Unarmed man, father, walking his dog: "Please don't shoot me".... (crimes, biased)

[chucksnee]

Originally Posted by BruSan

"Police states"? What is it you're trying to convey with this foolishness?

Countries without the outrageous crime of the U.S. and where people CHOOSE to craft laws limiting the proliferation of firearms and where people can walk their dogs with neither fear of their daughter accompanying them or of getting murdered by worthless teen scum are "police states"?

I cannot pick up the morning paper without reading about multiple shootings, and you propose more firearms in the hands of a population dumber than a box of rocks is a good thing?

A country where police forces are arming themselves up the ying-yang with everything from armoured vehicles to rocket launchers and drones just to keep on a par with the thugs.

A country where mass riots are very nearly a monthly occurrence now due to police shooting unarmed people and you're so far removed from the reality of your domestic problems you can make that silly inane assertion?

Brother!

That news paper you pick up, is it thugs and drug dealers or.....

BROTHER....

[chucksnee]

Originally Posted by middle-aged mom

I know it's easy to buy a gun.

Was this particular gun a straw purchase and/or reported stolen? Did it belong to a parent or other relative?

So often guns that are used in senseless crimes like this are traced to common straw purchasers, often women, who sometimes buy hundreds of guns, over time and lose track of them.

Link to this please...

[lilyflower3191981]

Originally Posted by residinghere2007

:

And other fwiw, I have a good friend whose father and uncle were killed in the 70s by some teens. The teens only got 8-9 years as laws were different back then and they could not be charged as adults. Both teens now are law abiding citizens and one even works with at risk youth to keep them from making the same mistakes he made. When given a positive opportunity, most kids will overcome their trials if they are remorseful people.

The fact that the boy may have been on "meds" is also disturbing. We are giving to much mind altering medication to our children now-a-days.

Being remorseful is not good enough. You are giving these murderers too many excuses. It doesn't work anymore.

[residinghere2007]

Originally Posted by HiFi

That fact that you see those sociopaths as kids is disturbing to me.

I don't label people and I know that there are depths to the intricacies of actions and reactions. The fact that you don't see them as kids, when they are kids, is what is disturbing. It is disturbing to me that many people don't view kids as kids.

Originally Posted by ahzzie

Your attitude towards thugs like this is what's disturbing. You think just because they are a few years away from being adults they have no concept of right and wrong? They knew full well what they were doing and deserve nothing better than to spend the rest of their lives rotting in some prison. I have a feeling you'd want this man to be charged if he'd had a gun and defended himself by shooting first.

That is not an attitude. It is a scientifically based opinion that young teens do not have the same brain development of adults and are not unlikely to make dumb, sometimes disastrous decisions and actions. My opinion is not based on "right or wrong" it is based upon the fact that teens are not adults and do not think about outcomes like a rational adult would think about. They knew they were going to rob someone, but did the know they were going to kills someone.

And FWIW, I find it odd that both of you posters ignored the fact that I stated that the two youths in custody did not kill the victim. They were at the scene but did not pull the trigger. The killer according to the article is still at large. So I really don't think they should be tried as adults based upon the fact that they didn't commit a murder.

And for a sociopath, here's the definiton from dictionary.com:

1. sociopath
   
   Houghton Mifflin
   

   n.noun
   
   

   1. An adult who has a personality disorder marked by antisocial behavior.

Key word here being "adult." The kids are not adults.

[HiFi]

A remorseful person does not kill a stranger for no good reason, he is clearly no better than a rabid dog. His caregivers have failed him and he was raised as an animal, not a human being.

[SilverBulletZ06]

Originally Posted by TriMT7

I don't understand why someone has to be KILLED in a robbery?

If you're going to rob someone, just rob them. Why must they be KILLED in the process?

Are you of the Pelosi/Reid/Boxer/Democrat school of "if people don't have guns bad guys will put down their guns because that's human nature" school too?

People kill because killing is easier then getting a job or being a responsible member of society.

[HiFi]

Originally Posted by SilverBulletZ06

Are you of the Pelosi/Reid/Boxer/Democrat school of "if people don't have guns bad guys will put down their guns because that's human nature" school too?

People kill because killing is easier then getting a job or being a responsible member of society.

People kill (when there is no emotional motive) because they lack humanity, and should be treated as the animals they are. Either death or life with no parole. letting them out would be just as heinous of a crime as pulling the trigger yourself, because they will kill again, and the blood is on whomever's hands released them.

