NationStates Jolt Archive

Possible Darwin? ('http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070519/NEWS01/705190372')

A robbery and crime spree aided by an unloaded gun came to a halt late Thursday when the gunman met more than his match: a gun with bullets.

Charles Parker Jr., 18, of Detroit was killed when a 53-year-old man pulled out a 9mm handgun and shot the teen, who was armed with an unloaded .22-caliber handgun.

Detroit police are calling it self-defense.

The botched carjacking on Grand River and Prevost came after a string of robberies in Detroit on Thursday, which police said were committed by Parker and four others, ranging in age from 16 to 20.

The robberies began about 8:40 p.m. Thursday at Kentucky and Curtis when a 16-year-old was robbed of his cell phone, a silver chain and his wallet, by at least two of the suspects, police said.

At 9:30 p.m., the robbers attempted to carjack a couple in the driveway of their home in the 19600 block of Appoline, police said. One pointed the unloaded gun at the couple and pulled the trigger.

The teens fled without the car.

Later, police said, the robbers saw a man at a Detroit car wash and tried to carjack him. The one approached with the unloaded gun and the other wielded a baseball bat, police said.

That's when the man washing his car fired, striking Parker.

Ow! *dies*

Not that the man who was being approached had any idea that the gun that Parker was using was unloaded, or that the baseball bat in and of itself didn't constitute an immediate lethal threat, but the whole thing is hilarious to me.

I'm just hoping that Parker never managed to reproduce before going out to rob people with an empty pistol.

Yes, because we cheer for the people doing crime with loaded guns :rolleyes:

And no, not a Darwin candidate, not by a long shot.

Yes, because we cheer for the people doing crime with loaded guns :rolleyes:

And no, not a Darwin candidate, not by a long shot.

So it doesn't seem really stupid to try to rob people with an empty gun, in a place where other people may be carrying a concealed gun, with real bullets in it?

Ho ho ho!

Another 18 year old dead.

Truly a victory for guns!

So it doesn't seem really stupid to try to rob people with an empty gun, in a place where other people may be carrying a concealed gun, with real bullets in it?

No, not really.

Not more than trying to rob people in general.

Oh, and by the by: I'm strongly in favour of more criminals carrying empty guns when they're perpetrating crimes.

Possible Darwin? ('http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070519/NEWS01/705190372')



Ow! *dies*

Not that the man who was being approached had any idea that the gun that Parker was using was unloaded, or that the baseball bat in and of itself didn't constitute an immediate lethal threat, but the whole thing is hilarious to me.

I'm just hoping that Parker never managed to reproduce before going out to rob people with an empty pistol.

I love it when I can start the afternoon with some good news. Another predator off the streets.

I love it when I can start the afternoon with some good news. Another predator off the streets.

A predator so dangerous, so deadly, so ruthless...that he uses an empty gun.

A predator so dangerous, so deadly, so ruthless...that he uses an empty gun.

Maybe he was robbing people to buy ammo.

Anyway, if someone points a gun at me I'm not going to ask them to prove it's loaded before I shoot.

A predator so dangerous, so deadly, so ruthless...that he uses an empty gun.

Speaking about deadly and ruthless. Do we have a figure on how many times that 53 years old guy shot?

I bet he shot at least 5 times.

Maybe he was robbing people to buy ammo.

Anyway, if someone points a gun at me I'm not going to ask them to prove it's loaded before I shoot.

I'm not actually questioning the actions of the man who was robbed. I'm questioning what kind of a person would describe this as 'hilarious'.

A predator so dangerous, so deadly, so ruthless...that he uses an empty gun.
I guess I don't have the x-ray vision that would allow me to check the chamber. The intended victim probably didn't either.

I do like it when justice is served and there's no chance of an early out.

isn't a gun and a baseball bat a bit on the overkill?

speaking of overkill, shooting a guy for a car WTF?!

And the best part to show that the times have changed for the better:

"After the shooting, police questioned the 53-year-old man and released him, noting that he had a valid concealed weapons permit.

Then they gave him back his gun."

I'm not actually questioning the actions of the man who was robbed. I'm questioning what kind of a person would describe this as 'hilarious'.
You have to wonder what was going through that kid's mind. Oh wait, he was on the wrong side of an empty weapon -- No wondering about it.

I do like it when justice is served and there's no chance of an early out.

Justice is the death sentence for an attempted robbery?

isn't a gun and a baseball bat a bit on the overkill?

speaking of overkill, shooting a guy for a car WTF?!

Only if you assume that they only wanted the car and wouldn't do anything else to you.

Justice is the death sentence for an attempted robbery?

See above.

You have to wonder what was going through that kid's mind. Oh wait, he was on the wrong side of an empty weapon -- No wondering about it.

A 9mm round of some kind, most likely.

Justice is the death sentence for an attempted robbery?

It is if the person doing the robbing is wielding a lethal weapon, threatening to use it, and the attempted victim is armed as well.

Sorry. I'm no gun nut, but you live by the sword....

Justice is the death sentence for an attempted robbery?

well the world resembles the 1800's more and more why not make the final push in the justice system? :p

Only if you assume that they only wanted the car and wouldn't do anything else to you.

sodomizing old men in cars is common in the US? :eek:

See above.

That's not about justice; that's whether the guy was justified in using self defence.

So, I'll ask again: is it the death penalty a just punishment for attempted robbery?

Justice is the death sentence for an attempted robbery?
A man is confronted by a gun-wielding man and a guy with a bat. How in the world is he supposed to assume that they will do him no harm? In fact, why should he ever be forced to make that assumption? If he fears for his safety, he should take all action necessary to protect it.

And that's all that matters in this 'court'. The fact that he acted in self-defense makes this a legal shooting, and justice was served.

No, not really.

Not more than trying to rob people in general.

Oh, and by the by: I'm strongly in favour of more criminals carrying empty guns when they're perpetrating crimes.

I live in Detroit.

I am all in favor of that too.

well the world resembles the 1800's more and more why not make the final push in the justice system? :p

sodomizing old men in cars is common in the US? :eek:

The 1800's had relatively low crime.

Is sodomizing the first thing that came to your mind? :)

That's not about justice; that's whether the guy was justified in using self defence.

So, I'll ask again: is it the death penalty a just punishment for attempted robbery?

A pistol and a ball bat are not attempted robbery they are instruments of murder.

But with all sincerity I hope your mother or some other loved one of yours is beaten to death or shot in the face and then you can praise the fact that they never had a chance to defend themselves and possibly do harm to their attackers...then truly justice would be served.

That's not about justice; that's whether the guy was justified in using self defence.

So, I'll ask again: is it the death penalty a just punishment for attempted robbery?

Try it like this

Is death a just punishment for threatening someone w/ a deadly weapon? That makes it attempted murder not just robbery.

A pistol and a ball bat are not attempted robbery they are instruments of murder.
A pen is an instrument of murder if used properly. Your point?

But with all sincerity I hope your mother or some other loved one of yours is beaten to death or shot in the face and then you can praise the fact that they never had a chance to defend themselves and possibly do harm to their attackers...then truly justice would be served.
Nice guy.

Only if you assume that they only wanted the car and wouldn't do anything else to you.

Here in Detroit the police advise you to fight and or run in the event of a car jacking. They do not advise co-operation. Because it is common practice here to kill the person or at least try to after they already complied.

There are no gentlemen thieves here, they are thugs.

Try it like this

Is death a just punishment for threatening someone w/ a deadly weapon? That makes it attempted murder not just robbery.

I assure you that it's not in any way attempted murder.

I'm not disputing that the man had a right to defend himself. I would much prefer he didn't have a gun, but he did, and that's that. My objection is to calling this 'hilarious'; it may have been understandable, but that doesn't make it a proper form of 'justice'.

A pen is an instrument of murder if used properly. Your point?


Nice guy.

Its very cozy you for to sit off somewhere and make moral judgements sitting out a situation. The poor boy died. He had a gun, his compatriate had a bat. This city averages 1.5 murders a day, it is reasonable to assume when approached by an armed person here that you are indeed about to die.

Since for you self-defense is wrong.
I would just like to hear you say it with your loved ones in harms way.
With some kid raping and beating grandma to death for 20 dollars and her foodstamp card. Or a 90 year old man beat down in a parking lot while onlookers just watched.

Justice is relative. For me justice would be you getting what you desire, the chance to prove the strength of your convictions. So wishing you that opportunity does indeed make me a very nice guy.

Yes, because we cheer for the people doing crime with loaded guns :rolleyes:

And no, not a Darwin candidate, not by a long shot.
This isn't even remotely a Darwin, the guy should be commended for not wanting to fucking kill anyone. Of course he is a dumbass for going on a crime spree in the first place still.

This isn't even remotely a Darwin, the guy should be commended for not wanting to fucking kill anyone.
The message might have been a little more clear if he'd been wearing the "It's only an empty gun" sign. Or maybe he might have left the gun at home and just pointed his finger at the intended victim...

Somehow, I just don't think that would have had the intended results for our dead predator. Not that he got what he wanted this time, either, only what he deserved.

I assure you that it's not in any way attempted murder.

Practice Criminal Law in the State of Michigan do you?


I'm not disputing that the man had a right to defend himself. I would much prefer he didn't have a gun, but he did, and that's that. My objection is to calling this 'hilarious'; it may have been understandable, but that doesn't make it a proper form of 'justice'.

Fine it isnt Justice...of course Justice is an abstract concept that is completely relative so that really isnt for you to say what Justice for one person or another...the Law in Michigan says it is indeed Justice and they have the final word on this issue for the man in question.

But ok it isnt Justice.

Its an Occupational Hazard for an armed robber.
He knew full well the Hazards of his profession, and he met his end confronting said Occupational Hazard. which does indeed put a smile on my face. Because that is one bag of shit that wont be robbing me tonight.

Ho ho ho!

Another 18 year old dead.

Truly a victory for guns!

Yeah, man, why can't people just get along! The man should have just given them his car. They probably needed it!

This isn't even remotely a Darwin, the guy should be commended for not wanting to fucking kill anyone. Of course he is a dumbass for going on a crime spree in the first place still.

I think the baseball bat had a full clip, with the safety off...wait. Baseball bats cant kill. I forgot they dont count as deadly weapons. Because they dont shoot bullets...yes he should be commended for holding people at gun point to make it easier for them to be beaten.

No, not really.

Not more than trying to rob people in general.

Oh, and by the by: I'm strongly in favour of more criminals carrying empty guns when they're perpetrating crimes.

I'm strongly in favor of more people succesfully protecting themselves and their property.
Its a shame this punk insisted in learning life's lesson the hard way.

