65-year-old Shoots Dead Two Teenage Muggers
Scroll to see replies
this posting from a cycling forum shows that at least one elderly man has been taking his weapon with him on the trail in question since 2009
http://www.bikeforums.net/archive/index.php/t-548581.html
Yeah, that majorly sux. The little urchins are at it again- I thought this problem was solved last year. Oh yeah, I thought our roach problem was taken care of last year too, but.... actually it was- maybe we should use some Raid on these low-lifes? My wife and I did 50 mile rides on the SRT in May on the 19th and the 21st. Passing back through the Hawes Ave. area around 5 to 5:30 pm. On the 21st we had three of the red T-shirt thugs next to the trail as we came up the hill onto the railroad bridge. Of course giving the two gray haired old white folks ugly looks. As we approached them I simply pulled up the side of my shirt and wraped my hand around the butt of the Colt on my hip. They backed away from the trail. If I go out front, here, at night and look down into the next block I see a bunch of long red t-shirts and black pants. Selling drugs to cars that stop in the middle of the block. I didn't bother asking any of the neighborhood youths as to which gang is wearing the long red t-shirts. We have one group wears only long white t-shirts and the other wears the long red t-shirts. The ones in the red t-shirts make their dislike of whites very plain. Here in this town it is part of the gang initiation to go beat up on a white person. No doubt the ones in Norristown work the same way. No doubt but that the local police will get on them. The trail is to important to the communities to let a bunch of thugs prey on the trail users. Late in the day on May 21 we saw a Montgomery County sheriff cruising the trail on his motorcycle. We had seen some Latin King graffitti along the trail last year but they did not bother any trail users. You would see two or three of them walking their pit bulls along the trail around Norristown. The local police warned them not to bother trail users. They got the message quickly. In 2007 the local police patrolled the trail heavily. The summer of 2008 saw few problems in that area. Now the drug gangs moved into Norristown as is seen in the red t-shirts on the playgrounds on either side of the trail at Hawes Ave. After our May rides I was wondering when they would do something stupid. In 2007 the PA State Police had at least 5 officers ride the trail in the Norristown section. We watched them train on the bikes. Impressive!! They were all very big men. I suspect that after this latest attack we will be seeing a lot of police on the trail in that section.
and later:
In regards to the intimidation thing. My wife and I have run into that at Hawes Ave. several times. Three or four thugs standing or walking and blocking the trail completely. We live here in center city Reading. We get that sort of nonsense almost daily. You are expected to avert your eyes and not look at them directly. To the street thugs mind averting your eyes is showing respect and an admission that they are stronger and superior to you. There have been fights and shootings involving this line of thought. My thinking is that you don't intimidate an old man packing a Colt or an S&W! There are a large number of trail users who are not wise in the ways of the street thugs. So the possibility or more violent incidents is always present.
http://www.bikeforums.net/archive/index.php/t-548581.html
Yeah, that majorly sux. The little urchins are at it again- I thought this problem was solved last year. Oh yeah, I thought our roach problem was taken care of last year too, but.... actually it was- maybe we should use some Raid on these low-lifes? My wife and I did 50 mile rides on the SRT in May on the 19th and the 21st. Passing back through the Hawes Ave. area around 5 to 5:30 pm. On the 21st we had three of the red T-shirt thugs next to the trail as we came up the hill onto the railroad bridge. Of course giving the two gray haired old white folks ugly looks. As we approached them I simply pulled up the side of my shirt and wraped my hand around the butt of the Colt on my hip. They backed away from the trail. If I go out front, here, at night and look down into the next block I see a bunch of long red t-shirts and black pants. Selling drugs to cars that stop in the middle of the block. I didn't bother asking any of the neighborhood youths as to which gang is wearing the long red t-shirts. We have one group wears only long white t-shirts and the other wears the long red t-shirts. The ones in the red t-shirts make their dislike of whites very plain. Here in this town it is part of the gang initiation to go beat up on a white person. No doubt the ones in Norristown work the same way. No doubt but that the local police will get on them. The trail is to important to the communities to let a bunch of thugs prey on the trail users. Late in the day on May 21 we saw a Montgomery County sheriff cruising the trail on his motorcycle. We had seen some Latin King graffitti along the trail last year but they did not bother any trail users. You would see two or three of them walking their pit bulls along the trail around Norristown. The local police warned them not to bother trail users. They got the message quickly. In 2007 the local police patrolled the trail heavily. The summer of 2008 saw few problems in that area. Now the drug gangs moved into Norristown as is seen in the red t-shirts on the playgrounds on either side of the trail at Hawes Ave. After our May rides I was wondering when they would do something stupid. In 2007 the PA State Police had at least 5 officers ride the trail in the Norristown section. We watched them train on the bikes. Impressive!! They were all very big men. I suspect that after this latest attack we will be seeing a lot of police on the trail in that section.
