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: 42
53
<< 39  40  41    43  44  45 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 10:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Krakatoa

If the shooter had handed over the shoes and got shot anyways,, we would be looking down on the criminal with the exact same headline.. It looks bad either way.. Armed robbery never looks good when the bounty is a measly pair of shoes,, but like I said earlier, this is the messed up world we live in...




posted on Dec, 29 2014 @ 10:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krakatoa

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?

"Exactly"




posted on Dec, 30 2014 @ 06:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: TinkerHaus
All people, everywhere, should have the ability to defend themselves.


All people? Everywhere? Old folks, hardly able to walk anymore - should they be forced to defend THEMSELVES? Blind folk, deaf folk, folks that have to do without arms, legs. Bedridden folks. Young children. The weak and the feeble. All should be able to defend themselves? And everywhere? In church? In the hospital? In prisons? In the library? In the concert hall? Kindergarten?

Society is a mix of weak and strong people whom try to lead happy lifes, all of them. Protection of citizens should be done by the Police, assisted by the public, not the other way around.



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?


Bean him again. Kick him in the balls. But far better than even starting to hit him: get the hell out of there. Run! Run! Better a life coward than a dead hero.


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


Yes, it is. But not at all costs. And killing a person is simply too much in most if not all cases. You can actually eliminate threats best by running away.


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?


You got it! You finally got it! Yes, you'd try to escape. Actually, you don't even try to hurt the bear, you simply try to get away. And most bears, so I'm told, will not even consider attacking you unless they have little ones to protect or you came too close. In most cases, backing off is the best thing to do.



So: prevent and respect. Don't keep your food lying around. Don't try to contact them. If you came to close: don't make eye contact. Back away. Clang pots. THEY DONT SAY YOU SHOULD SHOOT THE BASTARD. Of course not.


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.


You live in a country that allows one citizen to shoot another citizen. Legally. Now, it probably is a fine country, but that's an aspect I don't understand. We do fine without it here and in many parts of the world it's just the same. You don't need it. If a madman crosses your way, shooting him is not that easy, even if you HAVE a gun. You don't sit there on your porch playing with your gun all the time, I presume.


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..


Or madden him up to the point he kills my wife? No, thanks.

What probably would happen is that we would try to escape. And warn the police. If by some kind of weird magic he was able to stop all of us from escaping we would indeed try to talk to him. What does he want? If you have it, give it to him or pretend to be willing to give it to him - and try to escape. Get the hell out if you can, call the police. Don't be a hero, they mostly end up dead.


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.


Escape. Run like hell. Call the cops. Be a functional coward.

BTW: do you sit in your home with your gun lying on the table then? Ready to shoot the invaders, possibly the neighbours you did not recognize because you had one too many...? Does that feel good, being scared all your life for an evil that probably never will turn up?

I'll tell ya a story. My mum died, many years ago. The families and neighbours gathered at my house, we then drove to the burial grounds to bury her. A few hours later we all returned to my place. A burglar had robbed the place. Well, we called the cops, they came, couldn't do much. But later on we got message that they had caught the robber. He was a drug addict, part of a gang that specialised in burial related robberies. They'd read the obituaries in the papers and would sent drug addicts out to do their dirty job for them. Now, say I had seen this burglar and shot him, the police would never have caught the real culprits, the "masterminds" behind it.

Another aspect of this story is that I refused to install additional locks, bars, alerts etc. afterwards. My insurance company felt that I had installed sufficient protection, given the location and county I'm in. So, sufficient is sufficient. I don't want to live in my own prison, thank you.

An old Dutch saying is that people are mostly afraid of things that will never happen.
edit on 30-12-2014 by ForteanOrg because: he had a quote too many



posted on Dec, 30 2014 @ 06:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: ThaEnigma

My point is if you remove the shoes from the equation no confrontation takes place at all...


That is an assumption without any substantiation. You are assuming that if the victim was not carrying the sneakers the perpetrator would have ignored him. Maybe the victim had something else the perpetrator wanted. Maybe the perpetrator would still have accosted the victim because he did not like the way he looked.

These are all unanswerable questions at this point so both of us should not speculate.



posted on Dec, 30 2014 @ 07:33 AM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

It is safe to assume though, that if none of them were carrying guns, nobody would have been killed.