But- we're better off without him. He was training a class of other fledgling scum bags and his crimes were escalating.

In my opinion anyone committing a violent crime who gets killed by his intended victim is worthy of a Darwin. And in my book, armed robbery in general, and pulling a gun on someone (loaded or not) in particular both fall under violent crimes.

The message might have been a little more clear if he'd been wearing the "It's only an empty gun" sign. Or maybe he might have left the gun at home and just pointed his finger at the intended victim...

Somehow, I just don't think that would have had the intended results for our dead predator. Not that he got what he wanted this time, either, only what he deserved.

every time he got away with a crime he was a little bolder, a little more likely to get more violent.

He didnt pick his victim well. The smart ones stick to old ladies leaving the bank.

If I were in this man's situation, I like to think that I would have done the same thing. How many times in your life are you going to be able to legally shoot someone? In my life, not often. The moral 'debate' about this is nonsense -- he's making decisions while being robbed at gunpoint; make the wrong decision and you're dead. Moral highground is dumb if you're dead.

If I were in this man's situation, I like to think that I would have done the same thing. How many times in your life are you going to be able to legally shoot someone? In my life, not often. The moral 'debate' about this is nonsense -- he's making decisions while being robbed at gunpoint; make the wrong decision and you're dead. Moral highground is dumb if you're dead.
Pretty much.
Now he is free to LIVE and be as sad as he wants or doesnt want to be about being forced to defend himself.

I assure you that it's not in any way attempted murder.

I'm not disputing that the man had a right to defend himself. I would much prefer he didn't have a gun, but he did, and that's that. My objection is to calling this 'hilarious'; it may have been understandable, but that doesn't make it a proper form of 'justice'.

It's entirely a "proper" form of justice to defend youself against a deadly weapon. Threatening someone w/ a deadly weapon is an attempt to murder them.

So it doesn't seem really stupid to try to rob people with an empty gun, in a place where other people may be carrying a concealed gun, with real bullets in it?

maybe he thought the 50 year old would just give him the car after seeing the gun...

maybe he thought the 50 year old would just give him the car after seeing the gun...

Maybe he didn't have the money to buy bullets. :rolleyes:

If I were in this man's situation, I like to think that I would have done the same thing. How many times in your life are you going to be able to legally shoot someone? In my life, not often. The moral 'debate' about this is nonsense -- he's making decisions while being robbed at gunpoint; make the wrong decision and you're dead. Moral highground is dumb if you're dead.

You actually want that chance?

Maybe he didn't have the money to buy bullets. :rolleyes:
Damned if the government shouldn't do something about that...It's just not right that a man can't afford the tools to pursue his chosen career.

Personally, I think he was just too stupid or too high to remember that the gun might need bullets. Clip's in the magazine, must be loaded.

You actually want that chance?

Well, if someone is pointing a gun at me, and robbing me, I do want that chance. :rolleyes:

Damned if the government shouldn't do something about that...It's just not right that a man can't afford the tools to pursue his chosen career.

Personally, I think he was just too stupid or too high to remember that the gun might need bullets. Clip's in the magazine, must be loaded.

Whats all this about the government? we're just wondering why the guy didn't have any bullets...or was that sarcasm?

Well, if someone is pointing a gun at me, and robbing me, I do want that chance. :rolleyes:

I meant it in regards to Rancho's comment. Seemed a bit hopeful

Whats all this about the government? we're just wondering why the guy didn't have any bullets...or was that sarcasm?

Yes, it's sarcasm.

Wow, no one on NS today can identify sarcasm...

Somehow, I just don't think that would have had the intended results for our dead predator. Not that he got what he wanted this time, either, only what he deserved.
Of course as opposed to the rest of you, I'm looking at this as proof that the gun culture is bad and the fact you people are calling him stupid for not having a loaded gun is solidifying it.

"Hey, he didn't have bullets. If he had had bullets, he wouldn't have been shot."
"But that would have been because he shot the other guy."
"Shut up, gun-hating liberal."

Yes, it's sarcasm.

Wow, no one on NS today can identify sarcasm...

I'm tired :(

I assure you that it's not in any way attempted murder.

I'm not disputing that the man had a right to defend himself. I would much prefer he didn't have a gun, but he did, and that's that. My objection is to calling this 'hilarious'; it may have been understandable, but that doesn't make it a proper form of 'justice'.

Then, pray tell, how was the man going to defend himself against two thugs armed with pistol and Louisville Thugger?

Maybe he was robbing people to buy ammo.

Anyway, if someone points a gun at me I'm not going to ask them to prove it's loaded before I shoot.


LMFAO :p:p:p

Of course as opposed to the rest of you, I'm looking at this as proof that the gun culture is bad and the fact you people are calling him stupid for not having a loaded gun is solidifying it.

"Hey, he didn't have bullets. If he had had bullets, he wouldn't have been shot."
"But that would have been because he shot the other guy."
"Shut up, gun-hating liberal."

I posted it in response to people who post on this forum saying that if you carry a gun, you'll never get it out in time to defend yourself.

Of course as opposed to the rest of you, I'm looking at this as proof that the gun culture is bad and the fact you people are calling him stupid for not having a loaded gun is solidifying it.

"Hey, he didn't have bullets. If he had had bullets, he wouldn't have been shot."
"But that would have been because he shot the other guy."
"Shut up, gun-hating liberal."

But since you know very little about "gun culture" in the first place except what the Brady Bunch tells you, that opinion means little.

Of course as opposed to the rest of you, I'm looking at this as proof that the gun culture is bad and the fact you people are calling him stupid for not having a loaded gun is solidifying it.

"Hey, he didn't have bullets. If he had had bullets, he wouldn't have been shot."
"But that would have been because he shot the other guy."
"Shut up, gun-hating liberal."
So two guys with knives or baseball bats or tire irons would have been okay. As long as the victim didn't have any sort of equalizer, I mean.

All we need to know is that if we're walking down the street with pantless, and we're accosted by robbers, we can draw our guns, and offer our condolences (but we'll have to be leaving) and they can have pantless.

I would have done the same thing if I were in that man's place. When you are 53 years old and approached by two men, weilding a gun and a bat, what would you have done?
Being as you have a gun on your person and assuming that the people coming up to you weilding what are commonly considered *weapons probably don't want to buy you a drink, shooting them is probably advisable.
Or, you could hope they just rob you and leave.

The first option, shooting them, leaves you either dead, or alive and with your posessions.

The second leaves you either dead or robbed.

Tough one.

*To all you nitpickers: Yes, everything can be used as a weapon, but if someone approached me with any visible gun/sword/machete/assualt weaponry, I would shoot. If someone came up barehanded in a threatening manner I would be less likely to shoot, and more likely to shoot to wound. A wounded person holding a gun can still kill you with it, a wounded person without a gun is not as significant a danger.

I posted it in response to people who post on this forum saying that if you carry a gun, you'll never get it out in time to defend yourself.
Against a guy with an unloaded gun, nice going there with the intellectual dishonesty.

Against a guy with an unloaded gun, nice going there with the intellectual dishonesty.
How are you supposed to tell if it's unloaded?

And how do you defend against a baseball bat?

It's a lethal weapon.

All we need to know is that if we're walking down the street with pantless, and we're accosted by robbers, we can draw our guns, and offer our condolences (but we'll have to be leaving) and they can have pantless.
Dammit. I laughed out loud and the secretary stared at me.

So two guys with knives or baseball bats or tire irons would have been okay. As long as the victim didn't have any sort of equalizer, I mean.
Of course everyone with weapons has the intention of attacking you with them.

Of course everyone with weapons has the intention of attacking you with them.

I laughed when I read that. Then I wept for humanity.

Against a guy with an unloaded gun, nice going there with the intellectual dishonesty.

So you assume it's unloaded when it's pointed at you?

Of course everyone with weapons has the intention of attacking you with them.
I'm certainly going to point a gun at them and keep them at a safe distance. If they invade that safe distance, I'm shooting. Anyone that would do less is a fool.

How are you supposed to tell if it's unloaded?
Nice try but you of all people should know not to engage in a battle of wits without a weapon, since you like them so much.

You posted this article to prove that a person couldn't get a gun out in time to defend himself against an armed opponent, but you dismiss the fact the gun wasn't loaded when that is the entire fucking point. Let's develop a time machine, go back in time, tell him to load his gun, and see what the article says next time.

I'm certainly going to point a gun at them and keep them at a safe distance. If they invade that safe distance, I'm shooting. Anyone that would do less is a fool.
Which still avoids the point.

Of course as opposed to the rest of you, I'm looking at this as proof that the gun culture is bad and the fact you people are calling him stupid for not having a loaded gun is solidifying it.

"Hey, he didn't have bullets. If he had had bullets, he wouldn't have been shot."
"But that would have been because he shot the other guy."
"Shut up, gun-hating liberal."

I believe the point is that the legal owner of a gun (the guy with bullets) was able to defend himself adequately.

But still, he who lives by the sword gets shot by he who doesn't.

Against a guy with an unloaded gun, nice going there with the intellectual dishonesty.

People draw on guns and succeed all the time. Dont credit every criminal with being a prefessional and practiced shooter. If you carry a gun for self defense you should be a practiced shooter.

Nice try but you of all people should know not to engage in a battle of wits without a weapon, since you like them so much.

You posted this article to prove that a person couldn't get a gun out in time to defend himself against an armed opponent, but you dismiss the fact the gun wasn't loaded when that is the entire fucking point. Let's develop a time machine, go back in time, tell him to load his gun, and see what the article says next time.


Which still avoids the point.

Doesn't.

Statistically, people who defend themselves with guns usually have plenty of time to draw and shoot.

It's called 'reaction time'.

If you go into a robbery, you don't usually start shooting and then loot the bodies. Thus, you don't have an initial intent to immediately fire.

People who are defending themselves, on the other hand, defninitely have the intention to fire as soon as they get the gun out.

The surprise usually works in their favor.

So you assume it's unloaded when it's pointed at you?

with shotguns and larger caliber guns, you can actually see the shell or slug if the lighting is just right.

But that's a pretty ridiculously improbable set of conditions.

I believe the point is that the legal owner of a gun (the guy with bullets) was able to defend himself adequately.
I'd agree, except that wasn't the point he stated he was making.
The point he said he was making is voided by the fact the gun was unloaded.

Nice try but you of all people should know not to engage in a battle of wits without a weapon, since you like them so much.