and later:
In regards to the intimidation thing. My wife and I have run into that at Hawes Ave. several times. Three or four thugs standing or walking and blocking the trail completely. We live here in center city Reading. We get that sort of nonsense almost daily. You are expected to avert your eyes and not look at them directly. To the street thugs mind averting your eyes is showing respect and an admission that they are stronger and superior to you. There have been fights and shootings involving this line of thought. My thinking is that you don't intimidate an old man packing a Colt or an S&W! There are a large number of trail users who are not wise in the ways of the street thugs. So the possibility or more violent incidents is always present.
(edited 12 years ago)
Original post by thunder_chunky
All you need is a steady arm.
If he's that incapable of aiming and shooting without killing he shouldn't have a gun or access to a gun nor should he ever think about going near one.
Shooting the leg can be just as lethal but I'd say there is less chance. Of course there is a chance of missing and hitting someone else but I would at least consider it before aiming for the persons main body mass area
If he's that incapable of aiming and shooting without killing he shouldn't have a gun or access to a gun nor should he ever think about going near one.
Shooting the leg can be just as lethal but I'd say there is less chance. Of course there is a chance of missing and hitting someone else but I would at least consider it before aiming for the persons main body mass area
That's not the point. If you carry a fire arm you carry it as a lethal weapon. Otherwise you'd use a taser of something. The point of a firearm is that it is a lethal deterrent and that is why the US constitution gives individuals the right to bear arms.
In a violent situation with a firearm you are always trained and advised to shoot to kill.
Original post by thunder_chunky
Yes I have. Properly I might add and more than one type.
That's surprising. Usually even minimal practical experience disavows people of silly notions like shooting people in the leg.
Yes well this is true however firstly the army shoot to kill the police don't always shoot to kill (not straight away) as far as my understanding goes.
Secondly I do have experience firing weapons but my experience is irrelevant.
Thirdly what you wrote just above is irrelevant because you have no idea just what training this man had and if so how much he'd had. He might have been in the army or a former armed police officer or maybe not.
Either way he pulled his gun and shot them.
Did he give a warning? (providing he had the time and opportunity) And if he did have the time then perhaps the fatal shot was not neccesary.
Of course it depends on the details of the situation, but what I am simply saying is that can we be sure it was neccesary and acceptable for him to go for the kill shot?
Secondly I do have experience firing weapons but my experience is irrelevant.
Thirdly what you wrote just above is irrelevant because you have no idea just what training this man had and if so how much he'd had. He might have been in the army or a former armed police officer or maybe not.
Either way he pulled his gun and shot them.
Did he give a warning? (providing he had the time and opportunity) And if he did have the time then perhaps the fatal shot was not neccesary.
Of course it depends on the details of the situation, but what I am simply saying is that can we be sure it was neccesary and acceptable for him to go for the kill shot?
At very close range - apparently his assailants pushed him off his bike - there's no time or space for any of this nonsense. Once the attackers get on top of him the gun is useless and it's more likely they will take than that he will get to fire it.
The options are to use the gun and all possible force to incapacitate the assailants as quickly as possible, or to not draw it and hope they don't beat him to death. As far as I'm concerned he was under no obligation to choose the second option when he was attacked while peacefully minding his own business.
