It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by mr-lizard
People who don't own guns are wondering why you're all murdering each other, especially over replacable insured material items.
Originally posted by mr-lizard
They are not starving, but put it this way. If you are brought up in an environment were dad is in jail, mum is on medication, you're dumped in front of an xbox and brought up on violent games, sick movies, soap operas dealing with rape, incest, murder.... Music that promotes gang warfare and drugs. You live in an area with drug dealers living above you, gangs of youths with nowhere to go.... nothing to do (lack of family values) and then boredom creeps in..... Newspapers glorifying hatred and war.
Your local area is either off limits, a no-go area or a toxic wastegrounds (again a result of greedy bastards that existed long before the kids were born).
DON'T YOU SEE?
We have all done this to ourselves. The kids may be ignorant, but ultimately our selfish actions of yesteryear have shaped us all into what we are now. Shooting people is just ten steps backwards.
Unless you've had it any different, then common sense will dictate that the thugs we speak of, will know of only one way of life.
And yes, you're right... welfare systems may have started it. But ultimately our leaders could have changed this mess. Class division was massive, people were made to feel inferior or superior.... The Uk is nannied and oppressed with dreadful buerocracy, contradictory laws and a twisted legal systems.
And then some people are suggesting ARMING the citizens.
That's crazy. How about we retrace our steps, step up and modernise the education system (I remember seeing a shocking video of the results of kids playing on a railway line - let's put it this way, i never played on the railway line)..... How about we make our children feel welcome and give them a good life?
Give them something to respect. Something to live for. Or are we just avoiding the tougher but more rewarding of the few options?
Of course it's true. Don't deny it. So you're telling me nobody has tried to rob a bank with an automatic rifle? What about a trigger release bomb?
I've never disramed a mob. Never said that. I disarmed a guy with a knife at a house party, he was threatening a girl with it. I was quicker than him and pinned him to a table and grabbed the knife from his hands. I may not have been that lucky. I could have ended up dead. I didn't think about it. The only mob incident you speak of, was getting jumped by six lads on a bus. It hurt. I may not have been so lucky....
Nope, my question was relevant. Yours was childish.
That's my point exactly. Nobody trust anybody. Yet i've taken ALL your SENSIBLE replies into consideration. I trust your opinion to educate me or at least challenge me. Whereas you seem to be unwilling to change your mind on any matter.
Regards, Mr L
Although you are legally entitled to defend yourself against bodily harm in New York, there are limits to the extent of this right. Since the sole purpose of defense is to provide protection, you are not permitted to continue to assault an attacker once the perceived threat is gone. In other words, once you have wounded the attacker to allow you to escape, you should do so. Causing additional harm once the attacker is no longer in a position to cause harm to you is not permitted under the law.
Originally posted by pieman
Originally posted by Dr Love
It's an intense situation where split second decisions are made.
watch the video, it was fairly cooly done.
the first shot, fair enough, but the cool premeditated way he fired the five shots is disturbing. it was no split second decision.
Originally posted by hanyak69
How do you know the head shot was first? All the autopsy said was he was still alive after the headshot. The Pharm. could have shot center mass first then went to the head when the perp would keep moving.
Originally posted by Wildbob77
It's not about shooting someone to keep your stuff. The problem is that once the robbers get the money or drugs, they may shoot you anyway.
Originally posted by MysterE
Don't get me wrong, the robber deserved to be shot. But after he was shot in the head, and obviously no longer a threat did he deserve to be shot 5 more times? The answer is no. The pharmacist defended himself, and after he subdued the robber, he shot him 5 more times, killing him, or one might say murdering him.
[edit on 28-5-2009 by MysterE]
Originally posted by Bearack
What do you think the robber was trying to steal??? Money, I think not. Most likely trying to get more narcotics. If the kid was on PCP, a bullet to the head would do nothing but stun him. I've seen guys shot 20 or 30 times on PCP and still charge and cause harm.
Once a situation is deemed hostile and weapons are fired, police are trained to fire until the perp is no longer a threat. If they continue towards thier weapon, they are trained to continue firing.
Originally posted by Sonya610
The Pharmacist hero (also a veteran with a permanent disability do to his service) that defended his life and that of two other employees during a vicious armed robbery is being charged with murder.
This is shameful, when armed intruders threaten your LIFE with guns, and actually shoot at you, it is murder to shoot them back? I think not.
Originally posted by TheOracle
Never owned and will never own a gun, I will not fall into the circle of violence and death.
B. A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
1. The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against the will of that person from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
2. The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.
J. As used in this section:
1. "Dwelling" means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people;
2. "Residence" means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest; and
3. "Vehicle" means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.
Originally posted by Unit541
If two people rush into my place of business, or my home, and a gun is pointed at me, I will kill both of them if given half a chance. Whether this kid was actually armed or not, in my opinion, is irrelevant. The FACT is it was an attempt at an ARMED robbery. If one robber has a gun, I will assume he means to kill me. If he has an accomplice, I assume his accomplice means to kill me as well. If I shoot, and they get up, or even twitch, I am going to feel just as threatened as I did before I shot, and I'm going to shoot again, and make sure he's not going to get up.