New Orleans teen shot in the head by man who thought he was burglar

Originally posted by butcherguy
So any time a person reaches into their pocket in a public place you should kill them? Walmart would be a dangerous place if that was the case.

Where did I ever say that? I gave one example where a person reaching into their pocket could have been perceived as carrying out a threatening act, just like the guy accused here perceived a person's hand movements as imminently life threatening.

Originally posted by IvanAstikov

Originally posted by butcherguy
So any time a person reaches into their pocket in a public place you should kill them? Walmart would be a dangerous place if that was the case.

Where did I ever say that? I gave one example where a person reaching into their pocket could have been perceived as carrying out a threatening act, just like the guy accused here perceived a person's hand movements as imminently life threatening.

I made of point of the obvious difference between a person in public (as in Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman) and this 14 year old burglar that was on private property.... which he had to scale a tall fence to enter.

2am, climbing a tall fence to trespass on private property is a different situation than walking in a public area in a housing development.

reply to post by butcherguy


Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman may have been in a public place, but it wasn't comparable to the ridiculous "shooting someone at Walmart for reaching for their wallet" example you was trying to pass off as my thoughts.

Western Nations such as the USA, Britain, New Zealand and Australia need to reintroduce national service because of things like this.

Kids aren't getting properly disciplined these days. As a result, we are getting a higher percentage of delinquent kids running around, breaking the law. With national service, all kids of a specific age would be disciplined and learn quick smart what is to be expected of them, and what is right.

reply to post by Cancerwarrior

You have to think about one thing though, if you could physically see that people were armed around you, how likely would you be to commit a crime in their presence?

What if you were the only guy in the room wearing a gun when I was about to commit a crime?

If I was the bad guy, I’d shoot you first. The biggest threat should always be the first target. I want concealment as much as possible because the only visible target should be the one in my gun sights.

Originally posted by daaskapital
Western Nations such as the USA, Britain, New Zealand and Australia need to reintroduce national service because of things like this.

Kids aren't getting properly disciplined these days. As a result, we are getting a higher percentage of delinquent kids running around, breaking the law. With national service, all kids of a specific age would be disciplined and learn quick smart what is to be expected of them, and what is right.

If you want them to become disciplined and honourable, why not encourage youths to join mma academies, where even if they don't become world champions, they will at least learn something that will be helpful on the streets? Why this preference to train them to kill people they've never met before, in lands they'd never previously heard of?

reply to post by daaskapital

Western Nations such as the USA, Britain, New Zealand and Australia need to reintroduce national service because of things like this.

Kids aren't getting properly disciplined these days. As a result, we are getting a higher percentage of delinquent kids running around, breaking the law. With national service, all kids of a specific age would be disciplined and learn quick smart what is to be expected of them, and what is right.

How about we bring back the ‘family unit’, personal responsibility and good parenting? I’d take that over a government indoctrination program for my children any day.

Nobody wants to talk about this kid’s parents (or Trayvon’s parents). Why aren’t they being criticized and held to account for raising little hooligans? Why is the guy who defended himself always to blame rather than the people who allowed their little kids to become a criminal?

reply to post by seabag

What if you were the only guy in the room wearing a gun when I was about to commit a crime? If I was the bad guy, I’d shoot you first.

Assuming you don't shoot back, this is the only way its going to work for him.

I want concealment as much as possible because the only visible target should be the one in my gun sights.

Most people just aren't going to go after the guy who can defend himself.

It's the same reason why sick/lame wilda beasts are seperated from the pack and eaten by cheetahs.

My two cents anyways.

reply to post by Cancerwarrior


A gun is only a useful defensive tool if you have warning that you are about to be attacked. Not even Tom Knapp could have defended himself against a bullet in the back. Having guns doesn't guarantee making anywhere a safer place, it just makes some criminals even more ruthless.