Original post by nohomo
You can probably do some googling to find that out. But from the viewpoint of someone uneducated about firearms, why is it any better to shoot at the person? You are guaranteeing them damage, and the bullet could go through them and injure others.
I'd much rather guarantee damage to someone who may end up killing me than risk damage to an innocent bystander.
Original post by Garam Masala
No. There's a very strong likelihood that these boys would have mugged again. Who knows, they may have later become murderers, that's a possibility that we can't deny. What this man has done has wiped one of them off the streets. The other is probably too disabled or shocked to commit the act again.
What he did was justified not just for the old man's sake but also for other decent members of the public. It's a shame that the boys had to commit that in the first place, after all they grew up in very underprivileged circumstances, however I don't pity them because they always had a choice.
But two less violent boys means fewer innocent people being assaulted or even murdered.
If he only used it as a deterrent, they were almost certainly going to commit a similar act at a later stage.
Justified killing in my opinion.
What he did was justified not just for the old man's sake but also for other decent members of the public. It's a shame that the boys had to commit that in the first place, after all they grew up in very underprivileged circumstances, however I don't pity them because they always had a choice.
But two less violent boys means fewer innocent people being assaulted or even murdered.
If he only used it as a deterrent, they were almost certainly going to commit a similar act at a later stage.
Justified killing in my opinion.
What are you basing the assumption that they will perform the act again on? The two boys could have changed later on in their lives we don't know, they could have become a valuable asset to society, but now the chance of that happening is nil.
The man also had a choice whether to kill or not.
Great solution you have there, if anybody is being violent don't show them the error of their ways, so that they can change and set an example for others just like them,just kill them.
Almost certainly going to commit a similar act later? How do you know this?
Original post by Besakt
What are you basing the assumption that they will perform the act again on? The two boys could have changed later on in their lives we don't know, they could have become a valuable asset to society, but now the chance of that happening is nil.
The man also had a choice whether to kill or not.
Great solution you have there, if anybody is being violent don't show them the error of their ways, so that they can change and set an example for others just like them,just kill them.
Almost certainly going to commit a similar act later? How do you know this?
The man also had a choice whether to kill or not.
Great solution you have there, if anybody is being violent don't show them the error of their ways, so that they can change and set an example for others just like them,just kill them.
Almost certainly going to commit a similar act later? How do you know this?
Obviously there's a strong likelihood given their background. Don't get all semantic and demand a source for this, it's common sense. This is a mugging that involves assult, not a petty theft. Mugging is often notorious, particularly if it's instigated by individuals so young. They're far more likely to commit the act again than not.
How does stealing, assaulting, possibly murdering and milking governmental benefits benefit society? How on earth does that make them a valuable asset to society? You would rather they got away free to commit another atrocity? Because if the old man had just deterred them, they would have got away free, and they almost certainly would have mugged someone else at a later stage, how could you condone even this?
I haven't proposed a solution, I merely stated an opinion on the matter itself. What the old man did was right. Ideally it would be great if criminals could just stop and we could be assured of this, without having to kill them or lock them up. But obviously that's impossible. There's no way the old man could have handed them to the police, they would have just run away. He did both himself and society a favour.
And it isn't as simple as 'the old man had a choice'. You haven't encountered anything of this nature so how would you know that it's that simple. When you're being mugged you might think that it's your life on the line. Perhaps the old man thought that they were carrying knives. The two boys instigated the incident by knocking the old man off his bike which would have instantly got his adrenaline going. He was carrying a gun, so his immediate split second thought may have been 'kill or be killed'.
Why was he carrying a gun? Incidents of this nature were notorious on this route so he had to protect himself.
(edited 12 years ago)
Original post by Garam Masala
Obviously there's a strong likelihood given their background. Don't get all semantic and demand a source for this, it's common sense. This is a mugging that involves assult, not a petty theft. Mugging is often notorious, particularly if it's instigated by individuals so young. They're far more likely to commit the act again than not. Even petty theft would likely be repeated if it is done once.
