You got it matty. Theres another one though that doesnt have the foreign guy speaking and its a lot better lol.
Better?
[quote]fighting_fires wrote:
[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:
[quote]batman730 wrote:
[quote]fighting_fires wrote:
I cant find it but i know the soundbite from the one HG is talking about is on youtube and it rocks!! [/quote]
Really, shooting people in the back, in cold blood, while on the phone with the police who are urging you not to rocks?
Okay.[/quote]
Given the scenario, fuck yes.
But dispatchers are not police and police are not judges. And judges are not juries. And the guy was found innocent.[/quote]
Thanks HG. And yeah its super awesome if someone was robbing me id be pumped if my neighbors defended my stuff, what are neighbors for? Also nothing about that was in cold blood, they were felons who would have gotten a slap on the wrist. Am i happy someone died, i wouldnt say that but i am happy someone stood up for what is right. Cold blood, really? I bet his hands are dirty but i also bet he has never lost a wink of sleep over it.
[/quote]
Alright, alright I don’t want to get into a pissing contest about this, and I get the whole standing up for what’s right thing. When I said “cold blood” what I meant was that neither this gentleman nor anyone else was in any immediate danger as I understand the scenario, not that he wasn’t pissed off at these “felons who would have got nothing more than a slap on the wrist”. He then made a considered decision that he was going to kill these guys, he argued back and forth with the dispatcher about it and then he walked outside and shot them down. I don’t feel all that sorry for the criminals but I definitely don’t applaud the shooter.
I get taking back our neighbourhoods and what not, I really do, but to me personally, lethal force is not justified, except for the protection of life or the prevention of grievous bodily injury. The State of Texas obviously doesn’t agree with me in this case. I want my neighbours to look out for me, absolutely, and I try to look out for them. That said I don’t want anybody to die over my flat screen.
Precedents have to be set. Every once in awhile something like this will happen, it’s inevitable, and it acts as a reminder to all of us, the law abiding and the one’s that choose to cross that line, that there are real, immediate consequences for the decisions that you choose to make.
In the end, it wasn’t the father that chose to put himself in that situation, but the robber that put that man in that situation, and as soon as he went down that path, he forfeited his right to live.
It’s called reciprocation, the golden rule, etc. Some people never learned it, or forgot what it means, and as I said before, events like these act as reminders to all of us.
I don’t know exactly what the law says in NY; but I know if I were on a jury where a father shot a mugger after the mugger had shot his son, that is “innocent” in my book. It’d be very hard to prove otherwise to me.
Muds can do what they want to each other. The law should concern itself with all the mud on white crime that is tearing the nation.
Please
[quote]batman730 wrote:
He took the guy’s gun and shot him in the back of the head while he was running away (at least that’s how the article reads). Once you disarm the guy and he is fleeing it becomes difficult to articulate how he is threatening your life.
It is easy to understand, however that you would be really pissed off (understatement) because your kid got shot, but legally that isn’t good enough.[/quote]
It is my current belief that once a criminal starts something with the victim, that victim should have the right to feel threatened until that criminal is detained, or in this case, dead. You never know how a situation is going to play out and the moment you let your guard down is when you get hurt or killed.
For all the dad knows he was going to get a friend or another gun. This might sound silly to say, but before the incident, you might think it would be silly for a 17 year old kid to pull a gun on a guy for an old coat.
You don’t have to articulate how he is threatening your life, he already showed that he is and that he will use deadly force. The man himself becomes the threat, and the dad should be able to feel threatened until that man is incapacitated.
[quote]Swifthawk88 wrote:
[quote]batman730 wrote:
He took the guy’s gun and shot him in the back of the head while he was running away (at least that’s how the article reads). Once you disarm the guy and he is fleeing it becomes difficult to articulate how he is threatening your life.
It is easy to understand, however that you would be really pissed off (understatement) because your kid got shot, but legally that isn’t good enough.[/quote]
It is my current belief that once a criminal starts something with the victim, that victim should have the right to feel threatened until that criminal is detained, or in this case, dead. You never know how a situation is going to play out and the moment you let your guard down is when you get hurt or killed.
For all the dad knows he was going to get a friend or another gun. This might sound silly to say, but before the incident, you might think it would be silly for a 17 year old kid to pull a gun on a guy for an old coat.
You don’t have to articulate how he is threatening your life, he already showed that he is and that he will use deadly force. The man himself becomes the threat, and the dad should be able to feel threatened until that man is incapacitated.[/quote]
I think that there is a tendency to feel that once a criminal starts something with a private citizen, it’s essentially open season on the criminal because he made a choice and the consequences are on him. It is my belief that this stems primarily from the moral outrage we all feel about crime and the apparent inability of the judicial and prison systems to deter, rehabilitate and/or adequately (to our minds) punish criminals. I understand the response and the feeling of justification and righteous indignation in protecting what’s yours. However for your own physical and legal safety and that of those under your protection your focus needs to be on escape and protection rather than on seeing the attacker “detained”, “incapacitated” or “dead”. Not letting your guard down until a situation is totally resolved does not allow you to shoot a fleeing, now apparently unarmed man (even if he is a scumbag) because of what he may have been thinking about doing.
