Poll: Teen Shot dead after attempting to mug man

[Booze Zombie]

Once again, any fucking morons that keep defending the assailant (aka the mislabeled 'victim'), I just say that I sincerely hope you're beaten to death in the most brutal way possible in the near-future. Then you can wish you had the balls to shoot someone the way this guy did.

The guy was ATTACKED, OUTNUMBERED, and DISORIENTED. His life was in jeopardy and he had no other reasonable alternative, given the circumstances. STOP DEFENDING THE ASSAULTER you fucking morons. Shit...

You're a charming individual.

The attacker was a dumb kid who got himself killed for what seems to be attempting to appear tough and whilst I understand this fellow defending himself, I just personally believe that no one deserves to die. This doesn't change anything; it's simply that in my ideal world, we wouldn't need to use lethal force on each other.

We don't live in my ideal world...

 

[Daddy Go Bot]

Asking how it cannot be the most likely scenario is a logically invalid way to show it is. First off, 50% chance to hit doesn't mean that they will stop if hit. I happen to livei n reality where being shot once doesn't automatically make people fall over like a cardboard cut out. Secondly, I do not trust your mind reading powers and not trusting them does not make me insane. Instead realizing that panic can make people keep acting, and that adrenaline can make you not notice you've been wounded just means I am looking at it more rationally.

You honestly think a teenager could keep fighting and kill this man while unarmed, or have time to draw a weapon when shot in the chest? This is a freaking teenager. This isn't like a movie or videogame where people tank after 2-3 shots. :| When did I ever say anything about trusting anyone? I said that a single shot is likely all you'd need to subdue the threat or lessen it, at least until you can figure out what the heck is going on, this guy obviously had no clue.

The assailant being a teenager (Or 18 rather) is completely irrelevant. It was dark and his vision was blurry, so how would he know? And yes, people can take 2-3 shot and still manage to kill you. You can never rely on 1 bullet to do the job, especially given the circumstances.

 

[Accountfailed]

Sorry but I have to disagree with a lot of people here. It was just a couple of kids and the guy shot him eight times. He could have fired a warning shot, I mean hes clearly capable of handling himself if hes applying for the military and keeps fit. The kid had his whole life to turn around, but now he won't get that chance. People who do bad things can change, and I don't think it was necessary to shot him eight times so he was sure he would be dead.

Speaking as someone who has lived in the exposure region of a bad Irish neighborhood all his life, I have yet to see this "turn around" you speak of, scumbags go to prison, scumbags get out, scumbags do worse. youth crime is a large problem in the UK and in ROI, teen muggers and the like use the same "but we're only kids, we could change, really!" argument to skip out on charges like they were fucking entitled to them in the first place. I've seen friends need facial reconstructive surgery after being mugged, my best friend got jumped by a gang of teens for his 30 euro worth of a phone, and another friend got hit in the face with a hammer because he wouldn't give them his crisps (no, seriously)

Anyone who's "capable of handling himself" will know that you don't wait for the brat to pull out his blade/syringe/weapon. I have no qualms about what the man did, he COULD of shot them in the legs or something, but what if they also had a weapon? Could he have made the right decision? I doubt it, But I know I'd do the same in his position.

 

[Daddy Go Bot]

Once again, any fucking morons that keep defending the assailant (aka the mislabeled 'victim'), I just say that I sincerely hope you're beaten to death in the most brutal way possible in the near-future. Then you can wish you had the balls to shoot someone the way this guy did.

The guy was ATTACKED, OUTNUMBERED, and DISORIENTED. His life was in jeopardy and he had no other reasonable alternative, given the circumstances. STOP DEFENDING THE ASSAULTER you fucking morons. Shit...

You're a charming individual.

The attacker was a dumb kid who got himself killed for what seems to be attempting to appear tough and whilst I understand this fellow defending himself, I just personally believe that no one deserves to die. This doesn't change anything; it's simply that in my ideal world, we wouldn't need to use lethal force on each other.

We don't live in my ideal world...

If some random POS thug wants to assault me for no apparent reason, then yes, he deserves to die for all I care.

 

[Callate]

Yes, a hollowpoint will stay in a target. But it's also that much more likely to inflict a fatal wound if the shooter hits someone they didn't intend.

And whatever the circumstances, you're still libel if you shoot someone else. That he had a right to defend himself, again, I don't deny. But it does give pause that the shooter's response in that situation was to empty or nearly empty the magazine. If there had been more people around, or if the other kid was serious about carrying out a mugging and had been armed, this would easily have come out far worse.