How does stealing, assaulting, possibly murdering and milking governmental benefits benefit society? How on earth does that make them a valuable asset to society? You would rather they got away free to commit another atrocity? Because if the old man had just deterred them, they would have got away free, and they almost certainly would have mugged someone else at a later stage, how could you condone even this?
I haven't proposed a solution, I merely stated an opinion on the matter itself. What the old man did was right. Ideally it would be great if criminals could just stop and we could be assured of this, without having to kill them or lock them up. But obviously that's impossible. There's no way the old man could have handed them to the police, they would have just run away. He did both himself and society a favour.
And it isn't as simple as 'the old man had a choice'. You haven't encountered anything of this nature so how would you know that it's that simple. When you're being mugged you might think that it's your life on the line. Perhaps the old man thought that they were carrying knives. The two boys instigated the incident by knocking the old man off his bike which would have instantly got his adrenaline going. He was carrying a gun, so his immediate split second thought may have been 'kill or be killed'.
Why was he carrying a gun? Incidents of this nature were notorious on this route so he had to protect himself.
How does stealing, assaulting, possibly murdering and milking governmental benefits benefit society? How on earth does that make them a valuable asset to society? You would rather they got away free to commit another atrocity? Because if the old man had just deterred them, they would have got away free, and they almost certainly would have mugged someone else at a later stage, how could you condone even this?
I haven't proposed a solution, I merely stated an opinion on the matter itself. What the old man did was right. Ideally it would be great if criminals could just stop and we could be assured of this, without having to kill them or lock them up. But obviously that's impossible. There's no way the old man could have handed them to the police, they would have just run away. He did both himself and society a favour.
And it isn't as simple as 'the old man had a choice'. You haven't encountered anything of this nature so how would you know that it's that simple. When you're being mugged you might think that it's your life on the line. Perhaps the old man thought that they were carrying knives. The two boys instigated the incident by knocking the old man off his bike which would have instantly got his adrenaline going. He was carrying a gun, so his immediate split second thought may have been 'kill or be killed'.
Why was he carrying a gun? Incidents of this nature were notorious on this route so he had to protect himself.
Is it just a prejudice view you hold of these people?
I never said they are a benefit to society at the moment, but they have the potential to change. No the old man has killed one of them that hasn't deterred them that has taken a life. What makes you think they would have gotten away free? They would probably have got reported and faced the consequences of their actions which would not have resulted in death.
The old man would have given a description of them and the police would be looking for them. They would get caught and face up to the consequences. The solution you are implying is that violent people should be killed, I disagree.
What makes you think I haven't encountered anything of this nature? I have been mugged and 'jumped', but no I wouldn't wish death upon those people, in fact one of the guys that mugged me is the manager at my local primark, and I am now pretty good friends with him, he is also deeply sorry of what he used to do, just an example of how people can change.
Original post by Bellissima
i am also disgusted by your "ridding the world of two scumbags" comment... cannot desribe how appallingly sick that is... you do not deserve to die because you make the decision to rob someone. i am not blaming the man for shooting them when they were attacking him... however agreeing with their DEATH is wrong on so many levels... do you think theives/muggers deserve the death sentence?
What if a group of yobs gang raped a father's daughter and did a "Harry Brown" as eluded to above? Granted, this is a different situation and I am not belittling rape here by equating them, I just think, in situations of adversity, human instinct takes over and the Law should recognise this but it is formulated by people who are often never in this situation in grand ivory towers. The use of weapons can help make it reasonable force is the victim is a weaker person and outnumbered. Replace the old man with a vulnerable young woman and she's confronted by two strong men she knows to be rapists. She shoots them, would people's reactions differ then?
Original post by Besakt
Is it just a prejudice view you hold of these people?
I never said they are a benefit to society at the moment, but they have the potential to change. No the old man has killed one of them that hasn't deterred them that has taken a life. What makes you think they would have gotten away free? They would probably have got reported and faced the consequences of their actions which would not have resulted in death.
The old man would have given a description of them and the police would be looking for them. They would get caught and face up to the consequences. The solution you are implying is that violent people should be killed, I disagree.