I obviously can’t say what was in this father’s mind. However I find it hard to believe that he fired because he thought the guy was “going to get a friend or another gun” or otherwise posed an immediate threat. I find it very easy to believe that he felt an overwhelming rage seeing his child bleeding in the street and wasn’t going to stand by, with a gun in his hand and let the guy get away without taking vengeance. As a father I can’t say if I would have done anything differently in this position (other than giving the guy my fucking coat and anything else I had and G’ingTFO with my kid) but it would be revenge, not self-defence. The rest is all just rationalization after the fact.
For better or for worse, this father will almost certainly need to articulate (through his attorney) how at the time that he shot the mugger, the mugger’s actions were posing a direct and imminent threat to himself or someone under his protection. I don’t now about NY law but in most places that would be his only legal justification (moral justifications aside). Make no mistake, I don’t feel the least bit sorry for the mugger, however the father’s legal authority to shoot (based on the article) is pretty shaky IMO.
All the same I, as a juror I would find it pretty hard to convict. Situation sucks.
It’s probably not legal to shoot the 17 yr old, but as the father of a 3 yr old I can understand how it would be almost impossible not to shoot the person who shot your child.
[quote]WolBarret wrote:
I hope they let the father slide. They broke into his home, shot his son, and he defended his family the best he could.[/quote]
And where did you read this? He was dropping his son off to his mom at a homeless shelter is what I read.
And from what I read, the kid got shot because the father tried to wrestle the gun away. Anger at someone pulling a gun on me and my child, I can understand; but at certain times you just suck it up. As a parent, my son’s safety would come first, period. Trying to play hero is what got his son shot. And then he compounded it by running down the street instead of checking on his son. IMO this is a fatherhood fail. Until I hear something different, he fucked up.
[quote]WolBarret wrote:
Walk into the hospital and shoot him in the head. No remorse for the robbers.[/quote]
x2
[quote]lewhitehurst wrote:
[quote]WolBarret wrote:
I hope they let the father slide. They broke into his home, shot his son, and he defended his family the best he could.[/quote]
And where did you read this? He was dropping his son off to his mom at a homeless shelter is what I read.
And from what I read, the kid got shot because the father tried to wrestle the gun away. Anger at someone pulling a gun on me and my child, I can understand; but at certain times you just suck it up. As a parent, my son’s safety would come first, period. Trying to play hero is what got his son shot. And then he compounded it by running down the street instead of checking on his son. IMO this is a fatherhood fail. Until I hear something different, he fucked up.[/quote]
Yeah, the details here are very important.
I really can’t give my opinion because this is too confusing. Did the robber shoot his son and then tried to run away? Or did the little kid get shot because his father tried to disarm the robber? It changes everything.
[quote]Edevus wrote:
[quote]lewhitehurst wrote:
[quote]WolBarret wrote:
I hope they let the father slide. They broke into his home, shot his son, and he defended his family the best he could.[/quote]
And where did you read this? He was dropping his son off to his mom at a homeless shelter is what I read.
And from what I read, the kid got shot because the father tried to wrestle the gun away. Anger at someone pulling a gun on me and my child, I can understand; but at certain times you just suck it up. As a parent, my son’s safety would come first, period. Trying to play hero is what got his son shot. And then he compounded it by running down the street instead of checking on his son. IMO this is a fatherhood fail. Until I hear something different, he fucked up.[/quote]
Yeah, the details here are very important.
I really can’t give my opinion because this is too confusing. Did the robber shoot his son and then tried to run away? Or did the little kid get shot because his father tried to disarm the robber? It changes everything.[/quote]
Yeah, details are important. I didn’t read that the kid was shot when/because of wrestling with the gun. Did the guy go crazy and start pointing the gun at the kid when the dad attacked? I wasn’t there and haven’t read anything that tells me exactly what happened. Until that I know more, I’ll support the father and child against the mugger. It was the mugger/killer’s fault, not the father’s.
[quote]RSGZ wrote:
[quote]WolBarret wrote:
Walk into the hospital and shoot him in the head. No remorse for the robbers.[/quote]
x2[/quote]
x3. Armed robber is basically a dead man walking the moment he pulls the weapon. Fuck 'em.
A lot of the times, the human element is lost in all the bullshit intricacies of written laws. Put yourself in his position and its not hard to see why he did what he did.
All these technicalities go against the victims more too often than in should. Understand that this man just saw his kid get shot. And the decision of the robber to commit that stupid act in the first place is the root of all this. He would not have to wrestle a gun away from someone if that someone did not commit the robbery in the first place.
[quote]B.L.U. Ninja wrote:
A lot of the times, the human element is lost in all the bullshit intricacies of written laws. Put yourself in his position and its not hard to see why he did what he did.
All these technicalities go against the victims more too often than in should. Understand that this man just saw his kid get shot. And the decision of the robber to commit that stupid act in the first place is the root of all this. He would not have to wrestle a gun away from someone if that someone did not commit the robbery in the first place.[/quote]
x2, however, had he been wrestling the gun away and his kid got shot, this would be even more tragic.
Sometimes you win by not fighting.
What is the point of a fight, other than an irrational violent outburst of anger?
People fight to force their will or to protect themselves, loved ones and things.
Had this guy been fighting to protect his jacket and most likely pride and lost his son, he most certainly lost the fight even if he did shoot the shooter so he isn’t free from critical questioning though we certainly were not there to see how things actually played out.