Originally posted by IvanAstikov
reply to post by Cancerwarrior

 

A gun is only a useful defensive tool if you have warning that you are about to be attacked. Not even Tom Knappcould have defended himself against a bullet in the back. Having guns doesn't make anywhere a safer place, it just makes some criminals even more ruthless.

That makes absolutely no sense.

If you say so, sure.

reply to post by Cancerwarrior


So, you don't think the introduction of guns into the equation ups the ante for violently inclined criminals? How about giving rapists the death sentence? Think that's going to end up beneficial for the victims of rape, or do you think it is only going to result in more dead rape victims?

reply to post by IvanAstikov

So, you don't think the introduction of guns into the equation ups the ante for violently inclined criminals?

"Ups the ante" in what way? The best deterrent for a crazy armed individual is another armed individual. Statistics do not lie on this fact.

How about giving rapists the death sentence? Think that's going to end up beneficial for the victims of rape, or do you think it is only going to result in more dead rape victims?

Personally, I would think that a death sentence for a rapist would most likely keep rapes down. Would you think twice before commiting a crime that might result in your own death?

Originally posted by Cancerwarrior
"Ups the ante" in what way? The best deterrent for a crazy armed individual is another armed individual. Statistics do not lie on this fact.

You seem to be operating under the mistaken assumption that crazy individuals act rationally.

Originally posted by Cancerwarrior
Personally, I would think that a death sentence for a rapist would most likely keep rapes down. Would you think twice before commiting a crime that might result in your own death?

I doubt it. Rapists gotta rape and if they are going to be killed for the raping, they are going to be less inclined to be leaving helpful witnesses.

Originally posted by IvanAstikov
reply to post by Cancerwarrior

 

So, you don't think the introduction of guns into the equation ups the ante for violently inclined criminals? How about giving rapists the death sentence? Think that's going to end up beneficial for the victims of rape, or do you think it is only going to result in more dead rape victims?

Oh, you are one of "those" people.
The people with the mindset that if you dole out harsher punishments for some, then they will only cover up the crime.

No wonder you spout off the crap that you do. It all makes sense now.

Let me guess, you have got to be a politician in your home country.

reply to post by sdcigarpig


Sounds like he WAS a burglar. Previous charges, and casing the house, and entering illegally into the locked yard. So this guy gets a murder charge, for self defense, because the would-be burglar was black, and a teen?

Just like I said; they want to make it against the law to defend yourself against black assailants.

Originally posted by roadgravel

The New Orleans Times-Picayune reports that Coulter remains in critical condition.

If the victim is alive why is he booked for murder? Jumping the gun to start another round of media frenzy?

Excellent question!!!!! Gee, how involved is the White House in this case, or is it just new rules these days?

Originally posted by IvanAstikov
reply to post by KawRider9

 

and made a move that the homeowner took for reaching for a gun. YES, I'm fine with the kid getting shot.

I'm hardly surprised you are fine with it if you are prepared to buy explanations like "He looked like he was reaching for a gun that I hadn't seen yet."

When someone is in YOUR yard, and reaches, you go ahead and wait to see if it's a gun they pull or not. The loud noise, if you live to hear it, would be a good clue. Personally, I would not wait and risk death. I wouldn't ask for ID, either.

Originally posted by IvanAstikov
reply to post by seabag

 

Shooting someone who is breaking into your vehicle while your family are safe inside the house, is not self-defence.

Castle laws allow you to shoot to defend your property, also. If someone was trying to steal the car that my husband MUST HAVE to get to work (30 miles one way ,and no public transport, or need for it here), then they would indeed be threatening my family.

Why do you think it isn't alright to defend your home and family? This kid scaled an eight-foot fence, in the middle of the night. He was a criminal, not an innocent child. His family KNEW he was a burglar, yet they allowed him out late at night?

If a child of mine tried that (which they wouldn't, because they are actually raised), there would be alarms on the windows, and they would be worried about what I would do if they tried it again. I also wouldn't blame a homeowner if they broke onto property to steal, and were shot as a result.