What makes you think I haven't encountered anything of this nature? I have been mugged and 'jumped', but no I wouldn't wish death upon those people, in fact one of the guys that mugged me is the manager at my local primark, and I am now pretty good friends with him, he is also deeply sorry of what he used to do, just an example of how people can change.
I never said they are a benefit to society at the moment, but they have the potential to change. No the old man has killed one of them that hasn't deterred them that has taken a life. What makes you think they would have gotten away free? They would probably have got reported and faced the consequences of their actions which would not have resulted in death.
The old man would have given a description of them and the police would be looking for them. They would get caught and face up to the consequences. The solution you are implying is that violent people should be killed, I disagree.
What makes you think I haven't encountered anything of this nature? I have been mugged and 'jumped', but no I wouldn't wish death upon those people, in fact one of the guys that mugged me is the manager at my local primark, and I am now pretty good friends with him, he is also deeply sorry of what he used to do, just an example of how people can change.
How the hell is it prejudice? Prejudice is preconceived opinion not based on reason. So no, I wouldn't say I'm prejudiced against individuals who have been proved to have committed a criminal act.
They are far more likely to not be reported had they gotten away. The old man's description to the police would have counted for nothing. You must realize that so many incidences of criminality go unsolved and unreported by the media. The police are far from perfect. As for being mugged, don't tell me you have encountered a situation as grave as the old man's. That's bull****. Your reasoning would be greatly impaired in his situation and you're saying it wouldn't be? That's utter rubbish. Being 'jumped on' on a primary school playground when you were a kid does not count. Of course in a split second, with your life on the line, you're likely to do something irrational. You simply don't have the time to think it through.
Original post by NDGAARONDI
What if a group of yobs gang raped a father's daughter and did a "Harry Brown" as eluded to above? Granted, this is a different situation and I am not belittling rape here by equating them, I just think, in situations of adversity, human instinct takes over and the Law should recognise this but it is formulated by people who are often never in this situation in grand ivory towers. The use of weapons can help make it reasonable force is the victim is a weaker person and outnumbered. Replace the old man with a vulnerable young woman and she's confronted by two strong men she knows to be rapists. She shoots them, would people's reactions differ then?
if people carry weapons, then the attackers will carry weapons, if weapons are legal.. they will be easier to get. adding the guns to a situation makes it A LOT worse especially if people are untrained.. i am not anti guns, i own a gun... (not for this reason obv)... what i AM against is the general untrained population owning guns and carrying them around concealed under their jackets, even if training was obligatory every year for your lisence, that would go out the window in most real life situations. what i am against is small time criminals eg. muggers like those in the OP carrying guns instead of knives/nothing.
in the case of rape if women are really paranoid enough to carry a concealed gun, then they should get one of those anti rape contraptions instead.
again, i said i do not blame the man for shooting them... i think celebrating a boys death/wishing the injured one who survived was dead is sick and disgusting.
Original post by Garam Masala
How the hell is it prejudice? Prejudice is preconceived opinion not based on reason. So no, I wouldn't say I'm prejudiced against individuals who have been proved to have committed a criminal act.
They are far more likely to not be reported had they gotten away. The old man's description to the police would have counted for nothing. You must realize that so many incidences of criminality go unsolved and unreported by the media. The police are far from perfect. As for being mugged, don't tell me you have encountered a situation as grave as the old man's. That's bull****. Your reasoning would be greatly impaired in his situation and you're saying it wouldn't be? That's utter rubbish. Being 'jumped on' on a primary school playground when you were a kid does not count. Of course in a split second, with your life on the line, you're likely to do something irrational. You simply don't have the time to think it through.
They are far more likely to not be reported had they gotten away. The old man's description to the police would have counted for nothing. You must realize that so many incidences of criminality go unsolved and unreported by the media. The police are far from perfect. As for being mugged, don't tell me you have encountered a situation as grave as the old man's. That's bull****. Your reasoning would be greatly impaired in his situation and you're saying it wouldn't be? That's utter rubbish. Being 'jumped on' on a primary school playground when you were a kid does not count. Of course in a split second, with your life on the line, you're likely to do something irrational. You simply don't have the time to think it through.