You posted this article to prove that a person couldn't get a gun out in time to defend himself against an armed opponent, but you dismiss the fact the gun wasn't loaded when that is the entire fucking point. Let's develop a time machine, go back in time, tell him to load his gun, and see what the article says next time.


Which still avoids the point.

We don't need to. There are plenty of stories that make your premise look silly. Like this one...

A Miami attorney was exiting a parking lot after work when he was rushed by an armed robber with handcuffs in his pocket and wearing a ski mask. According to authorities, the attorney tried to race from the parking lot, but the security gate opened too slowly. His assailant aimed a pistol and, the victim believes, he tried to shoot but the gun malfunctioned. The victim retrieved a handgun from his glove box and fired several shots at his assailant, killing him. A second, hidden suspect also fled. (The Miami Herald, Miami, FL, 03/03/07)


or this

Doug Magnus and his wife were startled by the sound every homeowner fears—a loud noise at the door during the midnight hour. Police say Magnus, armed with a firearm, went to investigate. Just outside the door, he encountered a man wearing a ski mask who fired several shots. Magnus returned a single round, killing his assailant. (The Times, Gainesville, GA, 01/23/07)

We don't need to. There are plenty of stories that make your premise look silly. Like this one...


or this

It happens thousands of times a year...

We don't need to. There are plenty of stories that make your premise look silly. Like this one...

or this

Too bad he didn't cite those in the topic post. Try again.
And in your first "example," the assailant's gun jammed. And in the second, the assailant fired first and missed. Both assailants fired first and that proves Remote Observers wrong.

Are you people trying to be this stupid?

Too bad he didn't cite those in the topic post. Try again.
I don't need to. You're the only one here that doesn't realize that you're arguing a lost cause.

I don't need to stand up for RO, but he did say, "...you'll never get it out in time to defend yourself." It looks to me that in both of the two cases I cited, the weapon was produced in time to defend the intended victim. The misfire was never cleared and the guys that shot first, never go to aim better.

Too bad he didn't cite those in the topic post. Try again.
And in your first "example," the assailant's gun jammed. And in the second, the assailant fired first and missed. Both assailants fired first and that proves Remote Observers wrong.

Are you people trying to be this stupid?

I guess you want me to post the Kleck study, along with the peer review that says "Pantless Loses" again?

How many times in your life are you going to be able to legally shoot someone?
You actually want that chance?
Opportunity knocks softly. I have no morals telling me its wrong to kill assholes, and I like having interesting stories to tell. There's no allure in killing for the sake of killing, but I know that in that situation, I would forever afterwards regret not having seen what it felt like consequence-free.

It happens thousands of times a year...
Since you obviously have no idea what you said...
I posted it in response to people who post on this forum saying that if you carry a gun, you'll never get it out in time to defend yourself.

In his examples, they only managed to "get it out in time to defend themselves" because the assailant was accosted by the victim's good luck. Both times assailants fired first.

Since you are more than likely going to ignore everything I just said and keep arguing a tangent point that was not what you said, I'm quitting this topic.

I guess you want me to post the Kleck study, along with the peer review that says "Pantless Loses" again?
We have played this game before, DK. You lost.

I'd agree, except that wasn't the point he stated he was making.
The point he said he was making is voided by the fact the gun was unloaded.

Frankly, I dislike gun control. Pardon the triteness, but if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have them.

As far as the ethics of shooting someone go, I dislike killing almost as much as gun control. Not as much. But close.

You see, gun control eventually causes more deaths. The first restriction Hitler enforced was a type of armament restriction. The neato completo guys who had guns and kept them frequently did die, though. However, I think if the situation arises, I'll take some with me.

Try it like this

Is death a just punishment for threatening someone w/ a deadly weapon? That makes it attempted murder not just robbery.

Unless, of course, you realize that empty weapons are not very deadly.

Unless, of course, you realize that empty weapons are not very deadly.
And hindsight is always best...Thanks.

Unless, of course, you realize that empty weapons are not very deadly.

Once again, you assume it's empty?

In his examples, they only managed to "get it out in time to defend themselves" because the assailant was accosted by the victim's good luck. Both times assailants fired first.

Apologies if I'm stepping in someone else's debate here, but your argument misses the point that even though the robbers fired their weapons first, and missed, the victim was able to return fire before the robber had a chance to correct the problem and complete the kill.

Hmm...I do so despise recurring arguments and points. Not to say that anyone always reads the entire thread, but come on people, get with the program.

Since you obviously have no idea what you said...


In his examples, they only managed to "get it out in time to defend themselves" because the assailant was accosted by the victim's good luck. Both times assailants fired first.

Since you are more than likely going to ignore everything I just said and keep arguing a tangent point that was not what you said, I'm quitting this topic.


We have played this game before, DK. You lost.

When TPH can explain his assertion that a round from an "assault weapon" does more damage than the same round from a bolt action or a single shot, then he'll have the right to talk about winning "this game".

When TPH can explain his assertion that a round from an "assault weapon" does more damage than the same round from a bolt action or a single shot, then he'll have the right to talk about winning "this game".

I hate people who "win" but can't qualify exactly how or why such is the case.

When TPH can explain his assertion that a round from an "assault weapon" does more damage than the same round from a bolt action or a single shot, then he'll have the right to talk about winning "this game".

Well, that was a bit of idiocy from TPH. I'm accustomed to his complete ignorance of all things related to firearms.

I bet I could put several weapons on a table, and he wouldn't know which one fell under the provisions of the old "Assault Weapons" ban...

I posted it in response to people who post on this forum saying that if you carry a gun, you'll never get it out in time to defend yourself.Against a guy with an unloaded gun, nice going there with the intellectual dishonesty.
Don't say you're surprised?
I don't need to. You're the only one here that doesn't realize that you're arguing a lost cause.
Not when this OP is concerned, no. Remote Observer wants this story to be the conclusive evidence that you can pull out a gun to defend yourself if someone points a gun at you. He also claims that it happens thousands of time each year. It does, but he fails completely by using this story to back it up, since in this case, the gun was not loaded.

I don't need to stand up for RO, but he did say, "...you'll never get it out in time to defend yourself." It looks to me that in both of the two cases I cited, the weapon was produced in time to defend the intended victim. The misfire was never cleared and the guys that shot first, never go to aim better.
Your last story is better than this thread, and your first story can safely be ignored.

(responding to Philosopy)
Since for you self-defense is wrong.


Why don't you read what he actually writes?


Fine it isnt Justice...of course Justice is an abstract concept that is completely relative so that really isnt for you to say what Justice for one person or another...the Law in Michigan says it is indeed Justice and they have the final word on this issue for the man in question.

You have laws that define what justice is? :eek:

If I were in this man's situation, I like to think that I would have done the same thing. How many times in your life are you going to be able to legally shoot someone? In my life, not often. The moral 'debate' about this is nonsense -- he's making decisions while being robbed at gunpoint; make the wrong decision and you're dead. Moral highground is dumb if you're dead.

At first I really thought you were going to say 'How many times in your life are you going to be able to legally shoot someone? In my life, not often. You have to take every opportunity you can' :)

Well, that was a bit of idiocy from TPH. I'm accustomed to his complete ignorance of all things related to firearms.

I bet I could put several weapons on a table, and he wouldn't know which one fell under the provisions of the old "Assault Weapons" ban...

There's a little theoretical story.

A democrat armed with a gun is accosted by an armed robber at night. He ponders what use his gun could be, whether or not this possession improves the situation, how this poor soul could have been raised better (since we're only born into circumstance, and personal decisions are beyond man).

A southern democrat also with a gun is accosted. Bang!

A republican with a gun is accosted by an armed robber. Bang!

Bang! Bang! Bang!

Bang!

"Nice cluster, Daddy!"

Why don't you read what he actually writes?

You're right. And Hitler could have called Germany "We-Love-Jews-istan."

Don't say you're surprised?

Not when this OP is concerned, no. Remote Observer wants this story to be the conclusive evidence that you can pull out a gun to defend yourself if someone points a gun at you. He also claims that it happens thousands of time each year. It does, but he fails completely by using this story to back it up, since in this case, the gun was not loaded.
Remarkable how one can ignore facts to come to the desired conclusion...Using hindsight to make your argument isn't quite fair. The intended victim had no a priori knowledge that this was an unloaded gun. He did exactly what was required to defend himself.

Once again, you assume it's empty?
No. But the argument was that the person deserved to die for attempted murder, he wasn't trying to kill anyone, so it wasn't attempted murder.

Frankly, I dislike gun control. Pardon the triteness, but if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have them.

As far as the ethics of shooting someone go, I dislike killing almost as much as gun control. Not as much. But close.

You see, gun control eventually causes more deaths. The first restriction Hitler enforced was a type of armament restriction. The neato completo guys who had guns and kept them frequently did die, though. However, I think if the situation arises, I'll take some with me.

No, in a word.

Firstly, you don't just make a law you enforce it.

Secondly, you prefer killing someone to having your gun taken off you?

Thirdly, source?

Fourthly, IF that's true, then you have to remember that before the Nazis with guns more available you'd had armed rebellions etc.

Fifthly, ad hominem

And that's all I can be bothered to go to, it's a too often repeated set of arguments anyway.

Well, that was a bit of idiocy from TPH. I'm accustomed to his complete ignorance of all things related to firearms.

I bet I could put several weapons on a table, and he wouldn't know which one fell under the provisions of the old "Assault Weapons" ban...

It's telling that the most strenuous arguments against self defense come from the most ignorant.

No, in a word.

Firstly, you don't just make a law you enforce it.

Secondly, you prefer killing someone to having your gun taken off you?

Thirdly, source?

Fourthly, IF that's true, then you have to remember that before the Nazis with guns more available you'd had armed rebellions etc.

Fifthly, ad hominem

And that's all I can be bothered to go to, it's a too often repeated set of arguments anyway.

For the gun control idiot:

In a thesis titled "Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense With a Gun", in the Northwestern University School of Law, Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, vol. 86, issue 1, 1995, Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz revealed some interesting facts.

Now, before anyone tries to dismiss the findings of this study as biased, because the study's author is pro gun ownership, let me remind you that the Dr. Kleck, who authored this study, is the same Dr. Kleck, who began his career as an opponent of private gun ownership.

Furthermore, criminologist Marvin E. Wolfgang, who has researched guns and violence for more than 25 years and is one of the most outspoken opponents of private gun ownership, after reading this study, praised the methodology that was used, in a paper titled "A Tribute to a View I Have Opposed," published in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, vol. 86, Issue 1 (Fall 1995), p. 188.

