logically speaking? No, because nobody can prove a negative. And saying "go darwin!" is the same as saying, "the deceased was not intelligent for pulling the gun and trying to rob someone in a CCW state." I can speak for myself however and affirm that there is no remorse whatsoever, but that doesn't mean I'm happy a human died. I wish nobody would choose to commit armed robbery or any other violent felony.



And what about saying, "I love witnessing natural selecting in real-time."

What does that mean?

Does that sound like glee? Does that sound like cheering on a homocide, or am I totally off base?



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 09:16 PM
link   
a reply to: DrJunk




"I love witnessing natural selecting in real-time."


It means the same, mocking the deceased for being stupid. Darwin's idea of 'Natural Selection' was the idea that nature selects the most fit and most intelligent to further evolution of any particular species, humans being no exception. That the unintelligent and less fit die before reproducing.

It's nothing more than mocking the deceased for doing something extremely stupid. It shouldn't be read as "Yay, I love dead kids!"




Does that sound like glee? Does that sound like cheering on a homocide, or am I totally off base?


I think you are reading to much into it, I personally feel it was mocking the deceased for trying to rob someone at gunpoint, especially in a CCW state like Ohio.



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



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 09:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: DrJunk




"I love witnessing natural selecting in real-time."


It means the same, mocking the deceased for being stupid. Darwin's idea of 'Natural Selection' was the idea that nature selects the most fit and most intelligent to further evolution of any particular species, humans being no exception. That the unintelligent and less fit die before reproducing.

It's nothing more than mocking the deceased for doing something extremely stupid. It shouldn't be read as "Yay, I love dead kids!"




Does that sound like glee? Does that sound like cheering on a homocide, or am I totally off base?


I think you are reading to much into it, I personally feel it was mocking the deceased for trying to rob someone at gunpoint, especially in a CCW state like Ohio.



The poster is cheering, literally, the poster said, "Go Darwin!" She said she loved it, but that doesn't sound like glee.

Doublespeak, it seems, is doubleplusgood.



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 09:23 PM
link   
If the kid hadn't stolen, he wouldn't have been shot. It's as simple as that, and although it might have been overkill, and rather a tragic event, consequences sometimes do hurt. However, the guy should have aimed at a non-lethal area, like the hand.



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 09:36 PM
link   
a reply to: DrJunk




The poster is cheering


Yes, I saw the exclamation point. But the poster was cheering Darwin's theory of natural selection. The point they were trying to make was the deceased was stupid for what they did. You are trying to make that comment mean they were cheering the death of another human being, which would imply that anytime someone died that member would go around saying "Go Darwin!", which is quite the stretch of imagination.



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 09:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: flucker
If the kid hadn't stolen, he wouldn't have been shot. It's as simple as that, and although it might have been overkill, and rather a tragic event, consequences sometimes do hurt. However, the guy should have aimed at a non-lethal area, like the hand.


Absolutely not, that is Hollywood. When you aim a firearm you aim for center-mass where the critical organs are, do you know why?

According to FBI statistics for police officers killed in the line of duty, 40% of them were shot and killed after hitting their target with at least 1 bullet. And they don't even keep statistics on the officers who were shot and lived. Likewise it is hard to aim and shoot when the adrenaline surge is coursing through one's veins, any veteran or police officer will affirm this, and it takes range time and training to compensate for. So you never aim for the smallest target, hand/legs or even the head.


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



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 09:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: DrJunk




The poster is cheering


Yes, I saw the exclamation point. But the poster was cheering Darwin's theory of natural selection. The point they were trying to make was the deceased was stupid for what they did. You are trying to make that comment mean they were cheering the death of another human being, which would imply that anytime someone died that member would go around saying "Go Darwin!", which is quite the stretch of imagination.


The person was cheering the death of another human being using Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection as a thin veil. I'm done arguing with you about it, however, as I find apologists for that kind of behavior as distasteful as those that engage in it.



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 10:14 PM
link   
This is unfortunate for all parties concerned.. It's hard to imagine a person would be killed for a pair of shoes but that is the messed up world we live in..! The greater question is "what is the value of a human life..?" Is it worth fighting for each and every person's life or should we be realistic about ourselves (and death) in the greater scheme of things..? These are questions that would divide many..!



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 10:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: ThaEnigma
This is unfortunate for all parties concerned.. It's hard to imagine a person would be killed for a pair of shoes but that is the messed up world we live in..! The greater question is "what is the value of a human life..?" Is it worth fighting for each and every person's life or should we be realistic about ourselves (and death) in the greater scheme of things..? These are questions that would divide many..!


As has been repeatedly stated in this thread, the shoes are immaterial. The criminal escalated the robbery to an armed robbery by the introduction of the gun. At that point, the victim was presented with a life or death situation, and the shoes were no longer a part of the equation. Armed robbery has nothing to do with the price of the item, but everything to do with a choice by the criminal to present deadly weapon.



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 10:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Krakatoa

The shoes are not "immaterial" at all.. They are the sole reason the two parties came into contact and the focal point of the argument that ensued... A gun was brandished by one of them and escalated the situation dramatically... It was unfortunate, but not unexpected...
edit on 29-12-2014 by ThaEnigma because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 10:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: ThaEnigma
a reply to: Krakatoa

The shoes are not "immaterial" at all.. They are the sole reason the two parties came into contact and the focal point of the argument that ensued... A gun was brandished by one of them and escalated the situation dramatically... It was unfortunate, but not unexpected...

They became immaterial once the gun appeared and escalated the confrontation to an armed robbery. When the shooting happened, it was in response to a deadly threat and NOT about the shoes anymore. That is what I (and many others here) have been trying to say. Folks claiming it was over shoes are whoafully underestimating the situation at best, and insulting/denigrating the victim (the survivor of the encounter) at worst.



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 10:48 PM
link   
a reply to: DrJunk




The person was cheering the death of another human being using Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection as a thin veil. I'm done arguing with you about it, however, as I find apologists for that kind of behavior as distasteful as those that engage in it.


I wasn't arguing with you, I was trying to have a simple dialogue. And now that you've expressed your contempt, I don't see any rational reason to continue. Have a good day.



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 10:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Krakatoa

I disgree.. My point is if you remove the shoes from the equation no confrontation takes place at all... I am not focussing on with the situation that takes place after a gun is brandished because once that occurs the moment is immediately volatile and unpredictable... Choices were made by both parties in the lead up to that moment and that is where the shoes were front and center of their interaction..



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 10:50 PM
link   
a reply to: ThaEnigma




It's hard to imagine a person would be killed for a pair of shoes but that is the messed up world we live in..



How do you assume he wouldn't have killed the victim for the pair of shoes? He had already pulled the firearm, so how can you assume that he wasn't going to use it?



posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 10:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: ThaEnigma
a reply to: Krakatoa

I disgree.. My point is if you remove the shoes from the equation no confrontation takes place at all... I am not focussing on with the situation that takes place after a gun is brandished because once that occurs the moment is immediately volatile and unpredictable... Choices were made by both parties in the lead up to that moment and that is where the shoes were front and center of their interaction..


In that case, the only one valuing their life equivalent to a pair of shoes was the criminal. He decided to approach the victim. He decided to threaten the victim with deadly force. So he (and he alone) is the one that made the faulty decision to risk his life for a pair of shoes. Is that closer to what you are trying to convey?



new topics

top topics



 
53
<< 38  39  40    42  43  44 >>

log in

join