Another Florida CCW permit holder stands their ground, kills assailant.

[Atypical Liberal]

http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/dpp/news/local/hillsborough/police%3A-clerk-shoots-robber-at-mini-mart-032612

"Police say a regular customer of the store walked in needing change. They say 30 minutes later, the 16-year-old suspect came back with a gun, demanding money.

In initial reports, the Tampa Police Department said the store's owner, 31-year-old Taquanda Shanti Baker, told them the suspect fired a shot at her.

Now they say Baker told them that the suspect pointed a gun at her. She said she fired one shot into the ground accidentally, then fired a shot at the suspect."

Video at the link.

Good for the store owner!

[teddy51]

1. "Good for the store owner!" Maybe, except that a major can of worms has now been opened.

Before long it will become like the old wild west where everyone and his mother will be wearing a holstered gun. Where will it all end?

[TheWraith]

4. Oh please. They've been saying that for decades. It's still not true.

The reality is that violent crime continues to go down, putting the lie to the claim that every human being on the street is a homicidal maniac.

[davidthegnome]

7. Uhhh

No one said that every human being on the street was a homicidal maniac. Though there are unquestionably a significant number of homicidal maniacs on the street on any given day.

[hlthe2b]

10. It may have been "legally justified", but morally justified to kill a 16 yo WIthOUT REGRET?

Last edited Wed Apr 4, 2012, 08:59 PM - Edit history (1)

THAT is what bothers me.

Of course there are occasions where that might be necessary, but just as I hate that our society thinks the police should use a taser against old people, very young unruly or mentally challenged children and peaceful demonstrators, rather than any other more benign (and time consuming) intervention, I absolutely DETEST that so many don't think twice about killing a 16 yo-even one foolish enough to brandish a weapon.

Spare me the platitudes "gun" folks. I know the police does not teach non-lethal wounding shots in most jurisdictions anymore, but there are instances where that makes sense to do. And, spare me the blanket statements about "how foolish one would be to take less than a lethal shot" .... I won't regret anything if I am wrong and dead. But, if I am alive and have to live my entire life wondering "what if" with respect to taking a CHILD's life, well, I'd rather be dead. I know this will incite some of our more "determined" gunners to look upon me with utter disdain, but so be it. I still value life.

On edit, for any additional Gun-Obsessives, I'm done with the ugliness so frequently permeating the responses in this forum to anyone who is not 100% ok with killing, whether 'self-defense' or not. I will not respond to those kinds of comments, so you can save yourself the effort.

[PavePusher]

17. "I know the police does not teach non-lethal wounding shots in most jurisdictions anymore..."

"anymore"? When did they ever do this?

If you are so well trained that you can shoot a moving gun-man in the arm or leg, please share your expertise with the rest of us. When will you be holding classes?

And the fact that you would say you'd rather be dead then defend yourself against a lethally armed and threatening person just makes you sound... foolish.

[hlthe2b]

73. and your comments are just

as ugly as you apparently intended.

[gejohnston]

74. but accurate

what you see on TV cop shows and westerns have nothing to do with reality. I don't know of any police force in the world that trains to aim for a leg or shoulder (which could be more lethal than the chest.)

[hlthe2b]

75. I note that you are usually among the more moderate here...

(at least in terms of your comments) so i would suggest that your interjecting in my reply to the other poster who called me a "fool" to agree with him makes your retort every bit as ugly and despicable. Very sad to see you drop to that level.

[gejohnston]

79. let me clarify

the description of police training is accurate. That has nothing to do with name calling. My bad.

[Callisto32]

88. Suggesting you "shoot to wound" IS foolish.

It's just about the WORST possible thing you can do with a firearm in a fight.

[PavePusher]

112. I did NOT call you any names.

I accurately described your behavior.

You are operating from a position of willfull ignorance. You've been in this forum often enough to know better. Your personal decision to ignore accurate information and post inaccurate claims is not my problem.

[Lizzie Poppet]

49. Depends on what you mean by "regret."

Regret that it happened at all? Sure...anyone who didn't regret such a tragic scenario should seek psychiatric help. But regret that they acted the way they did in what can be very rationally viewed as a life-or-death situation. Nope.

"I know the police does not teach non-lethal wounding shots in most jurisdictions anymore, but there are instances where that makes sense to do."

In fact, they never have...and no, it doesn't make the slightest sense. Shooting to "wing 'em" is a Hollywood fabrication. People who are trained in defensive shooting are invariably trained to shoot at the center-of-mass...at the torso. That's because under the stress of an actual self-defense situation, and given what is likely to be a moving target, it's difficult enough to hit even that big a target. The next largest target is likely to be either the head (even more likely to result in fatality than the torso) or the thigh (better...but did you miss the femoral artery?). You're trained to shoot at the torso until the threat is neutralized (that is, they fall down).

Fortunately, someone shot under such circumstances has a good chance of surviving, assuming reasonably quick access to modern trauma medicine. I don't think any sane person wants to kill an attacker, at least not after the adrenaline wears off and the anger over being attacked fades. Practically everyone who has ever been in a situation that results in killing someone in self-defense, no matter how justified, says it's a horrible experience to have killed another human being. I'd go so far as to say anyone who doesn't experience such feeling is probably a sociopath.