[lilyflower3191981]

Originally Posted by residinghere2007

That is not an attitude. It is a scientifically based opinion that young teens do not have the same brain development of adults and are not unlikely to make dumb, sometimes disastrous decisions and actions. My opinion is not based on "right or wrong" it is based upon the fact that teens are not adults and do not think about outcomes like a rational adult would think about. They knew they were going to rob someone, but did the know they were going to kills someone..

In criminal trials, the insanity defense is the claim that the defendant is not responsible for his or her actions during a mental health episode (psychiatric illness or mental handicap). Exemption of the insane from full criminal punishment dates back to at least the Code of Hammurabi.

Insanity defense - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You would have to prove that as a teen, he or she is not fully capable of grasping the gravity of his or her actions.

[Old Gringo]

Originally Posted by BruSan

"Police states"? What is it you're trying to convey with this foolishness?

It was simple, straightforward statement. Totally unambiguous. Somehow, it eluded your grasp.

Countries without the outrageous crime of the U.S. and where people CHOOSE to craft laws limiting the proliferation of firearms and where people can walk their dogs with neither fear of their daughter accompanying them or of getting murdered by worthless teen scum are "police states"?

No need to take it international. We have police states right here in the good ol' USA. Where the citizenry goes unarmed and the criminals hold the firepower. Don't you find it rather odd that the general trend is that the cities with the most violent crime have the most restrictive gun laws?

I cannot pick up the morning paper without reading about multiple shootings, and you propose more firearms in the hands of a population dumber than a box of rocks is a good thing?

I don't propose a thing.

When you read those stories of shootouts, are they usually due to 1) another mental defective as in Newtown or Aurora, 2) criminal activity or 3) lawful citizens defending themselves from criminals?

Over 20 years ago, when a number of states started loosening the chains on citizens being able to carry concealed weapons, there were outcries of "It's Dodge City all over again" and "There'll be crazy shootouts over fenderbenders almost daily"

What actually happened has been a reduction in violent crime.

FBI — Violent Crime

A country where police forces are arming themselves up the ying-yang with everything from armoured vehicles to rocket launchers and drones just to keep on a par with the thugs.

I choose to defend myself against the armed thugs, should the need arise.

Of course, you're completely free to remain defenseless, as is anyone else who prefers to be.

A country where mass riots are very nearly a monthly occurrence now due to police shooting unarmed people and you're so far removed from the reality of your domestic problems you can make that silly inane assertion?

Again, your emotional screed overpowers your reasoning ability. The police (by a 2005 supreme court ruling) are under no legal obligation to protect you, your family, or anyone in the public.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/po...otus.html?_r=0

I would think that in the very unlikely event that they were to happen upon an assault in progress, that they'd probably intervene. But criminals have a tendency to act when there are no police present. The police have a duty to collect evidence, perform some sort of investigation (depending largely on how well the victim is connected or how much the press hounds them), perhaps someday make an arrest, and then the legal system will maybe attempt to take the perp to trial. They may or may not get a conviction. That's how it works. Both of my brothers are LEOs. They live this process.

You can trust your safety to the vanishingly small probability that the police will save you if you're ever caught in a critical incident like the OP lays out. You can leave your fate at the mercy of criminal attackers, as the victim in the OP article did. We've both seen how well that played out.

Self defense is a personal responsibility. How you approach it is up to you.

My guns and I have never harmed anyone. I've been armed for decades.

Try this analogy...

We don't look at drunken driving as an automobile problem. We approach it as an issue with personal behavior and don't attempt to keep cars away from sober people.

Gun control advocates tend to favor preventing law abiding citizens from owning firearms.

The reality is that there are some dirtbags in circulation among us who prey on the law abiding citizenry. They may be a small percentage and the odds of any one of us being victimized is low. But I carry a weapon for the same reason I keep a fire extinguisher in my home and a spare tire in my vehicle; just in case. I used to be a Boy Scout: "Be prepared"

YMMV

Brother!

If you're not Steve, then dial it back.

[Floorist]

Originally Posted by 2e1m5a

It's pretty easy to purchase an illegal handgun in a major city, which is why gun laws are so ineffective. The only people that comply are not criminals in the first place.

I wonder where they got the money ($200+) to buy it?

I bought a handgun off a young man (that I knew had mental health issues) on the street one time. I figured it was safer if I had it than him. I gave $30 for it. It was so cheaply made, I disposed of it. And I do own guns.