A trained police man or military unit wouldn't have tried to shoot him in the arm or leg either.Littlee300 said:
Poll: Teen Shot dead after attempting to mug man
- Thread starter RamirezDoEverything
- Start date
If I had a gun and I was being mugged, you're damn straight I would use it. I would use it several times. When someone like that decides that my money is more important than my well being, I return the favor. My money is more important than their well being.
Just enforcing the golden rule on some punk who thinks he can hassle a hard working man. Survival of the fittest, and he was not the fittest.
Just enforcing the golden rule on some punk who thinks he can hassle a hard working man. Survival of the fittest, and he was not the fittest.
Hell, no it won't.Housebroken Lunatic said:
If that person is hopped up on enough drugs to ignore enough electricity to paralyze their muscles and nervous system, they might not even notice a 9mm through the lung or gut. Reagan didn't realize he'd been shot until someone noticed the blood all over the car. Teddy Roosevelt took a bullet and then finished his speech. And they were only a little high. (I kid, I kid.)
Guns aren't a sure thing either. It's a problem that bedevils the military. A single small caliber bullet to almost any part of the body instantly incapacitates (nevermind kills) a person only if they feel like letting it.
Carrying a gun is most useful for the fear factor. If that fails, it's as problematic as any weapon used by a human on a human. So zap them first. No reason you can't carry a gun as well.
But he has a gun. Who cares if someone ends up dead? Their fault.
Or so the thinking goes.
1. I wouldn't. People are people, and they are all worth the same. No one deserves to die, even if lethal force may sometimes be necessary to preserve another life. With today's technology and access to information, i think the frequency of that necessity can be brought down severely.Housebroken Lunatic said:I'd rather have a bunch of dead muggers in situations of self-defense, rather than having a mugger/killer put on trial with a dead victim because the victim was completely unable to defend him/herself and the mugger decided that it would be best not to leave any witnesses.DanielDeFig said:
The mugger broke the law, and a law concerning violence to boot. Thus he or she should be forced to accept the risk of getting killed because of it.
That is impossible. Mainly since there are no universal reasons for muggings/assaults of this kind. It isn't normal or acceptable to let people assault total strangers like that, and the motivations for doing it is irrelevant.DanielDeFig said:
It is more beneficient if these deviants die due to their own folly than wasting resources in trying to determine what kind of warped logic their degenerate brains follow.
So your best argument is trying to use the logical fallacy of guilt by association? How very clever of you.DanielDeFig said:
Time to stretch the logicl-muscles a bit: Just because something might be construed as being in "the same vain" as something else, it doesn't prove that it is just as bad.
2.No universal law for that no. Which is why research is needed to study each country and try to find out why people believe they have no other option if they want to survive (very rarely, they are correct). The only universal reason i can come up with, is that belief that there are no other options. By providing more options, making them more accessible, and educating people about the options they actually have, we are usually able to bring down crime rates (it's been done before, throughout the history of human civilization).
3. I was not trying to get a feeling of guilt, merely showing how illogical it is to believe that a person's actions, or way of living, in itself demanded the neccecity of their death.
Oh. And have you studied philosophy? Or does your philosophy teacher truly believe that philosophy is based on something other than reasoned and logical arguments?
And just to clear this up: Ethics is the study of morality, trying to find common ground among the endless variety of moral systems, and applying logic and reasoning to them to see if they hold up.
You must not know how hard it is to shoot someone in the leg or the arm or the something, wherever that something may be. It's not Call of Duty. Besides, this guy got punched in the face -and- he missed 4 out of 8 times. His aim clearly wasn't good, and getting punched right to the face probably effected that. Add that to the fact that it's nighttime, too. Yeah. He could have shot him in the leg or arm, but chances are that he would have most likely missed every single hit. Police are taught to aim for the chest. The army is taught to aim for the chest. Why? Because it's the easiest target to shoot at in a short amount of time and taking your dear sweet time to actually aim for an arm or a leg can get you killed. When you are defending yourself, it's kill or be killed. Yes, it's sad that the kid died and I feel sorry for the family that has to forever live without a son who made the terribly stupid choice of mugging someone, when one of the consequences of mugging someone is that they might have a weapon they can use to defend themselves.DuctTapeJedi said:
The fuck? The fact that we even have to have this debate is a bad sign for this country. Of course Baker was right, he was getting mugged.Patrick_and_the_ricks said:
And 8 shots is completely reasonable. Thats self-defense 101: aim at the center of mass and dont stop pulling the trigger till the attacker drops.
he had all the right to protect himself and the kid shouldnt go around robbing potentialy armed people
Yes, he's in the right.
I don't would never murder, myself, due to my beliefs, but he was in the right.
I feel like what I'm about to say has already been said, probably because it has:
He had his life threatened.
Understandably, he shot in self defense. Also understandably, he shot more than was neccessary.
Unfortunate that the mugger died, I personally think that's an uneccessary punishment for mugging, but still, I guess it makes an example, and teaches a good lesson.
Don't mug people. At all. They might just, oh, I don't know, pull a gun and totally fuck you up.
I don't would never murder, myself, due to my beliefs, but he was in the right.
I feel like what I'm about to say has already been said, probably because it has:
He had his life threatened.
Understandably, he shot in self defense. Also understandably, he shot more than was neccessary.
Unfortunate that the mugger died, I personally think that's an uneccessary punishment for mugging, but still, I guess it makes an example, and teaches a good lesson.
Don't mug people. At all. They might just, oh, I don't know, pull a gun and totally fuck you up.
It may be idiotic, but it doesn't make it right to punch him in the face and steal that money. You can say he was unwise to be doing what he was doing but it doesn't make what the mugger did justifiable. Anyway the mugger didn't know how much money he was going to get from him when he attacked him, he could not possibly have expected to get that much from someone who was out for a run. He was prepared to attack a stranger for a far smaller return than that.Piecewise said:
I understood that perfectly. It doesn't take training to realize that even threatening the kid with the gun would have stopped him.Littlee300 said:
EDIT: Also, the kid was shot four times. How is that not excessive?
If you have a bigger gun,used for threatening people, and sometime killing them, you are either an assassin or a hitman, or both.BobDobolina said:
And that's not a good career choise, now is it?
[small] it is [/small]
Although even if it had been, the biggest difference would have been probably number of shots fire and number of misses. The police and military train to shoot for the torso. It's a large target that is unlikely to be moving nearly as much.Littlee300 said:
I simply can't fathom how you and a few others in this thread have jumped from self defense to execution. They are two completely different things.Lord Kloo said:
With execution, you have a crime that has already been committed where the outcome has been determined and a criminal that is in custody and no longer a threat to anyone, regardless of what he did.
Self defense on the other had has a criminal actively attacking someone and a victim that has no way of knowing what the outcome will be.
Judging these two scenarios by the same standards is akin to judging fire by it's liquidity. It just does not make sense.
As for your views on self defense... wow. So you are so intent on being judged as better than anyone that would would let yourself be beaten and even killed? What about other peoples lives? What if a loved one was being beaten? Would you not intervene because the attacker deserves to be protected as much as the victim?
Seriously dude, it's one thing to be against violence but it's a totally different ballpark to say it's wrong to defend yourself at all.