The real problem, as I see it, is that Americans simply love their guns. Any suggestion that an armed population is not a good thing, disappears into what must be black hole in the American psyche where no logic and reasoning exist. It also seems to me, after reading this thread, that some individuls also love the idea of killing. One poster actually described the Ohio shooting as "a thing of beauty". Very scary.

It is a tragedy that the majority of Americans are incapable of - or more likely not willing to - learn from other civilized countries in the world. Many Amercan lives have been lost, and many more will be lost because of it.




edit on 30-12-2014 by th2356 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2014 @ 08:10 AM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Sure, we're all "speculating", since none of us were present at the actual incident.. However, for the sake of critical and meaningful discussion speculation becomes natural to the progression of various angles on the topic...

"Why so serious..?"



posted on Dec, 30 2014 @ 08:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: ThaEnigma

Sure, we're all "speculating", since none of us were present at the actual incident.. However, for the sake of critical and meaningful discussion speculation becomes natural to the progression of various angles on the topic...


Not all of us and some facts are immutable. The perpetrator displayed a firearm, demanded the victim's property and was subsequently shot. Anything other than that is assumptive.


"Why so serious..?"


I find this to be a very serious issue that easily spins out of control when people create false narratives based on personal preconceptions of how things may have occurred.



posted on Dec, 30 2014 @ 08:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: th2356
It is safe to assume though, that if none of them were carrying guns, nobody would have been killed.


Is it now? No one is ever killed with other objects or hands and feet?


The real problem, as I see it, is that Americans simply love their guns.


No, we love our Constitutional rights, which among them, are the right to bear arms.



posted on Dec, 30 2014 @ 08:22 AM
link   
a reply to: ForteanOrg

One thing I hear (or is it see?) from you very often in your posts is phrases like "Don't be a hero".

Sadly, if everyone shared your mentality, those who want to put heels to our backs could do so with impunity. If nobody is a hero, the villains of the world win by default.



posted on Dec, 30 2014 @ 08:38 AM
link   
a reply to: ForteanOrg




All people? Everywhere? Old folks, hardly able to walk anymore - should they be forced to defend THEMSELVES? Blind folk, deaf folk, folks that have to do without arms, legs. Bedridden folks. Young children. The weak and the feeble. All should be able to defend themselves? And everywhere? In church? In the hospital? In prisons? In the library? In the concert hall? Kindergarten?


Yes, they should be. Don't confuse "should be" with "capable of".

"Abraham Lincoln freed the slaves, but it was Samuel Colt who made every man equal."



edit on 30-12-2014 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2014 @ 08:40 AM
link   
a reply to: th2356




It is safe to assume though, that if none of them were carrying guns, nobody would have been killed.


No it isn't. People have been killing other people long before gunpowder was invented.

It's a fact, I Google it.



posted on Dec, 30 2014 @ 08:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: ForteanOrg




All people? Everywhere? Old folks, hardly able to walk anymore - should they be forced to defend THEMSELVES? Blind folk, deaf folk, folks that have to do without arms, legs. Bedridden folks. Young children. The weak and the feeble. All should be able to defend themselves? And everywhere? In church? In the hospital? In prisons? In the library? In the concert hall? Kindergarten?


Yes, they should be. Don't confuse "should be" with "capable of".

"Abraham Lincoln freed the slaved, but it was Samuel Colt who made every man equal."





Yep. The weak and old are at even higher risk of being victimized and injured from said victimization and even less able to "run away" and thus are in even more need to have the means of self defense.



posted on Dec, 30 2014 @ 08:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: ForteanOrg




All people? Everywhere? Old folks, hardly able to walk anymore - should they be forced to defend THEMSELVES? Blind folk, deaf folk, folks that have to do without arms, legs. Bedridden folks. Young children. The weak and the feeble. All should be able to defend themselves? And everywhere? In church? In the hospital? In prisons? In the library? In the concert hall? Kindergarten?


Yes, they should be. Don't confuse "should be" with "capable of".

"Abraham Lincoln freed the slaved, but it was Samuel Colt who made every man equal."





