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: 5
53
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 26 2014 @ 11:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

You are right, what he could do is meaningless so let's stop speculating about it.

And I'll just ignore the massive appeal to emotion

There is no appeal to emotion. Because the potential next victim is SOMEONE's loved one, even if it's not yours or mine. It's called the veil of ignorance. I could be that person, you could be that person, but if not then someone else IS that person who loves the potential next victim, by a criminal who has already used a gun in a robbery.



+1 more 
posted on Dec, 26 2014 @ 11:47 PM
link   
It is sad indeed. Sad for man who had to shoot him, sad for the kid's family. Sure, he might have been rehabilitated, but how much grief has been avoided by ending his criminal career before he did kill or maim someone with that gun he had while attempting to steal some shoes.
That man did exactly what he was trained to do, protect himself and others from harm by taking out the threat. Please understand---it is not about shoes. Even though msm wants you to believe it is about shoes, it isn't. When you are on the wrong end of the barrel of a gun, shoes aren't the thing foremost in your mind. Not speaking from personal experience here but from information gleaned from others who have been in that situation.
What I do know for sure is that if someone points a gun at me I'm going to assume he is intending to shoot me so my reaction will be to try to shoot him first. If a man points a gun at the guy standing next to me, I'm going to assume he is going to shoot that guy next to me and my reaction will be to try to shoot first and eliminate the threat. My parents taught me the rules of being in possession of a weapon long before I was allowed to carry one unsupervised. Their lessons were re-enforced when I took a concealed carry class.
It is a sad occasion when a life is taken. My prayers are with those left dealing with the consequences of this young fool's behavior.



posted on Dec, 26 2014 @ 11:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: IkNOwSTuff




Yet if the same people who made those laws decided to take away or even slightly infringe on your possesion of guns you would cry foul and go on about how they were all against you and planning on killing you all


No, if they can get the super-majority votes, the signature of the POTUS and the 3/4 states to ratify it then there is nothing that can be done. That's how the founders set up the amendment process.


So are you saying that if the laws were "LEGALLY AND CONSTITUTIONALLY" amended so you couldnt carry a firearm you would pay just as much attention to it as you do the ones that currently say you can shoot children under certain circumstances?

Somehow how I dont think so,
Using and quoting laws only when they suit you and then saying "But its the law!!!" Like you would pay any attention if it went the other way when you blatantly wouldnt, THATS a strawman argument!!!!.
A term Ive already seen you accuse at least 2 other posters of in this thread
edit on 26/12/2014 by IkNOwSTuff because: (no reason given)

edit on 26/12/2014 by IkNOwSTuff because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 26 2014 @ 11:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: IkNOwSTuff

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: IkNOwSTuff




Yet if the same people who made those laws decided to take away or even slightly infringe on your possesion of guns you would cry foul and go on about how they were all against you and planning on killing you all


No, if they can get the super-majority votes, the signature of the POTUS and the 3/4 states to ratify it then there is nothing that can be done. That's how the founders set up the amendment process.


So are you saying that if the laws were amended so you couldnt carry a firearm you would pay just as much attention to it as you do the ones that currently say you can shoot children under certain circumstances?

Somehow how I dont think so,
Using and quoting laws only when they suit you and then saying "But its the law!!!" Like you would pay any attention if it went the other way when you blatantly wouldnt, THATS strawman argument!!!!.
A term Ive already seen you accuse at least 2 other posters of in this thread


I see, so, now you are an expert on what everyone else that disagrees with you "would do or how they would react"? Typical....I can assure you that myelf, and everyone I know, would support it if that actually happened. It has to do with being law abiding, and respecting the Constitution of the United States. But, form your posts, I don;t think you would understand that type of thought process.



posted on Dec, 26 2014 @ 11:53 PM
link   
a reply to: NOTurTypical

he was a 16 year old kid who never had the chance to learn from his mistakes.....it is sad when we people decide that they are judge jury and executioner....



posted on Dec, 26 2014 @ 11:54 PM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

That is also leaving no room for any other outcome then him continuing a life of crime.

He needed to pay for his crime no doubt, just don't belive death is that price.

Or should we just go to the prisons and kill all the people in there for armed robbery?



posted on Dec, 26 2014 @ 11:55 PM
link   
a reply to: IkNOwSTuff




So are you saying that if the laws were amended so you couldnt carry a firearm you would pay just as much attention to it as you do the ones that currently say you can shoot children under certain circumstances?


Actually in any gun control debate in my life I've said if people want to take away the right to bear arms then get support and pass an amendment that nullifies the 2nd. That's always been my opinion.

And those certain situations are when they are threatening the life of another human. That's the only time I think it's justified. Under the Constitution everyone has a basic right to self-defense of person and property. Age is irrelevant, self-preservation is any creature's most primitive instinct.



posted on Dec, 26 2014 @ 11:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: NOTurTypical

he was a 16 year old kid who never had the chance to learn from his mistakes.....it is sad when we people decide that they are judge jury and executioner....


He had ample opportunity. He chose not to take those opportunities. Please read up on this kids rap sheet. Or, you could just wallow in ignorance like the rest of the folks defending this piece of trash...now that is sad.



posted on Dec, 26 2014 @ 11:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: NOTurTypical

he was a 16 year old kid who never had the chance to learn from his mistakes.....it is sad when we people decide that they are judge jury and executioner....


Age is irrelevant. When he was killed he was directly threatening the life of an innocent person. That was HIS CHOICE.

