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: 47
53
<< 44  45  46    48  49  50 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 31 2014 @ 10:13 AM
link   
a reply to: Krakatoa

The way I read those quotes; it's possible that one of the suspects Other than the dead one was brandishing the weapon - and although I agree that it's now time to produce mine in this circumstance - I'm not sure that the right person was shot, or that anyone needed to be.

I may be wrong, and the ordeal may have went down differently than I see in my head - but if said thieves had been given the shoes and allowed to walk ( rather than being shot ), it's possible that police could have apprehended all three and pressed charges.

Now - let's not twist anything - I am very much a gun and self defense advocate, and I would have probably arrested or shot them all myself as the situation dictated - but depending on your level of awareness and competence in this sort of situation, I can understand the instinct to just shoot.

All in all, a victory for applicable self-defense, perhaps a slight overreaction, but hopefully a lesson to all. Had the situation escalated much further ( I.E. if the suspects weapon had been drawn or pointed - I'm not sure that was the case? ), it would have very much warranted this reaction, and my hats off for being on your toes to the shooper. Let's hope police catch up with the other would-be thieves, and that they find a weapon. I'm all about real justice, and if the suspects weapon was a fabrication, my opinion on this would be quite different.



ETA: Ermagerd. 50 pages. I'm a little late probably.
edit on 31-12-2014 by DigitalJedi805 because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 31 2014 @ 10:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: th2356
The police and authorities would probably have a lot more time and resourses to target illicit firearm ownership if they didn't have to deal with things like regular school shootings and two year olds shooting their mother to death with her own gun in Wal-Mart.


Is that so? How does a school shooting in Connecticut cause the local police in Chicago to fail to enforce illicit firearms laws?


What a strange post. But since you for some reason want to be spesific about certain places in the US, maybe the local police in Chicago have a lot of shooting incidents to take care of right in their own neighborhood? Here is just one example, from a weekend in July:



The spree of shootings in Chicago during the long holiday weekend reached 82 incidents and included 14 deaths, according to a tabulation of police reports.


abcnews.go.com...

Get it now?



posted on Dec, 31 2014 @ 10:48 AM
link   
a reply to: DrJunk

Is that so? Maybe you can show me where Holder and his Justice Department have vigorously enforced the firearms laws already on the books.



posted on Dec, 31 2014 @ 10:49 AM
link   
a reply to: th2356

And how do those tie into school shootings which you claim are absorbing an inordinate amount of local law enforcement's time?



posted on Dec, 31 2014 @ 11:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: DrJunk

Is that so? Maybe you can show me where Holder and his Justice Department have vigorously enforced the firearms laws already on the books.



I think you're confused. Holder and the DOJ are the ones who GAVE criminals guns that were used to murder a border patrol guard.



posted on Dec, 31 2014 @ 11:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: DrJunk

Is that so? Maybe you can show me where Holder and his Justice Department have vigorously enforced the firearms laws already on the books.



I'm confused, I thought Holder and Obama were coming for our guns, now you're telling me they aren't?

People have to make up their minds...



posted on Dec, 31 2014 @ 11:06 AM
link   
a reply to: DrJunk

I never said they were.

Maybe now you can answer my question.



posted on Dec, 31 2014 @ 11:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: Jamie1

I think you're confused. Holder and the DOJ are the ones who GAVE criminals guns that were used to murder a border patrol guard.


Shhhh.

I want to see what kind of answer we get on enforcement since the poster in question feels more laws is just the solution we need.



posted on Dec, 31 2014 @ 11:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: DrJunk

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: DrJunk

Is that so? Maybe you can show me where Holder and his Justice Department have vigorously enforced the firearms laws already on the books.



I'm confused, I thought Holder and Obama were coming for our guns, now you're telling me they aren't?

People have to make up their minds...


You're right. You are confused.

I never said Holder and the DOJ are not coming for our guns. They GAVE guns to Mexican arms trafficers, one of which was used to kill a U.S. border guard. It's estimated the 200 Mexicans were also killed by these guns, which were found at 170 crime scenes.



posted on Dec, 31 2014 @ 11:29 AM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

What is it you do not understand about this?

Whether it is shooting sprees, school massacres or toddlers getting their hands on loaded guns, the end result is just the same: People die. Plain and simple. Deaths have to be investigated. Investigations takes time and resources.

This is not rocket science. Or maybe it is, to some Americans?

*shakes head*



posted on Dec, 31 2014 @ 11:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: th2356
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

What is it you do not understand about this?

Whether it is shooting sprees, school massacres or toddlers getting their hands on loaded guns, the end result is just the same: People die. Plain and simple. Deaths have to be investigated. Investigations takes time and resources.

This is not rocket science. Or maybe it is, to some Americans?