Your prejudice against the fact that you think that these people will never change.
I do not know how badly this man was hit so I can't say I have encountered a position as bad as his but I can say, I have ended up in A&E several times because of being jumped for hanging around with the wrong crowd.
So you admit what the man did was irrational. "I didn't have enough time to think the situation through so I killed somebody".
This is good. This old man (bravo to him) saved the judicial system tons of money and prevented two idiots from growing into possible thieves and murderers. Kids like this who have no compassion for older people, at such a young age cannot possibly be expected to grow up into respectable adults.
There is a difference between childish mischief and just blatant assault. That guy was old enough to be their grandpa and they attacked him and tried to mug him.
I am glad that little bastard got shot. Yeah maybe it would've been ideal if he wasn't killed but I wont be shedding a tear over that anytime soon. They walked into it...
This is what stupidity leads to in today's world.
There is a difference between childish mischief and just blatant assault. That guy was old enough to be their grandpa and they attacked him and tried to mug him.
I am glad that little bastard got shot. Yeah maybe it would've been ideal if he wasn't killed but I wont be shedding a tear over that anytime soon. They walked into it...
This is what stupidity leads to in today's world.
Original post by Besakt
Your prejudice against the fact that you think that these people will never change.
I do not know how badly this man was hit so I can't say I have encountered a position as bad as his but I can say, I have ended up in A&E several times because of being jumped for hanging around with the wrong crowd.
So you admit what the man did was irrational. "I didn't have enough time to think the situation through so I killed somebody".
I do not know how badly this man was hit so I can't say I have encountered a position as bad as his but I can say, I have ended up in A&E several times because of being jumped for hanging around with the wrong crowd.
So you admit what the man did was irrational. "I didn't have enough time to think the situation through so I killed somebody".
You might want to look up the definition of 'prejudice'. I certainly wouldn't call it prejudice if it's aimed at those confirmed to have committed a criminal act.
Well yes of course you're inclined to do something irrational if it's a split second decision, which is precisely what he was facing. And you have admitted that you haven't faced anything to the extent that he has. As I said before, in an ideal world you don't want anyone hurt but the fact of the matter is it was the right thing to do. What would you prefer: two notorious thugs being allowed to run off and who are highly likely going to assault someone else and possibly kill him/her? Or for them to be taken out so that they can't possibly commit another heinous act? I think I would settle for the latter. They deserved to be punished and they justly received what they deserved.
You've also admitted that you were hanging around with the wrong crowd, well that's your bloody fault though isn't it?
This man wasn't looking for trouble, get your facts straight. He was an innocent civilian riding a bicycle trying to get somewhere and was maliciously knocked off it by a couple of petulant, sick minded, young thugs. Precisely the sort who would pick on the weak, which is frankly disgusting. They would do it again and again and possibly to no avail had they been let off.(edited 12 years ago)
Original post by Bellissima
if people carry weapons, then the attackers will carry weapons, if weapons are legal.. they will be easier to get. adding the guns to a situation makes it A LOT worse especially if people are untrained.. i am not anti guns, i own a gun... (not for this reason obv)... what i AM against is the general untrained population owning guns and carrying them around concealed under their jackets, even if training was obligatory every year for your lisence, that would go out the window in most real life situations. what i am against is small time criminals eg. muggers like those in the OP carrying guns instead of knives/nothing.
in the case of rape if women are really paranoid enough to carry a concealed gun, then they should get one of those anti rape contraptions instead.
again, i said i do not blame the man for shooting them... i think celebrating a boys death/wishing the injured one who survived was dead is sick and disgusting.
in the case of rape if women are really paranoid enough to carry a concealed gun, then they should get one of those anti rape contraptions instead.
again, i said i do not blame the man for shooting them... i think celebrating a boys death/wishing the injured one who survived was dead is sick and disgusting.