Can a 16 year old kill someone with a firearm, yes or no?


edit on 26-12-2014 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 26 2014 @ 11:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Krakatoa

Strange difference between UK and some Americans.
This man did not deserve to be killed over a pair of training shoes.
I would rather give him the shoes and any money I had left in my wallet.
Than shoot him dead.
Realy you can value life so little that its justified to murder over a pair of sneakers .

Do you know his back story? unemployed unemployable due to time in prison perhaps he was trying to get a gift for a child the only way he could ..
Its easy to label him scum andeserveing of his fate.
But I DONT WANT TO LIVE IN A COUNTRY THAT VALUES FOOT WEAR MADE BY CHILD SLAVE LABOUR MORE THAN A FELLOW HUMANS LIFE.

mERRRY FRACKIN CHRISTMAS America.


+2 more 
posted on Dec, 26 2014 @ 11:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Sremmos80




just don't belive death is that price.


Are you kidding??? When someone is threatening your life with a gun you don't wait to see if they are serious or not. That's fundamentally absurd.


+3 more 
posted on Dec, 27 2014 @ 12:01 AM
link   
a reply to: ecossiepossie




This man did not deserve to be killed over a pair of training shoes.


He wasn't, straw man. He was killed because he was pointing a deadly weapon at someone. That's why he was killed.



posted on Dec, 27 2014 @ 12:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
AS WELL YOU SHOULD! Constitutional rights can NOT be taken away.


Now, I'm not an American but even I know that is total bollocks. It's just very difficult to take them away, but not impossible.

As for the OP - if the guy pulled a gun (although there doesn't appear to be mention of a weapon being recovered) then in a State with CCW laws this is a risk he took and it backfired. I can't say I feel bad for him. However, it is well established that young males are terrible at risk analysis and don't really get good at it until their 20's, so I'm not going to jump up and down in celebration of his death.

As for the trainers - isn't it a bit of a marketing gimmick to make sure the shoes are always in "short supply"? If violence is common at sales of them, then the company must shoulder some responsibility for artificially restricting supply when demand is high, then jacking the price up to several hundred dollars. In some situations, this would be called "profiteering".
edit on 27/12/14 by stumason because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 27 2014 @ 12:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: IkNOwSTuff
So are you saying that if the laws were "LEGALLY AND CONSTITUTIONALLY" amended so you couldnt carry a firearm you would pay just as much attention to it as you do the ones that currently say you can shoot children under certain circumstances?

If the law was changed so you had no freedom of speech would you simply stop talking and accept the loss of your right? If not then you are a hypocrite.


+2 more 
posted on Dec, 27 2014 @ 12:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: ecossiepossie
a reply to: Krakatoa

Strange difference between UK and some Americans.
This man did not deserve to be killed over a pair of training shoes.
I would rather give him the shoes and any money I had left in my wallet.
Than shoot him dead.
Realy you can value life so little that its justified to murder over a pair of sneakers .

Do you know his back story? unemployed unemployable due to time in prison perhaps he was trying to get a gift for a child the only way he could ..
Its easy to label him scum andeserveing of his fate.
But I DONT WANT TO LIVE IN A COUNTRY THAT VALUES FOOT WEAR MADE BY CHILD SLAVE LABOUR MORE THAN A FELLOW HUMANS LIFE.

mERRRY FRACKIN CHRISTMAS America.



And, after you give the person pointing the gun at you all that you have, what is to stop them from shooting you dead anyways. After all, you saw their face, you can report and identify them. Also, now that they have your wallet, they know where you live. So, now they can come to your house and steal everything there, knowing full well you would not stop them. And, perhaps kill your family for good measure?

Good plan!



posted on Dec, 27 2014 @ 12:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: IkNOwSTuff
So are you saying that if the laws were "LEGALLY AND CONSTITUTIONALLY" amended so you couldnt carry a firearm you would pay just as much attention to it as you do the ones that currently say you can shoot children under certain circumstances?

If the law was changed so you had no freedom of speech would you simply stop talking and accept the loss of your right? If not then you are a hypocrite.


If they amended the Bill of Rights by the process given to us by the founders then I would respect it. That's a Republic.



posted on Dec, 27 2014 @ 12:05 AM
link   
a reply to: Krakatoa

I'd just like to say I am from the UK and don't agree with that posters views, before this escalates into a US/UK thing as they usually do..

No one has the right to take your property illegally and I would (and have) defended myself in those sort of situations. I think the guy was right to shoot in self-defence, assuming of course the story about him pulling a gun is true.



posted on Dec, 27 2014 @ 12:06 AM
link   
a reply to: NOTurTypical
I would give over the shoes in this case cause they are not worth risking my life for.
Good way to not have to find out if he is serious or not.



posted on Dec, 27 2014 @ 12:06 AM
link   
Does anyone know if there is CCTV footage of the shooting anywhere?



posted on Dec, 27 2014 @ 12:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

That is also leaving no room for any other outcome then him continuing a life of crime.

False. I gave 2 outcomes. Outcome 1 he becomes a model citizen. Outcome 2 your loved one is the next victim he robs at gunpoint. Your loved one is possibly killed or scarred for life. Are you telling me if your loved one was next on his list you are not relieved that you won't find out what happens to her? Because his potential next victim is SOMEONE's loved one.


He needed to pay for his crime no doubt, just don't belive death is that price.

When you point a gun at someone that is exactly the right price to pay,


Or should we just go to the prisons and kill all the people in there for armed robbery?

You can be convicted for armed robbery without being armed. I am more than happy for that to be the penalty for everyone in prison who used a gun while committing a crime.



new topics

top topics



 
53
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join