*shakes head*




I don't want to speak the others here, but I think they're asking for concrete solutions, stuff that can be implemented today that would have a real effect on what you want to see happen. You have your own ideas, that's great. Rather than simply say "this should be done", tell us HOW it can be done, and still keep U.S. Citizens' liberties intact?



posted on Dec, 31 2014 @ 11:35 AM
link   
a reply to: ScientificRailgun

That, and how does making it more illegal for people who it's already illegal for them to have guns solve anything. If a person is already breaking one or more laws by having a gun in the first place, why would tacking on a few more laws deter them?
edit on 31-12-2014 by Shamrock6 because: Fat fingered the crap out of my post



posted on Dec, 31 2014 @ 11:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: th2356

What is it you do not understand about this?


I understand it quite well my goal post shifting friend. You said they cannot prosecute local or state laws due to school shootings and two year olds shooting their mother's, I gave you Chicago as an example. Were all of the recent shootings committed by two year olds or in schools?

How about they go and get the firearms away from the criminals over there?



posted on Dec, 31 2014 @ 11:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: th2356
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

What is it you do not understand about this?

Whether it is shooting sprees, school massacres or toddlers getting their hands on loaded guns, the end result is just the same: People die. Plain and simple. Deaths have to be investigated. Investigations takes time and resources.

This is not rocket science. Or maybe it is, to some Americans?

*shakes head*




Yes, it would me so much easier on resources to just abdicate all of our liberties and fall in line.

We should stop trying to protect ourselves.

Next, we should never say anything that might offend anybody.

Next, we should put cameras on every street corner and LEO to make sure nobody steps out of line.

You can live where you want. I choose America. I've been all over the world. In my experience it's 100x better here than any country I've visited in Europe, Asia, Africa, or South America. Maybe that's why we have an immigration problem. People tend to choose freedom over being controlled and watched over.

Back on topic... I'm still happy the thug from the OP isn't going to be able to harass me and my family.

Yeah Darwin.



posted on Dec, 31 2014 @ 12:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: DrJunk

originally posted by: Jamie1
Seriously? You want to delegate your own protection to the "authorities" because it's "easier?"


Uh... yeah.

That's kind of the reason behind police and the military.


Police respond to crimes that have already been committed. They don't prevent them from happening.



posted on Dec, 31 2014 @ 12:09 PM
link   
Any one else wonder if there was a police presence at the mall this would have been avoided?

Would it not have been a good idea for a cop(s) to be there at a high profile release like this where robbery is a very real possibility?

6 P's you know



posted on Dec, 31 2014 @ 12:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Sremmos80

Where I'm at, stores have to request it or accept the offer of us showing up. If they don't request it or accept our offer, we don't go.

Beyond that, if there was a presence, it was probably inside the mall. I have no idea how this mall is laid out, but I know we don't hang out outside unless the store has direct parking lot access. Like at the opening on Black Friday, we stay by exterior doors. But if it's a store inside the mall, being outside wouldn't do much for the store.

Eta: when I say "accept the offer" I mean we will typically try to touch base if we know ahead of time something is launching or opening or whatever and ask if they need/want us there. It's not a "we're coming to your store because this is happening and that's okay with you right?"
edit on 31-12-2014 by Shamrock6 because: Eta



posted on Dec, 31 2014 @ 12:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

Ok ya so poor planning by the mall as well then, or all on the mall possibly.

Just seems like someone would have realized that if they are selling a limited number of items that they know more people will want then they can, or will, sell that robbery is a very real possibility.



posted on Dec, 31 2014 @ 12:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Sremmos80

Probably, yea. I don't know how things work there obviously. I know here we have one mall that has a small station in it with a handful of officers working out of it whenever the mall is open, because its a huge mall and has a ton of larcenies. That was a joint effort by us and the mall management. There's another mall that we only go to if called or during routine patrols because its a small to medium size mall with minimal theft activity. I would think there's some degree of communication between the PD and mall (or I would HOPE there is), but I don't really know for sure obviously. Just offering an insight based off how things work here. Some stores don't want us there because their policy dictates one thing, others like us being there for special events. Goes both ways here.



posted on Dec, 31 2014 @ 12:31 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Then please consider that this requires you to be omniscient. Are you? If not, you can not guarantee that you will never incidentally hit an innocent bystander - or an innocent suspect, for that matter. Nor can you guarantee me that your gun is not stolen or illegally resold and is used to kill me. So, don't ask me for impossible guarantees, please, unless you can give me some in return.



The graph above shows the number of weapons per 100 citizens versus the number of homicides by firearm.

If you still think there is another reason for the huge amount of murders by firearms than the amount of firearms in the population, you are beyond repair and logic - then you don't think functional, but have a belief, a Gun religion, so to say ...




top topics



 
53
<< 44  45  46    48  49  50 >>

log in

join