Celebrating any person's death is disgusting let alone a boy. But I don't see anyone saying "HOOOORAYYY THEY'RE DEAD". Many of us are just glad about the action the old man took. The celebration is about the old man's actions, his survival, and stopping a heinous act. Not the death and injury of the respective instigators.
Original post by Garam Masala
Celebrating any person's death is disgusting let alone a boy. But I don't see anyone saying "HOOOORAYYY THEY'RE DEAD". Many of us are just glad about the action the old man took. The celebration is about the old man's actions, his survival, and stopping a heinous act. Not the death and injury of the respective instigators.
I support this point. I am glad the kids got the punishment for their crime. Yeah maybe the kid staying alive would've been better but in the uncertainties of life...stuff like this happens.
This is why you shouldn't go up to people and provoke them only because you perceive them to be weak and defenseless.
When you are wrong...you find out the hard way.
What an earth is all the argument here?. For two young fit men to pick on an elderly man is the action of savages and cowardly .Back in the day when Britain had real gangsters walking the streets ,such a crime would have not just got them in trouble with the police but maybe with the crime families themselves. There was more of a code of honour back them. Women,children and the elderly were left alone. If that elderly man had been living in the UK, he would have been battered and robbed,maybe killed . There might have been a picture of the poor old soul in the papers with bruises all over him.
This pair had no respect for his life and he was perfectly right to defend himself ,and a firearm evened things up. And how some states in the US treat those who defend themselves, we could learn a lot from. I suspect in this country,if the old man had fatally stabbed one of them he would have been locked up in some stinking urine smelling cell at least for 24 hrs .Even if no charges had been pressed,or the court was lenient with him that is not the point. It is more the fact the balance of our justice system has gone too far one way.
The rights and lives of savages are not just seen as equal but worth more to the gutter rats in the legal profession in this country and it is unacceptable. I will always side with the vunerable and the law abiding over the scum who inhabit these isles.I hardly think when that poor man was confronted with those young fit men who meant him harm, he was thinking about their potential to change or their families.He would be frightened and scared, and in fear of his own life,he would be living in the moment . That is where the argument of the left falls down. And that is why quite rightly he should not get in any kind of trouble.
This pair had no respect for his life and he was perfectly right to defend himself ,and a firearm evened things up. And how some states in the US treat those who defend themselves, we could learn a lot from. I suspect in this country,if the old man had fatally stabbed one of them he would have been locked up in some stinking urine smelling cell at least for 24 hrs .Even if no charges had been pressed,or the court was lenient with him that is not the point. It is more the fact the balance of our justice system has gone too far one way.
The rights and lives of savages are not just seen as equal but worth more to the gutter rats in the legal profession in this country and it is unacceptable. I will always side with the vunerable and the law abiding over the scum who inhabit these isles.I hardly think when that poor man was confronted with those young fit men who meant him harm, he was thinking about their potential to change or their families.He would be frightened and scared, and in fear of his own life,he would be living in the moment . That is where the argument of the left falls down. And that is why quite rightly he should not get in any kind of trouble.
(edited 12 years ago)
Original post by Bellissima
if people carry weapons, then the attackers will carry weapons, if weapons are legal.. they will be easier to get. adding the guns to a situation makes it A LOT worse especially if people are untrained.. i am not anti guns, i own a gun... (not for this reason obv)... what i AM against is the general untrained population owning guns and carrying them around concealed under their jackets, even if training was obligatory every year for your lisence, that would go out the window in most real life situations. what i am against is small time criminals eg. muggers like those in the OP carrying guns instead of knives/nothing.
in the case of rape if women are really paranoid enough to carry a concealed gun, then they should get one of those anti rape contraptions instead.
again, i said i do not blame the man for shooting them... i think celebrating a boys death/wishing the injured one who survived was dead is sick and disgusting.
in the case of rape if women are really paranoid enough to carry a concealed gun, then they should get one of those anti rape contraptions instead.
again, i said i do not blame the man for shooting them... i think celebrating a boys death/wishing the injured one who survived was dead is sick and disgusting.