In that article, Wolfgang begins by saying:

"I am as strong a gun-control advocate as can be found among the criminologists in this country. If I were Mustapha Mond of Brave New World, I would eliminate all guns from the civilian population and maybe even from the police."

Those are certainly not the views of your ordinary anti-gun type. This is a man represents the ultimate in anti-gun philosophy. But to his credit as a researcher, he was not so proud that he would deny the excellent methodology employed by Kleck and Gertz. He went on to say:

"What troubles me is the article by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. The reason I am troubled is that they have provided an almost clear-cut case of methodologically sound research in support of something I have theoretically opposed for years, namely, the use of a gun in defense against a criminal perpetrator... I have to admit my admiration for the care and caution expressed in this article and this research."

Wolfgang concludes by saying:

"The Kleck and Gertz study impresses me for the caution the authors exercise and the elaborate nuances they examine methodologically. I do not like their conclusions that having a gun can be useful, but I cannot fault their methodology. They have tried earnestly to meet all objections in advance and have done exceedingly well."

Principal among the facts that Wolfgang was disappointed to learn, is that Guns are used for self-defense between 2.1 Million and 2.5 Million times every year. The following facts from the Kleck/Gertz study, relate directly to this fact.

*
In the vast majority of those self-defense cases, the citizen will only brandish the gun or fire a warning shot.
*
In less than 8% of those self-defense cases will the citizen will even wound his attacker.
*
Over 1.9 million of those self-defense cases involve handguns.
*
As many as 500,000 of those self-defense cases occur away from home.
*
Almost 10% of those self-defense cases are women defending themselves against sexual assault or abuse.
*
This means that guns are used 60 times more often to protect the lives of law-abiding citizens than to take a life.
*
At an estimated 263 million US population, in 1995, when the study was released, it also means that an average of 1 out of every 105 to 125 people that you know will use a gun for self-defense every year.

Dr. Kleck also wrote in his book titled "Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America (Social Institutions and Social Change)" that burglars are more than three and a half times more likely to enter an occupied home in a gun control country than in the USA. Compare the 45% average rate of Great Britain, Canada and Netherlands with the 12.7% of the USA. He continued to point out that citizens shoot and kill at least twice as many criminals every year as do police (1,527 to 606).

The Wall Street Journal reported, in an August 28, 1996 article titled, "More Guns, Less Violent Crime," that a University of Chicago study revealed that states which passed concealed carry laws reduced their murder rate by 8.5%, rapes by 5%, aggravated assaults by 7% and robbery by 3%. The most impressive single statement in the University of Chicago Study, which is an ongoing study, is the very first sentence of the Abstract on the first page.
"Using cross-sectional time series data for U.S. counties from 1977 to 1992, we find that allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons deters violent crimes, without increasing accidental deaths." - University of Chicago Study (1st line of Abstract)

A 1979 Carter Justice Department study found that of more than 32,000 attempted rapes, 32% were actually committed. That number dropped to only 3% when the woman was armed. That means that an unarmed woman is more than 10 times more likely to be raped than an armed woman. Think about it.

No, in a word.

Firstly, you don't just make a law you enforce it.

Secondly, you prefer killing someone to having your gun taken off you?

Thirdly, source?

Fourthly, IF that's true, then you have to remember that before the Nazis with guns more available you'd had armed rebellions etc.

Fifthly, ad hominem

And that's all I can be bothered to go to, it's a too often repeated set of arguments anyway.

You're confusing the semantics. The idea here is to not die. I think it's easier to not die- without a gun being pointed at you of course. No guns would be incredibly ideal in your mind I'm sure, but the real ideal situation is that no one would kill using a gun as the tool.

If someone has the intent of killing someone else, the killer doesn't need a gun. But I still think God should have let Abel bust a cap in Cain's ass.

How are you supposed to tell if it's unloaded?

And how do you defend against a baseball bat?

It's a lethal weapon.

these were just fun-loving pranksters-The gun wasnt loaded and the bat was made by Nerf.

The victim should have started a meaningful dialogue with them and talked his way out of it, then give them money,his cel phone and jewelry because they need it, the system has them at a disadvantage.

Not all victims can manage this scenario:


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/02/22/world/main2506776.shtml?source=RSSattr=HOME_2506776

Not all victims can manage this scenario:


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/02/22/world/main2506776.shtml?source=RSSattr=HOME_2506776

That's what happens when you fuck with a Marine.

Remarkable how one can ignore facts to come to the desired conclusion...Using hindsight to make your argument isn't quite fair. The intended victim had no a priori knowledge that this was an unloaded gun. He did exactly what was required to defend himself.

Remarkable how one can assume a position that is not stated in a written post.

I have not said that the intended victim was not completely in the right in this case, have I now?

That's what happens when you fuck with a Marine.
...And you don't want that Marine to have a pocketknife.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4188/is_20060531/ai_n16433999

Not all of us are able to fight off several armed predators with our bare hands, though. Some of us need the comfort of a firearm.

You see, gun control eventually causes more deaths. The first restriction Hitler enforced was a type of armament restriction.

Actually (and I'm 'pro-gun' as it were), that made no difference whatsover, nor could it have, given that he had the apparatus of the state behind him (police and Army) at that stage. There was also the unwillingness of the Social Democrats to actually launch into a civil war, given the viscous nature of some of the smaller uprisings 1918-32. Its not really an argument that stands up to examination, tbh.

...And you don't want that Marine to have a pocketknife.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4188/is_20060531/ai_n16433999

Not all of us are able to fight off several armed predators with our bare hands, though. Some of us need the comfort of a firearm.

Comfort? Nay. Convenience.

I'm too lazy to wash the blood off my knives.

Actually (and I'm 'pro-gun' as it were), that made no difference whatsover, nor could it have, given that he had the apparatus of the state behind him (police and Army) at that stage. There was also the unwillingness of the Social Democrats to actually launch into a civil war, given the viscous nature of some of the smaller uprisings 1918-32. Its not really an argument that stands up to examination, tbh.

Poor libs. And they liked that Darwin so much...

For the gun control idiot:

Nice personal attack there, really strengthens your argument that does.


*
This means that guns are used 60 times more often to protect the lives of law-abiding citizens than to take a life.
Not a fair comparison, is comparing number of gun uses to number of gun kills rather than number of criminal gun uses.


At an estimated 263 million US population, in 1995, when the study was released, it also means that an average of 1 out of every 105 to 125 people that you know will use a gun for self-defense every year.

Could it be the reason for this would be the easy availability of guns to the criminal fraternity?


Dr. Kleck also wrote in his book titled "Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America (Social Institutions and Social Change)" that burglars are more than three and a half times more likely to enter an occupied home in a gun control country than in the USA. Compare the 45% average rate of Great Britain, Canada and Netherlands with the 12.7% of the USA. He continued to point out that citizens shoot and kill at least twice as many criminals every year as do police (1,527 to 606).
And yet the USA, Switzerland etc have much higher murder rates than places like the UK, link (http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/article2499298.ece)


The Wall Street Journal reported, in an August 28, 1996 article titled, "More Guns, Less Violent Crime," that a University of Chicago study revealed that states which passed concealed carry laws reduced their murder rate by 8.5%, rapes by 5%, aggravated assaults by 7% and robbery by 3%. The most impressive single statement in the University of Chicago Study, which is an ongoing study, is the very first sentence of the Abstract on the first page.
"Using cross-sectional time series data for U.S. counties from 1977 to 1992, we find that allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons deters violent crimes, without increasing accidental deaths." - University of Chicago Study (1st line of Abstract)

Yes, because the problem isn't easily available guns just across state lines. It's like legalising marijuana in a state and wonder why the next state over with restrictive laws has a high drug offences rate, in order for restrictions to work you need to enforce them, not require people to drive a little further.


A 1979 Carter Justice Department study found that of more than 32,000 attempted rapes, 32% were actually committed. That number dropped to only 3% when the woman was armed. That means that an unarmed woman is more than 10 times more likely to be raped than an armed woman. Think about it.
I wonder if we could have a stat regarding the outcomes of robberies where guns are involved and not, wonder if there'd be more fatalities there.

If someone has the intent of killing someone else, the killer doesn't need a gun.
You know for some reason, I'm a lot more confident about not dying when my prospective killer doesn't have a gun to use.

Justice is the death sentence for an attempted robbery?

This wasn't the death sentence, this was self-defense. It isn't honest to pretend the two are the same.

The authority to kill unarmed, defenseless, chained-up prisoners is a different ethical matter from the authority to kill an armed person in self-defense.

Condolences to the dead guy's family, but what happened was completely justified. Produce a deadly weapon and try to rob someone, you take your chances. Self-defense is the most fundamental and basic of all rights.

Not a fair comparison, is comparing number of gun uses to number of gun kills rather than number of criminal gun uses.

So show some comparable stats.


Could it be the reason for this would be the easy availability of guns to the criminal fraternity?

And yet crime dropped for years even w/ loosening of laws and millions more firearms.



And yet the USA, Switzerland etc have much higher murder rates than places like the UK, link (http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/article2499298.ece)

And Russia, Mexico, and South Africa have heavily restricted ownership and much higher levels of crime/murder than the US while the UK has always had lower crime even before the various anti-gun measures.


Yes, because the problem isn't easily available guns just across state lines. It's like legalising marijuana in a state and wonder why the next state over with restrictive laws has a high drug offences rate, in order for restrictions to work you need to enforce them, not require people to drive a little further.

So criminals are causing the problems. Shock.


I wonder if we could have a stat regarding the outcomes of robberies where guns are involved and not, wonder if there'd be more fatalities there.

SO find some.

Condolences to the dead guy's family, but what happened was completely justified. Produce a deadly weapon and try to rob someone, you take your chances. Self-defense is the most fundamental and basic of all rights.

Remember though, the victim should assume the gun was empty.

Condolences to the dead guy's family, but what happened was completely justified. Produce a deadly weapon and try to rob someone, you take your chances. Self-defense is the most fundamental and basic of all rights.
What do you think that predator's mother had to say about him? I'll bet that she said something like "He was such a good boy, he would never hurt anyone". Just like every other parent of every other juvenile predator that I read about. These parents are even more out of touch than Pantsman.

Remember though, the victim should assume the gun was empty.

Indeed, and by the same logic, if you come home to find a man raping your wife, you should assume he is not actually raping her and not intervene.

Also, if you are in a building and start hearing gunshots, and seeing people fall over and bleed, you should assume that they are not actually shot, and that the gun is actually firing blanks, and that using deadly force to stop what is happening would be unjustified.

I don't think a sane person can conclude that when presented with apparent mortal peril, as in this case of a gun-toting robber, a person should assume he is in no danger.

