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: 49
53
<< 46  47  48    50  51  52 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 31 2014 @ 03:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: DrJunk

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
If only that criminal hadn't brought a gun with him, he'd still alive.


Unless person being robbed decided to shoot a thief because they felt threatened.

If neither of them brought a gun, no one would have been shot.
Then there would be cause to have an investigation, and possibly a trial. The legal process would do it's thing, and you'd have a (hopefully) fair resolution to the entire ordeal.

As it stands, there's currently an investigation for this incident as well. Even when the attacker was armed with a deadly weapon, questions are being asked, and evidence is being collected. It's not as if the guy shot his attacker, the police came along, said "Oh, he had a gun too? You're free to go." and sent him about his day.




posted on Dec, 31 2014 @ 03:14 PM
link   
a reply to: DrJunk

Ahhh. So we accept reports that person A shot person B but don't accept reports that person A shot person B after person B flashed a gun at him?



posted on Dec, 31 2014 @ 03:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Sremmos80

I never said that but if it's in self defense and there's no other way, then yes. Shoot him, knife him, do what ever you can to protect yourself.



posted on Dec, 31 2014 @ 03:29 PM
link   
a reply to: ForteanOrg

Somehow I get the feeling that if the CRIMINAL had been run down by a car while he was committing a crime there wouldn't be a debate on automobile safety. The fact still remains that he was a criminal that flashed a weapon and was killed out of self defense.



posted on Dec, 31 2014 @ 03:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: DrJunk

Ahhh. So we accept reports that person A shot person B but don't accept reports that person A shot person B after person B flashed a gun at him?


No, we accept that the shooter has admitted to shooting the deceased. There are points of contention, and there are points not being contended. This is one of them.



posted on Dec, 31 2014 @ 03:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
If in the commission of your crime you threaten someone with a deadly weapon, and your victim ALSO has a deadly weapon, it's not outside the realm of possibility that one of you will end up dead.


So, indeed, remove the weapons and there are no deaths.



posted on Dec, 31 2014 @ 03:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: ForteanOrg

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
If in the commission of your crime you threaten someone with a deadly weapon, and your victim ALSO has a deadly weapon, it's not outside the realm of possibility that one of you will end up dead.


So, indeed, remove the weapons and there are no deaths.
I've already discussed at length the problems with "disarming" the U.S. so I won't get into it here, but at the heart of it you're correct. If there were no weapons, there would likely be two living people. But who's to say this kid, in lieu of a firearm, instead uses a knife? Should we start restricting knives then? What if he use a branch of a tree? Do we ban assault flora?



posted on Dec, 31 2014 @ 03:48 PM
link   
a reply to: DrJunk

The police said he admitted to it. The police also said the other guy had a gun, and that two guns were recovered from the scene.

So again, we're accepting one thing police say about an incident but not another.



posted on Dec, 31 2014 @ 03:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Skid Mark
a reply to: Sremmos80

I never said that but if it's in self defense and there's no other way, then yes. Shoot him, knife him, do what ever you can to protect yourself.


Er... run away? Hand over the shoes? Why risk your life over a pair of shoes?



posted on Dec, 31 2014 @ 03:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: ForteanOrg

originally posted by: Skid Mark
a reply to: Sremmos80

I never said that but if it's in self defense and there's no other way, then yes. Shoot him, knife him, do what ever you can to protect yourself.


Er... run away? Hand over the shoes? Why risk your life over a pair of shoes?
Because people should be able to defend themselves. If the only two possible outcomes to the scenario of being threatened a told to surrender some of your property are A) Run Away or B) Give up the Item, then criminals win by default.



posted on Dec, 31 2014 @ 03:54 PM
link   
a reply to: ForteanOrg

Why risk your life trying to steal a pair of shoes? That's the real question.



posted on Dec, 31 2014 @ 03:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: ForteanOrg

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
If in the commission of your crime you threaten someone with a deadly weapon, and your victim ALSO has a deadly weapon, it's not outside the realm of possibility that one of you will end up dead.


So, indeed, remove the weapons and there are no deaths.


Darwin and evolution have taught is that death isn't a bad thing when it weeds out those who are not fit to further the survival of the species.

Right?



posted on Dec, 31 2014 @ 03:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: ForteanOrg

originally posted by: Skid Mark
a reply to: Sremmos80

I never said that but if it's in self defense and there's no other way, then yes. Shoot him, knife him, do what ever you can to protect yourself.


Er... run away? Hand over the shoes? Why risk your life over a pair of shoes?