 

[Fawcks]

Asking how it cannot be the most likely scenario is a logically invalid way to show it is. First off, 50% chance to hit doesn't mean that they will stop if hit. I happen to livei n reality where being shot once doesn't automatically make people fall over like a cardboard cut out. Secondly, I do not trust your mind reading powers and not trusting them does not make me insane. Instead realizing that panic can make people keep acting, and that adrenaline can make you not notice you've been wounded just means I am looking at it more rationally.

You honestly think a teenager could keep fighting and kill this man while unarmed, or have time to draw a weapon when shot in the chest? This is a freaking teenager. This isn't like a movie or videogame where people tank after 2-3 shots. :| When did I ever say anything about trusting anyone? I said that a single shot is likely all you'd need to subdue the threat or lessen it, at least until you can figure out what the heck is going on, this guy obviously had no clue.

The assailant being a teenager (Or 18 rather) is completely irrelevant. It was dark and his vision was blurry, so how would he know? And yes, people can take 2-3 shot and still manage to kill you. You can never rely on 1 bullet to do the job, especially given the circumstances.

I'm going to assume he is not retarded and stayed in a lit path. Most parks do have lit paths. Otherwise, what the Hell was he thinking.

Honestly, everything about this story is poor judgment on behalf of the guy with the gun. Poorer judgment on behalf of the muggers, but honestly, I wouldn't be surprised to learn that he was BEGGING for an excuse to use that gun.

 

[Fawcks]

Asking how it cannot be the most likely scenario is a logically invalid way to show it is. First off, 50% chance to hit doesn't mean that they will stop if hit. I happen to livei n reality where being shot once doesn't automatically make people fall over like a cardboard cut out. Secondly, I do not trust your mind reading powers and not trusting them does not make me insane. Instead realizing that panic can make people keep acting, and that adrenaline can make you not notice you've been wounded just means I am looking at it more rationally.

You honestly think a teenager could keep fighting and kill this man while unarmed, or have time to draw a weapon when shot in the chest? This is a freaking teenager. This isn't like a movie or videogame where people tank after 2-3 shots. :| When did I ever say anything about trusting anyone? I said that a single shot is likely all you'd need to subdue the threat or lessen it, at least until you can figure out what the heck is going on, this guy obviously had no clue.

When looking at reality, yes I do know that it is possible for someone to keep fighting after being shot. Funny how you moved it from just a 50% chance to be hit to 50% chance to be a significant hit in the chest though. Don't recall the article mentioning how lethal any particular shot was. Maybe you should actually look at real incidents instead of just assuming one shot kills or stops people. Though maybe you know better than police and their procedures.

You seem to expect me to trust your judgment or be deemed insane. And your judgment fails to account for things like the guy panicking or adrenaline.

Hitting them might no eliminate them, but honestly, lit path? Sucker punched from the front (Burst his lip implies attack from the front)? He could have seen that they were not holding a weapon at that moment, and a single shot causes a moment of confusion that gives him time to consider things, like, "Why am I jogging late at night at the park with a gun and 500$ cash?"

 

[Daddy Go Bot]

Yes, a hollowpoint will stay in a target. But it's also that much more likely to inflict a fatal wound if the shooter hits someone they didn't intend.

And whatever the circumstances, you're still libel if you shoot someone else. That he had a right to defend himself, again, I don't deny. But it does give pause that the shooter's response in that situation was to empty or nearly empty the magazine. If there had been more people around, or if the other kid was serious about carrying out a mugging and had been armed, this would easily have come out far worse.

So would a regular bullet, but the HP is all about maximum damage with minimal penetration. I really don't see a problem with that.

Besides, if there were more people present I highly doubt any of it would actually take place.

 

[yundex]

I actually saw a few...people asking why he was carrying a gun while jogging at night. (and apparently the criminals had xray specs and could see his $500) I withheld the rage because they probably weren't American and didn't know about CC laws. Glad to see more than 90% of this forum is rational, laying down and licking your attackers boot is something I wouldn't do either.

Edit: The warning shot is also the second amendment, even idiots like the dead guy know that people carry weapons here.

 

[Scars Unseen]

Hitting them might no eliminate them, but honestly, lit path? Sucker punched from the front (Burst his lip implies attack from the front)? He could have seen that they were not holding a weapon at that moment, and a single shot causes a moment of confusion that gives him time to consider things, like, "Why am I jogging late at night at the park with a gun and 500$ cash?"

I have no idea why he would be carrying $500 on him while jogging, but I can only assume that it's a common occurrence where he lives. Otherwise why would people be mugging joggers in the first place?

 

[Daddy Go Bot]

Does the £500 really matter? It could have been a penny and it still wouldn't make the situation any better.