So show some comparable stats.

I'm refuting someone else's post, so burden of proof on them etc.


And Russia, Mexico, and South Africa have heavily restricted ownership and much higher levels of crime/murder than the US while the UK has always had lower crime even before the various anti-gun measures.

Because those countries aren't well-known as having major social problems, particularly involving violence.


So criminals are causing the problems. Shock.

No, you missed the point. The point being that it's ridiculous to pass a law, not enforce it probably and blame the law when it doesn't work properly.

What do you think that predator's mother had to say about him? I'll bet that she said something like "He was such a good boy, he would never hurt anyone". Just like every other parent of every other juvenile predator that I read about. These parents are even more out of touch than Pantsman.

And an honor student. Don't forget that. They're the largest pool of sociopaths in the country.

Not a fair comparison, is comparing number of gun uses to number of gun kills rather than number of criminal gun uses.

Even though this is a valid way of comparing data, let' say it's only 20x or even parity. Isn't that still a good thing?

Once again, you assume it's empty?

Oh, duh. Please go back and read. Or, just for you, a little resumee:

1. The guy was right to defend himself, because he couldn't have known there were no bullets.

2. Justice was not served, because nobody tried to attack the man with 'a deadly weapon'. Because the weapon was empty. The attacker sure as hell DID know he had no bullets, therefore there can be no attempt at shooting the man on his part.

Oh, duh. Please go back and read. Or, just for you, a little resumee:

1. The guy was right to defend himself, because he couldn't have known there were no bullets.

2. Justice was not served, because nobody tried to attack the man with 'a deadly weapon'. Because the weapon was empty. The attacker sure as hell DID know he had no bullets, therefore there can be no attempt at shooting the man on his part.
If we define justice as fairness, or fair treatment, then justice was certainly served. Besides, how do we know that the predator knew for a fact that his gun was empty of bullets?

That's what happens when you fuck with a Marine.

once a Marine always a Marine. 70 yrs old didnt matter much.

Even though this is a valid way of comparing data, let' say it's only 20x or even parity. Isn't that still a good thing?

It isn't valid, IMHO. And without info as to how many of the gun uses were caused by criminal gun possession I wouldn't think it possible to say.

It absolutely amazes me how certain types (read, sheep) would seem to rather let the criminal win than the intended victim defend himself. One fact that they ignore; you cannot uninvent the gun. You will never remove the guns from the streets nor from the hands of the criminals.

Loaded or not, the kid and his partner threatened the intended victim with weapons. In an instance such as this there isn't time to wait and see if the thug will pull the trigger or swing the bat. Semantics abound in this thread and they, no surprise here, come from the hand-wringers that feel for the poor kid whose life was snuffed out by a bully that should have just given up the car instead of taking action to preserve his own life against what was rightfully perceived as a threat. "It wasn't attempted murder because the gun wasn't loaded." Big deal. Okay, attempted murder, no, but the idiot still pointed a gun at intended victim, who (unlike a few here) refused to become a victim. I love it how the squatpissers condemn the intended victim and all but praise the thug that started the whole mess.

These whiners are the very reason this country is in the toilet.

It absolutely amazes me how certain types (read, sheep) would seem to rather let the criminal win than the intended victim defend himself. One fact that they ignore; you cannot uninvent the gun. You will never remove the guns from the streets nor from the hands of the criminals.

Loaded or not, the kid and his partner threatened the intended victim with weapons. In an instance such as this there isn't time to wait and see if the thug will pull the trigger or swing the bat. Semantics abound in this thread and they, no surprise here, come from the hand-wringers that feel for the poor kid whose life was snuffed out by a bully that should have just given up the car instead of taking action to preserve his own life against what was rightfully perceived as a threat. "It wasn't attempted murder because the gun wasn't loaded." Big deal. Okay, attempted murder, no, but the idiot still pointed a gun at intended victim, who (unlike a few here) refused to become a victim. I love it how the squatpissers condemn the intended victim and all but praise the thug that started the whole mess.

These whiners are the very reason this country is in the toilet.

"squatpissers" there's a new insult that your argument benefited from. If you apply the logic in your first paragraph then you wouldn't ban anything at all. Are you in favour of that out of interest?

Amazing isn't it, that you appear suddenly to agree. You may not be a puppet, but on the other hand...

Amazing isn't it, that you appear suddenly to agree. You may not be a puppet, but on the other hand...

You're probably not a puppet, but something is obviously up your ass.

You're probably not a puppet, but something is obviously up your ass.

Nice argument there.

Oh, duh. Please go back and read. Or, just for you, a little resumee:

1. The guy was right to defend himself, because he couldn't have known there were no bullets.

2. Justice was not served, because nobody tried to attack the man with 'a deadly weapon'. Because the weapon was empty. The attacker sure as hell DID know he had no bullets, therefore there can be no attempt at shooting the man on his part.

Yet the intent and the threat was there. He wanted the victim to think his life was in danger. Hence there was a threat on his life.

Justice was served.

Yet the intent and the threat was there. He wanted the victim to think his life was in danger. Hence there was a threat on his life.

Justice was served.

I don't no if this furthers a single thing for all of the communists who would like to ... Share ... and be FREE... like, psychadelic, dude, but I believe I have a right to my, well, "rightful" property. The guy could have dusted the kids for threatening to steal his car if he'd wanted to do so.

But he didn't really care about just protecting the car or getting to kill someone legally. Heck, he could have killed the guy with the baseball bat, too! So why didn't he?

It isn't valid, IMHO. And without info as to how many of the gun uses were caused by criminal gun possession I wouldn't think it possible to say.
Here's what we're doing with that figure. We're looking at the ratio of successful outcomes to unsuccessful. Armed citizens are far more likely to be successful in an encounter, where they feel their safety is threatened, than are armed criminals.

Now, you've been challenged to provide some evidence to the contrary. How about it?

Yet the intent and the threat was there. He wanted the victim to think his life was in danger. Hence there was a threat on his life.

Justice was served.

If the thug really intended to kill him with an empty gun, he was, indeed, retarded. For the other point, I can really only support your argument. I'll even add this story:

Johnny O'Server is schizophrenic. When 5-year old Kebuk points a finger at him, the voices tell him he's in danger. He felt a thread on his life. Johnny kills Kebuk.

Justice was served.

(Unless you take reality into account)

Here's what we're doing with that figure. We're looking at the ratio of successful outcomes to unsuccessful. Armed citizens are far more likely to be successful in an encounter, where they feel their safety is threatened, than are armed criminals.

Now, you've been challenged to provide some evidence to the contrary. How about it?

*reaching into magical bag*

*still can't find anything*

If the thug really intended to kill him with an empty gun, he was, indeed, retarded. For the other point, I can really only support your argument. I'll even add this story:

Johnny O'Server is schizophrenic. When 5-year old Kebuk points a finger at him, the voices tell him he's in danger. He felt a thread on his life.

Justice was served.

Unless you take reality into account

And a finger = a gun? Really? At least you admit your scenario doesn't fit especially since the victim wasn't schizophrenic.

Johnny O'Server is schizophrenic. When 5-year old Kebuk points a finger at him, the voices tell him he's in danger. He felt a thread on his life.

Justice was served.

Unless you take reality into account

He better be careful! Do you know the rate of fire the average loaded 5 year old has?!?!?

I'm sure it's philosophically relevant, but try to be practical, please.

And a finger = a gun? Really? At least you admit your scenario doesn't fit especially since the victim wasn't schizophrenic.

And an empty gun = a loaded gun?

And an empty gun = a loaded gun?

So once again we return to you assuming the gun is empty.

Dance a little more please.

And an empty gun = a loaded gun?

That's what she said.

So once again we return to you assuming the gun is empty.

Dance a little more please.

It was.

Here's what we're doing with that figure. We're looking at the ratio of successful outcomes to unsuccessful. Armed citizens are far more likely to be successful in an encounter, where they feel their safety is threatened, than are armed criminals.

Now, you've been challenged to provide some evidence to the contrary. How about it?

You're looking at the total number of defensive uses of a gun, whatever the outcome successful or not, compared to 'unsuccessful' uses.

Your evidence is faulty.

And an empty gun = a loaded gun?

Once again, I'm sure it's philosophically relevant in your own universally true way, but practicality, I beg of thee.

Here's what we're doing with that figure. We're looking at the ratio of successful outcomes to unsuccessful. Armed citizens are far more likely to be successful in an encounter, where they feel their safety is threatened, than are armed criminals.
Hear now, I believe everything you say... I'm just curious... what's the ratio of armed citizens blasting off another unarmed/armed civilians just on a hunch... a feel, if you like..? I'm betting pretty succesful, yeh?

He better be careful! Do you know the rate of fire the average loaded 5 year old has?!?!?

I'm sure it's philosophically relevant, but try to be practical, please.

The practical point here is that what the robbed man thought is entirely irrelevant to the issue if the thug attempted to kill him.

It was.

Thank you for dancing some more.

Do you assume a gun is loaded when it is pointed at you and you are being threatened with it?

Once again, I'm sure it's philosophically relevant in your own universally true way, but practicality, I beg of thee.

It is being claimed that because the person thought that there was a threat on their life, it constitutes attempted murder, an idea which'd be laughed out of any court.

Thank you for dancing some more.

Do you assume a gun is loaded when it is pointed at you and you are being threatened with it?

Yes. But it wasn't.

The practical point here is that what the robbed man thought is entirely irrelevant to the issue if the thug attempted to kill him.

No, it's completely relevant, unless you make more of your non-real world false analogies.

He was being threatened w/ a deadly weapon. He responded w/ force. Had he survived, the kid would have been charged w/ armed robbery and attempted murder.

Yes. But it wasn't.

So the victim responded appropriately.

Justice was served.

Have a nice day.

It is being claimed that because the person thought that there was a threat on their life, it constitutes attempted murder, an idea which'd be laughed out of any court.

Try looking up "Castle Doctrine". You'll see differently.

It is being claimed that because the person thought that there was a threat on their life, it constitutes attempted murder, an idea which'd be laughed out of any court.

And I'm sure that there's heaps of reasonable doubt that the armed robber's weren't selling popcorn to go to the Boy Scout Camporee. I guess the court will be submerged in credibility.

No, it's completely relevant, unless you make more of your non-real world false analogies.

He was being threatened w/ a deadly weapon. He responded w/ force. Had he survived, the kid would have been charged w/ armed robbery and attempted murder.


And I'm sure that there's heaps of reasonable doubt that the armed robber's weren't selling popcorn to go to the Boy Scout Camporee. I guess the court will be submerged in credibility.