Again with the shoes??? What is it with you??? Once the criminal produced the gun, it STOPPED being about the shoes and escalated the situation into a life and death encounter. Please stop misrepresenting and diminishing the situation....sheesh.

Now, you are on the border of trolling since you have been told numerous times the same thing over and over....but refuse to understand.



posted on Dec, 31 2014 @ 04:00 PM
link   
a reply to: ForteanOrg

What would you classify as a deadly weapon? Knives, clubs, baseball bats, swords, or hammers? There are plenty of things that can be a deadly weapon. Someone can be beat to death with nothing but bare hands. What would you do, cut off hands and feet because you can kill people with them? You can bite someone's throat out. Should we pull everyone's teeth? It's not the weapons or things that could be used as weapons. The problem is people.



posted on Dec, 31 2014 @ 04:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
But who's to say this kid, in lieu of a firearm, instead uses a knife? Should we start restricting knives then? What if he use a branch of a tree? Do we ban assault flora?


Actually, in my country you are not allowed to carry a lot of types of knives with you. Oh, of course you can bring a Swiss Army knife or a Leatherman. And I have a number of quite impressive kitchenknives myself (actually, they're Japanese and I like them a lot, slices bread like it was made for it
).

Assault flora .. such a pity I don't live near Japan, that's something I'd like to see


But yes, there is a debate in this country what should and should not be allowed. In my youth most knives were still permitted - nowadays most knives aren't. But nobody will arrest you if you have a pocket knive on you; the Police will rightfully assume you're using it to clip your nails or something like that. Unless you try to hurt somebody with it, in which case it IS seen as a deadly weapon and you WILL be tried for assault. In my youth you could legally own a boxing ring or a switchknive, nowadays you can't. Guns were always forbidden here and nobody misses them, nor does anybody miss the boxing rings or switchknives.



posted on Dec, 31 2014 @ 04:00 PM
link   
a reply to: ForteanOrg

His life was put at risk over a pair of shoes when the other party introduced a gun to the situation. He reacted to the gun being introduced.

Your argument would hold more water if the person had simply said "give me your shoes" and the response had been a shooting. The shooting followed the introduction of a gun to the situation by the person who said "give me your shoes." Since that person chose to elevate the situation with a gun, he was the one that put people's lives at risk.



posted on Dec, 31 2014 @ 04:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krakatoa
Again with the shoes??? What is it with you???


Top of the page, the big Green Letters: "Ohio shopper shoots teen dead outside mall for trying to steal newly bought Nike Air Jordans"

Nike Air Jordans are shoes.

ETA: I know, it's hard to believe they ARE shoes. They look like something Spiderman would wear, but they are shoes.
edit on 31-12-2014 by ForteanOrg because: he added an ETA.



posted on Dec, 31 2014 @ 04:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: ForteanOrg

originally posted by: Krakatoa
Again with the shoes??? What is it with you???


Top of the page, the big Green Letters: "Ohio shopper shoots teen dead outside mall for trying to steal newly bought Nike Air Jordans"

Nike Air Jordans are shoes.


ATS T&C's demand we use the accurate title of a news article when we create a thread. I guess you don't understand that either do you?



posted on Dec, 31 2014 @ 04:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: ForteanOrg

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
But who's to say this kid, in lieu of a firearm, instead uses a knife? Should we start restricting knives then? What if he use a branch of a tree? Do we ban assault flora?


Actually, in my country you are not allowed to carry a lot of types of knives with you. Oh, of course you can bring a Swiss Army knife or a Leatherman. And I have a number of quite impressive kitchenknives myself (actually, they're Japanese and I like them a lot, slices bread like it was made for it
).

Assault flora .. such a pity I don't live near Japan, that's something I'd like to see


But yes, there is a debate in this country what should and should not be allowed. In my youth most knives were still permitted - nowadays most knives aren't. But nobody will arrest you if you have a pocket knive on you; the Police will rightfully assume you're using it to clip your nails or something like that. Unless you try to hurt somebody with it, in which case it IS seen as a deadly weapon and you WILL be tried for assault. In my youth you could legally own a boxing ring or a switchknive, nowadays you can't. Guns were always forbidden here and nobody misses them, nor does anybody miss the boxing rings or switchknives.


Yes, this is why the founding father's in America decided it was a God given right to protect yourself how you see fit rather than allow some ninny bureaucrat decide how you can protect yourself.



posted on Dec, 31 2014 @ 04:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Jamie1

Well some men had the god given right, not all.

Lets not forget what time it was when the founding fathers wrote it.



new topics

top topics



 
53
<< 46  47  48    50  51  52 >>

log in

join