Originally posted by CaptChaos
Just LOOK at this

and tell me that is a CHILD

The picture is of the homeowner, not the burglar that he rightfully shot.

Doesn't matter what age the burglar was, either, or if he was actually armed. The shooting was justified.

Originally posted by sdcigarpig
reply to post by Cancerwarrior

 

At what point does a child stop being a child and is then considered an adult?*snip*

There is a disturbing trend in the country where those under the age of consent, tend to be committing felonies. It is something that we need to look at and perhaps try to change the direction of.

I see what you are saying here, I think. There are many problems that lead to this current situation.

1. Minors (under 18) are told they can behave as adults in some fashions, such as having sex, but that they should face no consequences for those actions.
2. Parents in many places are treated as criminals for disciplining their children. Not only spankings, but other punishments are treated as "bad". My oldest was the "trouble child". Public school in her case, and a grandmother that thought she could do no wrong (more on that later). She took off one day after school, as a teen, and walked to the closest sheriff substation, complaining that we were mean to her. She got swatted if she was openly defiant, or hit her younger brother, and lost privileges for other misbehavior (sneaking out, stealing, not doing chores, mouthing off, etc.). The deputy there said flat out she was a brat. This social worker guy, though, was a total IDIOT. he made the call to me, telling me she was there, and demanding I leave right then and come down there. I told him that wasn't happening. One, I had NO CAR, and two, I had two other children to care for, and this would have to wait till my husband was home. He actually acted like he thought I should pay for a cab. Then, he proceeded to tell me that I should use alternatives to spanking. I explained that we already did, and how she lost privileges for bad behavior, and was to the point of having none left to lose. The guy actually suggested we then REMOVE some of the restrictions, and reward her bad behavior, so maybe she would behave better! THAT sort of lunacy is a HUGE part of the problem.
3. There is a certain culture in this country that actually encourages bad behavior. "Music" glorifying crime, gangs, children taught that those who look different are the enemy, and fair game for attacks, robbery, and whatever else they want to do, and a complete LACK of any real parenting. Claiming it's about single parents is only PART of the problem, too. I was a single parent for years, and when I worked, my daughter was in school or with a sitter, sometimes family. She was never left to roam around unattended. Even with her later rebelliousness, she wasn't a criminal.
4. The last few years, there is a new mentality, being supported at the highest levels of government, that criminal actions by ONE group are somehow acceptable. Massive waves of mob crime are ignored, the Justice Dept. won't prosecute many, and the WH shoves its way into local cases, stirring up strife.

Originally posted by Cancerwarrior
Something that doesn't help is the sense that parents always think their child can do no wrong. I totally agree.

Exactly! My mother had that issues, with my oldest. We had to live with my parents a few years, and if the kid cried, I was in trouble. Didn't matter what she did wrong; I was the "bad guy". That lead to her later issues directly! Worse was how she raised my brother. My sister and I were raised with rules, and we got in trouble if we broke them. My brother, for some unfathomable reason, didn't have to obey anything. It wasn't, in his case, her saying he didn't do anything wrong, but if her literally BRAGGING when he did. Skipping school, having a girl in HER room, and leaving evidence, smoking, anything. These days, he's a useless person; thieving, lying, brain dead from drugs, totally vulgar and disgusting, and homeless. Everyone that tried to help, he stole from.

Originally posted by seabag
I haven't verified this news but I heard from a friend yesterday that Trayvon's mom is on a mission to not only change the stand your ground laws in Florida but she's also pushing for some type of national standard to this end. I'm not sure how that will jive with the 2nd amendment but (if true) this is yet another push to strip us of our rights.

That wouldn't surprise me, and it ties directly to some of what I stated above. Instead of telling parents to be more strict, and try to keep the kids out of trouble, she wants to help make it a crime to defend against such "kids". The sick thing is, she will have federal support.