To be charged with attempted murder, you actually have to, y'know, try and murder someone. Having a gun that is incapable of killing anyone and not trying to kill anyone with it doesn't even come close.

The defendant MAY have acted appropriately (to make an accurate judgement I'd want to know details, number of shots, closeness of shooter etc etc) but it wasn't attempted murder.


Try looking up "Castle Doctrine". You'll see differently.
Laws allowing people to use force to defend themselves. This makes it attempted murder how?

And I'm sure that there's heaps of reasonable doubt that the armed robber's weren't selling popcorn to go to the Boy Scout Camporee. I guess the court will be submerged in credibility.
But you know this isn't going to court. Didn't the quoted article say that there would be no charge against the man who was the intended victim?

"The opposite of a "castle" principle is the "Duty to Retreat", which is the case in most U.S. Northeastern states, such as Connecticut, New York, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts[1] (where Castle Doctrine takes effect only within the confines of the 'dwelling'). Castle Doctrine laws in the U.S. are sometimes referred to as the "use of deadly force" [2] or "no retreat" laws, and originate in the home, but are sometimes (depending on the state) extended to the automobile or the business or any place where one has a legal right to be (a campground or park, for example)."


-Wikipedia on castle doctrine

It pays to be trailer trash.

But you know this isn't going to court. Didn't the quoted article say that there would be no charge against the man who was the intended victim?

Oh, gosh golly, they could have nabbed that self-defending freak!

To be charged with attempted murder, you actually have to, y'know, try and murder someone. Having a gun that is incapable of killing anyone and not trying to kill anyone with it doesn't even come close.

The defendant MAY have acted appropriately (to make an accurate judgement I'd want to know details, number of shots, closeness of shooter etc etc) but it wasn't attempted murder.

The victim was being threatened w/ deadly weapons. It's all intent.

The police have already determined that the victim acted appropriately. They even gave him his gun back. I guess you know more than the police.

But you know this isn't going to court. Didn't the quoted article say that there would be no charge against the man who was the intended victim?

No charges and they gave him his gun back.

So the victim responded appropriately.

Justice was served.

Have a nice day.

Yes, he did.

Might want to go back, for instance to page 2 of this thread: .
or maybe read that
Oh, duh. Please go back and read. Or, just for you, a little resumee:

1. The guy was right to defend himself, because he couldn't have known there were no bullets.

Maybe sooner or later you will realize nobody is disputing that.

And no, justice was not served. The gun was empty. In the real reality, not in the mind of somebody.

The victim was being threatened w/ deadly weapons. It's all intent.
Weapon wasn't deadly. The shotgun holder had no intent to murder anyone. Hence not attempted murder.


The police have already determined that the victim acted appropriately. They even gave him his gun back. I guess you know more than the police.
No, I said that I didn't have enough details to make a judgement. I'd hope the police had that info and in lieu of evidence to the contrary I support their decision.

I would have done the same thing if I were in that man's place. When you are 53 years old and approached by two men, weilding a gun and a bat, what would you have done?
Being as you have a gun on your person and assuming that the people coming up to you weilding what are commonly considered *weapons probably don't want to buy you a drink, shooting them is probably advisable.
Or, you could hope they just rob you and leave.

The first option, shooting them, leaves you either dead, or alive and with your posessions.

The second leaves you either dead or robbed.

Tough one.

*To all you nitpickers: Yes, everything can be used as a weapon, but if someone approached me with any visible gun/sword/machete/assualt weaponry, I would shoot. If someone came up barehanded in a threatening manner I would be less likely to shoot, and more likely to shoot to wound. A wounded person holding a gun can still kill you with it, a wounded person without a gun is not as significant a danger.


Shooting to wound is stupid. Not only does it increase your chances of missing altogether, but if you feel the need to shoot to wound, you shouldn't shoot (as it's not a life threatening situation, and it'd be a crime to shoot someone when your life isn't threatened).

"squatpissers" there's a new insult that your argument benefited from. If you apply the logic in your first paragraph then you wouldn't ban anything at all. Are you in favour of that out of interest?

Amazing isn't it, that you appear suddenly to agree. You may not be a puppet, but on the other hand...

Oh, no! I used an insult and now all valid arguments I may have are now null and void. Sorry, you won't frighten me out of using certain colorful nicknames in my posts, so you just as well climb down from that particular horse.

Am I in favor of no bans whatever? No, that's asinine. I am, however against a ban that does nothing to curb violent crime. It will always exist and banning ways for law abiding citizens to defend themselves is just plain stupid and creates more victims.

As far as appearing suddenly to agree; I just created my nation yesterday and happened to see the title of this thread to the left of my list of telegrams, so, no, not puppet here, nor am I somebody that is trolling.

And no, justice was not served. The gun was empty. In the real reality, not in the mind of somebody.

Okay, I'm sure I'm no where even close to being as positively enlightened as you must be, but who cares about your argument? It's not relevant here.

You think that he responded appropriately given the situation.

Fair enough.

you also think that justice was not served because there was no actual potential for armed harm of the victim.

Fair enough.

Guess what, though? The general populace is not going to grasp this and you're thusly fueling an incredibly circular thread indeed.

Shooting to wound is stupid. Not only does it increase your chances of missing altogether, but if you feel the need to shoot to wound, you shouldn't shoot (as it's not a life threatening situation, and it'd be a crime to shoot someone when your life isn't threatened).
You forgot the part where shooting to wound opens an avenue for the thug to sue you for everything you have. Basically, you violated his right to violate yours.

Yes, he did.

Might want to go back, for instance to page 2 of this thread:
or maybe read that

Maybe sooner or later you will realize nobody is disputing that.

And no, justice was not served. The gun was empty. In the real reality, not in the mind of somebody.

The "real reality" as compared to the "fake reality"? :rolleyes:

And no, justice was not served. The gun was empty. In the real reality, not in the mind of somebody.

If the victim was justified in shooting his attacker, which you seem to agree that he was, then what happened was just, and "justice was served."

People are not held to the standard of omniscience, whether or not the gun was loaded (or, say, a replica, or 'destined to malfunction') is not relevant to whether or not it was just for the victim to defend himself.

If the victim was justified in shooting his attacker, which you seem to agree that he was, then what happened was just, and "justice was served."

People are not held to the standard of omniscience, whether or not the gun was loaded (or, say, a replica, or 'destined to malfunction') is not relevant to whether or not it was just for the victim to defend himself.

Look at my post on this page and subject. That's what lerk-o is getting at.

Oh, no! I used an insult and now all valid arguments I may have are now null and void. Sorry, you won't frighten me out of using certain colorful nicknames in my posts, so you just as well climb down from that particular horse.

Doesn't invalidate all your arguments, but lessens your credibility


Am I in favor of no bans whatever? No, that's asinine. I am, however against a ban that does nothing to curb violent crime. It will always exist and banning ways for law abiding citizens to defend themselves is just plain stupid and creates more victims.
You attacked the ban on the basis that it hadn't eliminated the thing it'd banned, the same is true for a majority of banned things.

The problem is that a poorly applied patchy ban on anything is never going to work. If you like I could call it a ban on an easy ways for people to kill other people.

As far as appearing suddenly to agree; I just created my nation yesterday and happened to see the title of this thread to the left of my list of telegrams, so, no, not puppet here, nor am I somebody that is trolling.
Then please accept my apology for speculating.

Then please accept my apology for speculating.

You know, when one speculates, someone has to wash the sheets.

Guess what, though? The general populace is not going to grasp this and you're thusly fueling an incredibly circular thread indeed.

We had quite a few posters who did not only understand this, but posted the same argument. It seems a bit unwise to assume the general populace resides on RO's level of reading competence...

I'd argue the circularity was rather caused by a lack of reading, otherwise this could have ended right after Philosopy's post, on page 2.

-
Oh, and thank you. I'm happy to see someone of the pro-gun side would acknowledge this argument regardless of his own opinion on the matter...

We had quite a few poster who did not only understand this, but posted the same argument. It seems a bit unwise to assume the general populace resides on RO's level of reading competence...

I'd argue the circularity was rather caused by a lack of reading, otherwise this could have ended right after Philosopy's post, on page 2.

Oh curses, all aboard the redundant train!

"shooting to wound" is an absurd fantasy from movies.

it isnt taught and isnt done in real life.

But people arguing for it dont really live in the real world.

...

I wonder who else noticed that a couple of the smilies involve guns. Anyways.

As I see it, the two main points are

1) The man was justified because he did not know the gun was loaded. He expected to be killed during or after the carjacking, from what he knew about the city and what the police told the populace. So he shot first, choosing to kill rather than be killed, without knowing the assailant to be carrying what amounted to an 8-inch long club.

2) The man was not justified because the assailant was not carrying a potentially lethal weapon. Whatever the man thought or suspected does not matter because of this, and he killed an 18-year-old boy that could have led a productive life.

I mean, we reached this point from pretty much the first page, so...pick an option, and this thread has no more useful life.

Hopefully the thread does not reproduce. :eek:

The case really doesn't have anything to do with justice. The thing was over before justice could be brought into play.

Your own stupidity and ignorance resulting in your death doesn't give the justice system time to do anything, either just or not.

If the thug really intended to kill him with an empty gun, he was, indeed, retarded. For the other point, I can really only support your argument. I'll even add this story:

Johnny O'Server is schizophrenic. When 5-year old Kebuk points a finger at him, the voices tell him he's in danger. He felt a thread on his life. Johnny kills Kebuk.

Justice was served.

(Unless you take reality into account)

A finger isn't the same thing as a firearm, and the assailants and victim aren't 5 years old or schizophrenic (as far as I know). Your story cannot be compared the same way as the story in the OP.

And an empty gun = a loaded gun?

In the heat of the moment, how would you be able to tell?

In the NRA basic pistol course I took, I was taught to always assume a firearm was loaded, until I checked to make sure it wasn't. Since the victim didn't have the luxury of checking the assailant's pistol (and since it was .22, the bore was most likely too small to see the bullet), he had to assume it was loaded.

You forgot the part where shooting to wound opens an avenue for the thug to sue you for everything you have. Basically, you violated his right to violate yours.

DOH! I knew I forgot something.

In the heat of the moment, how would you be able to tell?

In the NRA basic pistol course I took, I was taught to always assume a firearm was loaded, until I checked to make sure it wasn't. Since the victim didn't have the luxury of checking the assailant's pistol (and since it was .22, the bore was most likely too small to see the bullet), he had to assume it was loaded.