 

[ViaticalTarsier]

To all those that are saying 8 rounds is overkill, go look at shootings involving the police. You see something very similar, and that is the large number of rounds being fired at the assailant. You can't really fault a civilian for shooting 8rounds (anyone that has fired a gun knows how fast you can go through 8rounds) when the police who are in those types of situations more often then a civilian and they still fire similar numbers of rounds.

 

[Jon Shannow]

I completely with the jogger on this. I have used guns a lot before (mainly shotguns but some pistols) and i've found that it's hard enough to hit a moving target with a pistol when you're standing still and have time to aim. But if you've just been punched, you're off balance and you don't have time to aim. Your not likely to hit 100% of the time, even if you're trained. So in my eyes the eight shots is fine. Plus the people who say "i wouldn't kill someone in self-defence" i'll think you find that no matter your morals the fight or flight instinct takes over.

 

[Shotgunjack1880]

#&%!... what happened to the "old days"...

Firstly, when you're being attacked, you're not going to stop to think about how many bullets you're firing, you're simply going to react; a twitch response to defend one's self.

Secondly, when the #&%! did "we" as a society become so "diluted", so "watered-down" and weak of mind and in all ways, the anything resembling the honor and strength went out the window!?

How the hell did this world become a place where people feel sorry for the one who victimizes others!?

He didn't deserve to die? Really? Do you think he would have grown-up to become the next great President, and would have changed the world, bringing about world peace? Tell me, what good is a person like that going to for the world? What do they bring to the table, in terms of redeeming qualities? What do they offer?

They're a waste of my air, and anyone lazy and dishonorable enough to mug or steal, if they caught, deserve what ever they get. The hell with this "modern day" thinking/feeling. People have gone soft. If this were the "old days", and he attempted to mug someone walking along a dirt path through the woods somewhere, sure enough, the other pulls out a dagger and stabs his ass, or he gets caught, turned over to the King's court, and they #&$!ing hang his ass. Maybe draw-and-quarter him.

I have a veritable arsenal of weapons, and while I'd prefer to use a sword or a mace, because any idiot can/it doesn't take a real man to pull a trigger, modern weapons are necessary in the modern day. I'm also trained in three different martial arts. I could kill with my hands, or with any caliber of gun I own and carry, and would do so, should some punk-ass scumbag attempt to #&$! with my personal space, my wife or any family.

Keep in mind as well, for all YOU know, it was the VICTIM who would have ended-up dead after he was mugged. Punk kid could have felt/grabbed and shot the victim with his own gun. Who knows, it's happened to cops, even.

The kid is dead. The way it should be. No honor? No life! #&%! him. Invade someone's personal space, try to steal their #&%!, if you get killed, good riddance. One less potentially dangerous, meaningless low-life in the world. Maybe he would have turned out to be a rapist and/or murderer when he got older as well... and what if it were YOUR daughter?

Bet you'd be feeling different then, having learned this punk kid had a criminal record, had mugged someone who had a gun, and the guy with the gun never shot him, which left the loser to grow up and become a rapist and murder.

Yeah, yeah... "Well, he could be reformed"... right. People keep up with that kind of self-deluded, ignorant "silver lining" bull#*$!, and the world is going to reach the hell it's already spiraling towards in a thimble, even faster.

/rant

Wanna join my vigilante group. lol. In all seriousness I agree with you.

 

[debramster123]

if im corret this is the right to carry arms

for defense?

 

[Callate]

Besides, if there were more people present I highly doubt any of it would actually take place.

I'm guessing you've never lived in Florida.

 

[Fangface74]

It's a shame things like mace or tazers haven't been invented...oh wait, and does no one see the potential loss in civil liberty? He 'believed' the kid to be armed, only the kid wasn't, which means his judgement was wrong, which means his decision was wrong, which means he's a murdering prick as opposed to a mugging prick. This will now set a stupid, pro-gun precedent, in that as long as you 'believe' you should have killed someone, your belief is all that's required.

Scenario; I knock on your door to get you to turn the music down, you answer drunk with something small and black in your hand, your trying to hide it. I shoot you dead, ending your drunken Wii session, which I 'believed' to be a weapon, or maybe you weren't holding anything at all, turns out I can kill you anyway.

 

[Mako SOLDIER]

After the first shot that hit, it was no longer self defense. By all means shoot someone once in the leg, or even the arm so that they can't shoot back, but to shoot someone repeatedly is excessive. The guy is a murderer, simple as that. He defended himself and then he made the decision to keep shooting until a kid was dead. He deserves life imprisonment.

 

[Latman2k]

I agree with baker. I don't think it was excessive or wrong, one bullet is enough to kill but in panic against two attackers in arms reach I think that he didn't gun down the other kid is a silver lining.