Yep. The weak and old are at even higher risk of being victimized and injured from said victimization and even less able to "run away" and thus are in even more need to have the means of self defense.


Exactly right. The only back out the other member has now is to try and make the case that those lives hold less value to society and therefore are dispensable. Let's see if he is a Marxist.


edit on 30-12-2014 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2014 @ 09:01 AM
link   
a reply to: ForteanOrg




Protection of citizens should be done by the Police


Police respond to crimes already committed, they don't prevent a crime from taking place. Unless for example they are standing right inside the bank when the robber walks inside planning to rob it. But that would be the rare outlier, not the rule.



posted on Dec, 30 2014 @ 09:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: NOTurTypical

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: ForteanOrg




All people? Everywhere? Old folks, hardly able to walk anymore - should they be forced to defend THEMSELVES? Blind folk, deaf folk, folks that have to do without arms, legs. Bedridden folks. Young children. The weak and the feeble. All should be able to defend themselves? And everywhere? In church? In the hospital? In prisons? In the library? In the concert hall? Kindergarten?


Yes, they should be. Don't confuse "should be" with "capable of".

"Abraham Lincoln freed the slaved, but it was Samuel Colt who made every man equal."





Yep. The weak and old are at even higher risk of being victimized and injured from said victimization and even less able to "run away" and thus are in even more need to have the means of self defense.


Exactly right. The only back out the other member has now is to try and make the case that those lives hold less value to society and therefore are dispensable. Let's see if he is a Marxist.



LOL. Do you show your cards in poker too?



posted on Dec, 30 2014 @ 09:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: NOTurTypical

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: ForteanOrg




All people? Everywhere? Old folks, hardly able to walk anymore - should they be forced to defend THEMSELVES? Blind folk, deaf folk, folks that have to do without arms, legs. Bedridden folks. Young children. The weak and the feeble. All should be able to defend themselves? And everywhere? In church? In the hospital? In prisons? In the library? In the concert hall? Kindergarten?


Yes, they should be. Don't confuse "should be" with "capable of".

"Abraham Lincoln freed the slaved, but it was Samuel Colt who made every man equal."





Yep. The weak and old are at even higher risk of being victimized and injured from said victimization and even less able to "run away" and thus are in even more need to have the means of self defense.


Exactly right. The only back out the other member has now is to try and make the case that those lives hold less value to society and therefore are dispensable. Let's see if he is a Marxist.



LOL. Do you show your cards in poker too?


Naaa, no money is on the table here.



posted on Dec, 30 2014 @ 10:01 AM
link   
I would like to thank everyone participating in this thread for keeping it a civil discussion (post closure). This is a very important topic, IMO, and hits very close to home for me personally. I have had numerous family members in similar situations, and in one case even after handing over the "goods" they were beaten and stabbed, left for dead by the criminal. There was no remorse on their part, as she heard him laughing it up as he walked away from her, while she lie bleeding out on the ground. Where were the police? Well, they were not informed for 15 minutes when someone reported it, and arrived barely in time to with EMT's save her life. So, I hope you all can understand that simply complying with a criminal that has no qualms about threatening deadly force is no guarantee you are safe after handing over the goods. The goods are less important to those types than the power trip they get from committing the crime, and/or the street cred they receive.

To me, capitulating to a criminal only emboldens them to escalate to higher order and more violent crimes. And, I refuse to be a part or enable that behavior.

Again, thanks for civil discussion on such an important topic.

edit on 12/30/2014 by Krakatoa because: Fixed spelling and other fat-finger errors



posted on Dec, 30 2014 @ 10:09 AM
link   
a reply to: Krakatoa

Play stupid games......win stupid prizes.


Another lowlife gone from the world.



posted on Dec, 30 2014 @ 10:25 AM
link   
a reply to: ScientificRailgun

Actually, if EVERYBODY shared my mentality we'd be fine.



posted on Dec, 30 2014 @ 10:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: ForteanOrg
a reply to: ScientificRailgun

Actually, if EVERYBODY shared my mentality we'd be fine.


Yeah, and if EVERYBODY followed the 10 commandments we wouldn't need a single jail.

Let's argue in reality.




top topics



 
53
<< 39  40  41    43  44  45 >>

log in

join