No, I'm not going to repeat this forever. Read this thread until you figured it out for yourself. Riknaht understood; either you do, too, using what has already been written, or will never, I don't really care.

howbout we stop this mad violence, ban weapons, create peace, wouldn't that solve a lot?

In any gun control/pacifism/conscientious objection debate, this argument always comes up: Nice principles, but would you stick to them if you or yours was being attacked?

This is a forceful but acceptable way of expressing that argument (my emphases):

Since for you self-defense is wrong.
I would just like to hear you say it with your loved ones in harms way.
With some kid raping and beating grandma to death for 20 dollars and her foodstamp card. Or a 90 year old man beat down in a parking lot while onlookers just watched.


This (note, it's by the same poster) is NOT:

But with all sincerity I hope your mother or some other loved one of yours is beaten to death or shot in the face and then you can praise the fact that they never had a chance to defend themselves and possibly do harm to their attackers...then truly justice would be served.


Because of the context, and the tenor of your later posts, I'm treating it as a mistake, rather than deliberate provocation, Skibereen.

But please take note that I had to read through twelve pages of posts to reach this conclusion and now I am not in a good mood.

Ho ho ho!

Another 18 year old dead.

Truly a victory for guns!

Better him dead then the carwashing person.

ONe more criminal idiot not polluting the gene pool.

Shooting to wound is stupid. Not only does it increase your chances of missing altogether, but if you feel the need to shoot to wound, you shouldn't shoot (as it's not a life threatening situation, and it'd be a crime to shoot someone when your life isn't threatened).

I disagree.

You have a gun.
Someone approaches you, threatening your life with say.. a three inch long knife.
You can defend yourself the hard way by not using the gun.
Or you can shoot to wound/kill.

Remember, this person is not 500 metres away. While there is no guarantee you will hit the person, there isn't an overwhelmingly large chance that you will miss.

You can shoot to wound and still be in a life threatening situation. It doesn't take much to be in a life threatening situation.

I disagree.

You have a gun.
Someone approaches you, threatening your life with say.. a three inch long knife.
You can defend yourself the hard way by not using the gun.
Or you can shoot to wound/kill.

Remember, this person is not 500 metres away. While there is no guarantee you will hit the person, there isn't an overwhelmingly large chance that you will miss.

You can shoot to wound and still be in a life threatening situation. It doesn't take much to be in a life threatening situation.

If I have a firearm, and someone is threatening my life, I'm not going to shoot to wound. It's an invitation to miss (it doesn't take much to miss, even at short ranges), and still may not stop the assailant from an attack. Also, in a self defense situation, if you don't have a reason to shoot to kill, you don't have a reason to shoot, period (one of the rules of safe firearms handling is, do not point a firearm at anything you are not prepared to see destroyed). Finally, as Mauseria pointed out, shooting to wound is an open invitation for the assailant to sue you into oblivion.

If I have a firearm, and someone is threatening my life, I'm not going to shoot to wound. It's an invitation to miss (it doesn't take much to miss, even at short ranges), and still may not stop the assailant from an attack. Also, in a self defense situation, if you don't have a reason to shoot to kill, you don't have a reason to shoot, period (one of the rules of safe firearms handling is, do not point a firearm at anything you are not prepared to see destroyed). Finally, as Mauseria pointed out, shooting to wound is an open invitation for the assailant to sue you into oblivion.

While what you are saying makes sense and despite the fact that I know the firearm rule... I disagree.
Must be because I am Chaotic Neutral.

While what you are saying makes sense and despite the fact that I know the firearm rule... I disagree.
Must be because I am Chaotic Neutral.

I'm Chaotic Neutral. You're more like Chaotic Good (or Chaotic Neutral with leanings towards Good).

I'm Chaotic Neutral. You're more like Chaotic Good (or Chaotic Neutral with leanings towards Good).

Mebbe...

You Are A:
Chaotic Neutral Elf Fighter

Alignment:
Chaotic Neutral characters are unstable, and frequently insane.
They believe in disorder first and foremost, and will thus strive for that disorder in everything they do.
This means that they will do whatever seems 'fun' or 'novel' at any given time.

--
Maybe I think wounding is fun. As well as the disorderly legal aftermath.

http://fantasyherald.com/quiz/dand/index.php

good riddance to bad rubbish! In related news I bought another gun last night.:)

good riddance to bad rubbish! In related news I bought another gun last night.:)
I've got a couple Colts. I've always wanted a Sig...Now's as good a time as any to buy one.

the whole thing is hilarious to me.


Yeah, I find it funny when teenagers die needlessly too.

Yeah, I find it funny when teenagers die needlessly too.
I guess we've finally made it back to the beginning...

Yeah, I find it funny when teenagers die needlessly too.

Actually, I find it fragging hilarious. I'm not kidding.

It gives me a happy feeling deep inside when a violent halfwit comes to a deserved and poetic end. The world is a better place without this loser in it!

Actually, I find it fragging hilarious. I'm not kidding.

It gives me a happy feeling deep inside when a violent halfwit comes to a deserved and poetic end. The world is a better place without this loser in it!

I also enjoy killing the elderly, all they do is whine. I love it when these whiners whine about a bullet inside them, such a poetic end.

I also enjoy killing the elderly, all they do is whine. I love it when these whiners whine about a bullet inside them, such a poetic end.

Sorry, but I've got to say: That is some of the lamest attempted sarcasm I've ever encountered. C'mon, man, at least try and be creative!

Now really, I'm not that unusual. Most people feel the same - they just are too uptight and PC to express such things. It's not "right" to feel joy when a scumbag gets what he deserves, and was clearly asking for, so "of course they don't feel that way."

Well, they can lie to me, but they can't lie to themselves forever. This guy bought it in a way that was fair and just, and that makes me feel just fine, thank you!

Sorry, but I've got to say: That is some of the lamest attempted sarcasm I've ever encountered. C'mon, man, at least try and be creative!


It's hard to come up with something so absurd.


Now really, I'm not that unusual. Most people feel the same - they just are too uptight and PC to express such things. It's not "right" to feel joy when a scumbag gets what he deserves, and was clearly asking for, so "of course they don't feel that way."


I don't care if your opinion is stupid, i'm not going to try and censor it, don't label me as any sort of pc police.

This guy bought it in a way that was fair and just, and that makes me feel just fine, thank you!

Just because a kid does something stupid and dangerouse doesn't mean he deserved to get killed more then any other theif.

I don't care if your opinion is stupid, i'm not going to try and censor it, don't label me as any sort of pc police.

Wasn't trying to. Just pointing out I'm not alone - just more loud-mouthed than most.

Just because a kid does something stupid and dangerouse doesn't mean he deserved to get killed more then any other theif.

"Stupidity is at once Justice, Jury and Executioner, and there is no appeal from it's sentence." - Emile Zola.

A thief steals your goods. This boyo threatened people with harm, and had a compadre with a very really lethal weapon with him - He chose violence, or at least it's threat, against the innocent, as his tool of robbery. Not just a thief.

A thief steals your goods. This boyo threatened people with harm, and had a compadre with a very really lethal weapon with him - He chose violence, or at least it's threat, against the innocent, as his tool of robbery. Not just a thief.

So he scared some people with an unloaded gun. There is no way you can compare that at all to actual violence, or worse.

Damn, it's a long read...

The OP's article reminds me of another Darwin nominee. The would be killer steps into a store, pulls out a gun and fires one shot into the air, he's promptly shot my the casheir/owner as several of the other customers draw on the would be robber.

some intersting facts of this case...
1) this happened in Texas, where it's legal to carry.
2) the store was a gun store.
3) there were two cops inside. (infact, he had to walk around two cop cars to get to the door.
4) said cops were talking to the owner, in other words, they were right there at the register.
5) although several customers did pull out theri weapons, (including the cops) only the store owner fired.

How are you supposed to tell if it's unloaded? I kinda noticed that all those arguing "but the gun wasn't loaded" never answered this question.

And how do you defend against a baseball bat?

It's a lethal weapon.
also, how does one defend against superior numbers welding weapons and you don't?

We don't need to. There are plenty of stories that make your premise look silly. Like this one...


or this and notice that in the first, the potential victim did assert his choice to flee, and was still fired upon. the second wasn't given the chance to flee.

And no, justice was not served. The gun was empty. In the real reality, not in the mind of somebody.
Yes, Justice was served. anyone stupid enough to threaten a person with an empty gun does stand the chance of being shot. he could've been banking on the scare tactic, but it still doesn't discount the fact that 1) he was brandishing a weapon. 2) he did NOT inform anyone, esp his victims, that the gun was UNLOADED. 3) the Victims had no recourse but to take the information they had at face value. 4) he was treating that gun like a toy. can you Imagine the damage he would've done had the weapon been loaded?

thus Justice was served when a potential victim excercised his right to draw his legally owned loaded weapon and deal with the threat presented to him.

But please take note that I had to read through twelve pages of posts to reach this conclusion and now I am not in a good mood.Hi Ardchoille. welcome to General... hope your sanity survives the experience. :p

Yeah, I find it funny when teenagers die needlessly too. I find it funny when TEENAGERS (not tottlers or kids,) die doing something STUPID. I roll on the floor when their parents, friends and relatives come out and say that said teenager was "intelligent and responsible" when (s)he dies doing said stupid thing.

Just because a kid does something stupid and dangerouse doesn't mean he deserved to get killed more then any other theif.
depends on the stupid action.

Knocking on the wrong door at 3 a.m? agreed, doesn't deserve to be shot.
Walking up to a Uniformed officer and tries to sell him crack? agreed, doesn't deserve to be shot.
Waving an unloaded gun yet behaving that it was loaded? yes, being shot by a trained and licenced civilian may not be what he deserves, but it's not unjustified and I for one won't argue against the defender.

I've got a couple Colts. I've always wanted a Sig...Now's as good a time as any to buy one.

I especially like my 228, but everything they make is top-notch.

So he scared some people with an unloaded gun. There is no way you can compare that at all to actual violence, or worse.

Of course I can. Threatening some people with violence is as bad as perpetrating it - they get psychologically damaged just as badly by an unloaded gun as to a loaded one. Or there's the poor guy with the weak heart who keels over - doesn't matter a good goddamn that the gun was a fake.

This bastard was out hurting people and stealing things by means of threatened violence. It was just really good luck that he met someone capable of stopping him before he caused more harm.

[QUOTE=
Waving an unloaded gun yet behaving that it was loaded? yes, being shot by a trained and licenced civilian may not be what he deserves, but it's not unjustified and I for one won't argue against the defender.[/QUOTE]

So True.