Fair point. I'm under the impression that sometimes it can be easy to get guns like in various parts of London if you know where to look. So if this is the case then some victims who would be able to get a gun lose out.
The best form of defence I suppose is martial arts but that costs money and not everyone is good at it and sometimes it's pointless in a street. I used to practice taekwondo. I remember watching on Crimewatch some burglar tried burgling a house and he thought he got away with an empty house. The residents of the house show up and the couple are martial artists and the burglar tried threatening them with a samurai sword so the guy got a baseball bat from the car boot and immobilised him (not permanently). The police investigated it and dropped the case as using a baseball bat against a samurai sword was deemed equal force. The guy also aimed at the legs rather than the head or knees etc.
The ignorance in this thread is astounding.
Original post by NDGAARONDI
Fair point. I'm under the impression that sometimes it can be easy to get guns like in various parts of London if you know where to look. So if this is the case then some victims who would be able to get a gun lose out.
The best form of defence I suppose is martial arts but that costs money and not everyone is good at it and sometimes it's pointless in a street. I used to practice taekwondo. I remember watching on Crimewatch some burglar tried burgling a house and he thought he got away with an empty house. The residents of the house show up and the couple are martial artists and the burglar tried threatening them with a samurai sword so the guy got a baseball bat from the car boot and immobilised him (not permanently). The police investigated it and dropped the case as using a baseball bat against a samurai sword was deemed equal force. The guy also aimed at the legs rather than the head or knees etc.
The best form of defence I suppose is martial arts but that costs money and not everyone is good at it and sometimes it's pointless in a street. I used to practice taekwondo. I remember watching on Crimewatch some burglar tried burgling a house and he thought he got away with an empty house. The residents of the house show up and the couple are martial artists and the burglar tried threatening them with a samurai sword so the guy got a baseball bat from the car boot and immobilised him (not permanently). The police investigated it and dropped the case as using a baseball bat against a samurai sword was deemed equal force. The guy also aimed at the legs rather than the head or knees etc.
yeah i am sure in some areas it's easy enough to get a hand gun if you know the right people.. but think how much easier it would be if anyone could apply for a handgun lisense and shops started selling them and more and more were being imported... that's just what i think
yeah i def think martial arts is a really good defence.. would like to do it myself but i doubt i ever will!
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Of Mice and Men, extract question Jan 2024 exam
- Teenager given 2 year youth sentence for killing an 82 year old man.
- Shooting in Brussels. Shooter still at large.
- Should XL bully dogs be banned?
- My Chemical Romance
- Who was your teenage crush?
- Why teenage boys like older woman?
- Why am I so behind everyone else
- is my epq question too broad?
- Why do people see 18 year olds as kids
- Final year mark?
- Going out with a 45 year old.
- Is there anything wrong about renting?
- How do I deal with my horrid parents?
- Would you date a man 14-18 years older ?
- A warning on investment banking (M&A) careers
- Was this ever a 2:1?
- Revisions tips for Certificate of Finance?
- Compounding and projected value
- Favourite Story Based Video Game?
Latest
Last reply 1 minute ago
Rwanda bill likely to be stalled at least till April after seven defeats in the LordsPosted 7 minutes ago
Sunak rejects offer of youth mobility scheme between EU and UKLast reply 42 minutes ago
Bank Of england degree apprenticeship 2024Last reply 47 minutes ago
Feeling inferior compared to syrians as a half moroccan/half whiteLast reply 49 minutes ago
Edexcel A Level Business Paper 1 (9BS0 01) - 14th May 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 53 minutes ago
LSE International Social and Public Policy and Economics (LLK1) 2024 ThreadLast reply 55 minutes ago
Official London School of Economics and Political Science 2024 Applicant ThreadLast reply 56 minutes ago
Atkins Degree Apprenticeship 2024Last reply 1 hour ago
Official University of St Andrews Applicant Thread for 2024Last reply 1 hour ago
Learn Direct - Vet science Unit 9 HELPTrending
Last reply 17 hours ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 17 hours ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