Just because a kid does something stupid and dangerouse doesn't mean he deserved to get killed more then any other theif.

He didn't get killed as a punishment for stealing, or as a punishment for anything else.

He was killed in self-defense - something that is not equivalent to killing as punishment.

A government may or may not have the ethical right to kill defenseless, chained-up prisoners in retribution for their crimes. In the case of theft, I think most sane people can agree that such an act would be unethical.

On the other hand, a person does have an ethical right to use deadly force when his life or the life of another is apparently in imminent peril. This is not an action which punishes or sets the universal right/wrong scale to balance, it is an action to prevent a wrong from being done.

Whether the gun was loaded or not, or a perfect replica of a gun, or destined to malfunction because of some defect in its construction is irrelevant to whether or not a human life was apparently in imminent peril.

Of course I can. Threatening some people with violence is as bad as perpetrating it - they get psychologically damaged just as badly by an unloaded gun as to a loaded one.

Hahaha what nonsence.


Or there's the poor guy with the weak heart who keels over - doesn't matter a good goddamn that the gun was a fake.


That didn't happen though did it? And the kid still doesn't deserve to die just because he got scared to death.


This bastard was out hurting people and stealing things by means of threatened violence. It was just really good luck that he met someone capable of stopping him before he caused more harm.

The kid had potential to grow out of thievery, don't be a dick and just go "oh he deserved it", this sort of thinking is what divides the poor kids from the rest of society, probably contributing to them becoming robbers. If they are seen as scum who should die by everyone else, they will start to believe it and not give a shit anymore, how will this stop them from going into a life of crime?

He didn't get killed as a punishment for stealing, or as a punishment for anything else.

He was killed in self-defense - something that is not equivalent to killing as punishment.

A government may or may not have the ethical right to kill defenseless, chained-up prisoners in retribution for their crimes. In the case of theft, I think most sane people can agree that such an act would be unethical.

On the other hand, a person does have an ethical right to use deadly force when his life or the life of another is apparently in imminent peril. This is not an action which punishes or sets the universal right/wrong scale to balance, it is an action to prevent a wrong from being done.

Whether the gun was loaded or not, or a perfect replica of a gun, or destined to malfunction because of some defect in its construction is irrelevant to whether or not a human life was apparently in imminent peril.

I never said otherwise, however in no possible way could it ever justify a celebration of the event. It is not funny that this kid died, and to think so is pretty fucked up.

I never said otherwise, however in no possible way could it ever justify a celebration of the event. It is not funny that this kid died, and to think so is pretty fucked up.

Then you can count me fucked up. This is black humour of fine vintage.

Then you can count me fucked up. This is black humour of fine vintage.

Hmmm... "Tuesday"...

So he scared some people with an unloaded gun. There is no way you can compare that at all to actual violence, or worse.
Sooo... following your logic, the victim must first be fired upon before engaging what is clearly an aggressor? One must allow the thug to pull his trigger to indicate a loaded weapon before taking steps to defend oneself?

Just because a kid does something stupid and dangerouse doesn't mean he deserved to get killed more then any other theif.

Sorry, you are wrong here. The victim was threatened with lethal force. He responded by shooting at what he perceived to be his most immediate threat, the one with the gun.

The fact that the gun wasn't loaded has no bearing what so ever that the victim was in very real and immediate danger of his life.

Sooo... following your logic, the victim must first be fired upon before engaging what is clearly an aggressor? One must allow the thug to pull his trigger to indicate a loaded weapon before taking steps to defend oneself?

Sorry, you are wrong here. The victim was threatened with lethal force. He responded by shooting at what he perceived to be his most immediate threat, the one with the gun.

The fact that the gun wasn't loaded has no bearing what so ever that the victim was in very real and immediate danger of his life.

Totally and utterly irellavent to the point I was trying to make. I wasn't arguing whether the shooting was justified or not, I was arguing about the fact that to laugh at such an event is fucked up to say the least.

Totally and utterly irellavent to the point I was trying to make. I wasn't arguing whether the shooting was justified or not, I was arguing about the fact that to laugh at such an event is fucked up to say the least.
Why even mention the fact that the weapon was unloaded then? It's irrelevant.

Why even mention the fact that the weapon was unloaded then? It's irrelevant.

I didn't actually mention it. But even if I did, it is rellevant since it shows the kid was not even attempting to kill anyone, or had any intention in doing so.

I didn't actually mention it. But even if I did, it is rellevant since it shows the kid was not even attempting to kill anyone, or had any intention in doing so.
Of course you did... http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12689508&postcount=188
Since you seem to think that this was less heinous than attempted murder, maybe you can help out. I'm still looking for the answer to the question posed earlier. How was the intended victim supposed to know that the gun was unloaded?

Or how do we even know that the predator knew the gun was not loaded?

Of course you did... http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12689508&postcount=188

Whatever, my memory is failing.


Since you seem to think that this was less heinous than attempted murder

Of course it is. An attempted murder is when you attempt to murder someone.


How was the intended victim supposed to know that the gun was unloaded?Or how do we even know that the predator knew the gun was not loaded?

Why does that matter?

Or how do we even know that the predator knew the gun was not loaded? I think the article does state that he did pull the trigger during the first jacking. so by the time of the second carjacking he knew that the gun was empty. Now, if he knew before the first carjacking attempt... that's not known, except that by pulling the trigger, he did mean to shoot the person (if he didn't know the gun was empty.)

Why does that matter?
I don't know. I'm tired of fighting off the stupidity demons.
http://www.unitedmedia.com/comics/dilbert/desktop_diversions/images/wallpaper_comic.gif

This thread has made me think. I like having to think (one of the reasons I finally got around to starting with NS... but I digress.)

The death of this teenager is in no way funny to me. Quite the contrary, it's tragic.

As a general rule I don't really like the idea of private handgun ownership, most probably because it's not an option where I live so it's not something I've ever had to consider critically.

In this instance, however, I have to say that the 53 year old acted correctly. He found himself in a situation where his life was threatened and he had (legal) means to defend himself, which he did.

I honestly fail to see why rights and wrongs are being debated.

good riddance to bad rubbish! In related news I bought another gun last night.:)

I think there should be a rule, that if you announce the purchase of a firearm, vehicle, computer, etc, you should be required to post pics. :D

I think there should be a rule, that if you announce the purchase of a firearm, vehicle, computer, etc, you should be required to post pics. :D

*waits for someone to annouce the Purchase (and installation) of silicon boobies* :p

The morbidity of some of the people in this thread makes me want to go on a spree that specifically targets people with guns, by shooting them in the back.

In any case, I'll agree that even though the shooting was justified, it's still not right to laugh about an eighteen year old dying. Yea, being a criminal is a pretty shitty career.. but he could've been turned around. And even if he made a lot of bad choices in his life, I think he still deserves better than for people to dance on his grave. For all we know there could be a family mourning him right now, and really, gloating over his death is little better than what those Phelps weirdos do when they picket funerals.

So yea, the shooting was an appropriate response. But because the man shot committed a crime doesn't immediately make him undeserving of sympathy, or the same post-mortem respect we show other people. If nothing else, I concur that this is certainly a tragedy; a tragedy that this boy became a criminal, a tragedy that the victims of his crimes had to suffer through them, a tragedy that he died, and a tragedy that he didn't have a chance to make his life right.

I hope he's found peace.

*waits for someone to annouce the Purchase (and installation) of silicon boobies* :p

I believe that would fall under the heading of etc. But I don't want to see during pics (I have a weak stomach for blood), only after pics. :D

The morbidity of some of the people in this thread makes me want to go on a spree that specifically targets people with guns, by shooting them in the back. considering you will have a gun, you can start by shooting yourself in the back. :p

In any case, I'll agree that even though the shooting was justified, it's still not right to laugh about an eighteen year old dying. Yea, being a criminal is a pretty shitty career.. but he could've been turned around. And even if he made a lot of bad choices in his life, I think he still deserves better than for people to dance on his grave. For all we know there could be a family mourning him right now, and really, gloating over his death is little better than what those Phelps weirdos do when they picket funerals.

So yea, the shooting was an appropriate response. But because the man shot committed a crime doesn't immediately make him undeserving of sympathy, or the same post-mortem respect we show other people. If nothing else, I concur that this is certainly a tragedy; a tragedy that this boy became a criminal, a tragedy that the victims of his crimes had to suffer through them, a tragedy that he died, and a tragedy that he didn't have a chance to make his life right.

I hope he's found peace.
agreed, it is tragic... however, what I find funny about this situation is that he basically mindfucked alot of people by waving around an empty gun. with an empty threat, a bluff if you will, he held up several people until someone called his bluff.

the moment he started waving his gun (empty or not) around, he should've known that someone would react by shooting back... especially in a state that allows CCW's.

what made is chuckleworthy to me is this.
The botched carjacking on Grand River and Prevost came after a string of robberies in Detroit on Thursday, which police said were committed by Parker and four others, ranging in age from 16 to 20.

The robberies began about 8:40 p.m. Thursday at Kentucky and Curtis when a 16-year-old was robbed of his cell phone, a silver chain and his wallet, by at least two of the suspects, police said.

At 9:30 p.m., the robbers attempted to carjack a couple in the driveway of their home in the 19600 block of Appoline, police said. One pointed the unloaded gun at the couple and pulled the trigger.

a string of robberies... with an UNLOADED weapon.

they probably felt like Kings of the world with that gun. Feeling that nothing would or could stop them. the power granted by having a gun in your hand.

Even after pulling the trigger at the couple (whereas they KNEW that their gun was empty) they still went and tried to jack another car.

in a state where citizens are allowed to carry firearms... LOADED FIREARMS.

making their actions an expanded form of Russian Roulette. which citizen will draw and shoot back... him? no, her? no, them? nope... him? bang!

so as tragic as it is, as tragic as you (and others here) try to paint it, I still laugh at his stupidity. He gambled, he bluffed while not even holding a pair of duces in his hand... and he lost.

and you know what the really sad thing is? Parker's family will probably try to sue the 53 yr old man claiming that their son was only "playing around" and not really a threat thus the shooting wasn't self defense.

I believe that would fall under the heading of etc. But I don't want to see during pics (I have a weak stomach for blood), only after pics. :Dnah, I don't want pics of the procedure, just the end results. :D

The morbidity of some of the people in this thread makes me want to go on a spree that specifically targets people with guns, by shooting them in the back.

http://img83.imageshack.us/img83/508/owlsimmernq7.jpg

nah, I don't want pics of the procedure, just the end results. :D

Who doesn't want pics of the end results? :D