[sarisataka]

57. Does the age of an assailant make you less dead?

Google child soldiers and see how often children are recruited for wars today. They are easier to train the adults, more brutal and more willing to kill. A 16 yo would be a veteran...

Should I have to shoot I do not shoot to wound, disable or kill. I shoot to stop the attack. People live through a shot to the head and die from an arm hit. That is the downside of lethal force is that it can be lethal.

If the youth is careless enough to put the weapon within my reach I may try a disarming move, if it does not endanger others. Otherwise I do not have time to take about his childhood, home situation and why does he feel the need to threaten my life...

You can make that choice to die rather than wonder what if... Hopefully no one ever has to be in that situation.

[gejohnston]

66. Reminds of another Florida case a few months ago

The deli clerked handed over the money. If the robber just took the register money and left, he would have been OK until the cops caught him. Instead, he decides to take the clerk's young child as a hostage. That got him shot in the leg. Since the bullet hit the femoral artery, he was dead within two minutes.

[rl6214]

67. Is it "morally justified" for a 16yo to threaten anyone with a gun?

And 16 is no longer a child, that is a young adult that is often bigger and stronger than many adults.

[NewMoonTherian]

81. Well said.

I'm personally of the "shoot to kill" school, and wouldn't hesitate to pull the trigger in defense of my life and my loved ones(though how I might feel afterward is something altogether different), but I certainly wouldn't begrudge someone being squeamish about that idea. Some people very dear to me feel that way. One in particular has stated that she'd rather die than kill a violent attacker. I understand where you're coming from, and I respect it.

I think that, if it weren't for the battle we're fighting over the simple right to self-defense, the conversation over the moral and psychological impact would be much more calm and reasoned. Hopefully, that right will soon be secured and we can move on to that conversation.

[Callisto32]

87. "Non lethal, wounding shots"

You aren't serious, right?

You know, if you draw a weapon you had better be damn ready to use it, and have a damn good reason for doing so.

You don't shoot to wound or kill, you shoot to stop. The best way to stop a human being during an attack is sudden, massive damage to ether the Central Nervous or Cardiac-pulmonary system.

"Shoot to wound" is both stupid an dangerous. If you are shooting to wound, you probably just raised the level of violence, and if it doesn't work....phew. Bad juju.

[gejohnston]

5. TV westerns are not documentaries.

how about picking up a history book or going to a small town museum in the west, it was hardly wild. Most did not even wear a gun. They owned them, but never wore pistols in their daily chores.
In many ways, the "wild" west was actually more civilized than the "tame" east. It was certainly more progressive in terms of womens rights (especially in Wyoming) and left wing populism (like how well the Socialist Party did in the Dakotas.) Oh yea, only about half of the cowboys were white.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

11. Maybe but...

Of course in October of 1881 Tombstone Arizona did have gun control.

It probably worked just as well as what we have now.

[Atypical Liberal]

13. Firearms in circulation are up, but crime is down.

Firearm sales have skyrocketed since 2008, but violent crime has been trending down for decades.

The predictions of the sky falling have yet to materialize.

[Starboard Tack]

33. Dang right thar Darryl!

[Atypical Liberal]

37. I don't see what this has to do with the topic at hand.

How does this picture relate to my post that firearm circulation is up while crime is down?

[X_Digger]

39. aka, "Look over here, don't look over there!!!!" is my guess. n/t

[Simo 1939_1940]

56. I believe that would be the most generous interpretation.

Another could be the favorite "all gun owners are mouth-breathers" slur.

[Starboard Tack]

43. There are lots of things you don't see.

A mirror usually helps.

[Atypical Liberal]

53. Please elaborate.

[Starboard Tack]

62. You're kidding right? Please elaborate?

Many have tried to elaborate with you, to point out your absurd views on guns and vigilante justice. How would further elaboration help? You don't see things because you don't look. You don't hear things because you don't listen. You don't budge an inch from your "hang'em high" attitude. I find it very hard to buy the "Liberal" half of your screen name. The "Atypical" half, not so much.
At first, I thought you just had a hair trigger, you know, mouth running faster than your brain, and eventually you would redeem yourself, but no. You revel in your self righteousness and cheer the killings you see as "necessary".

If you really want to be enlightened, go back and read your posts in this forum and try to ponder them with an objective mind. When you get to the point when you ask yourself "Did I really say that?", you may experience an epiphany.

[Atypical Liberal]

91. I was talking about the whole mirror and picture thing.

I was hoping you would elaborate on the whole picture and mirror thing.

When you get to the point when you ask yourself "Did I really say that?", you may experience an epiphany.

I've already done this. Did you miss my post where I said it was a mistake to say it was OK to hang violent criminals after they had been apprehended and rendered harmless?

[Starboard Tack]

111. Let me get this straight

Did you miss my post where I said it was a mistake to say it was OK to hang violent criminals after they had been apprehended and rendered harmless?

Are you saying here that it is OK to hang them before they are apprehended and rendered harmless?

[Atypical Liberal]

116. No.

Are you saying here that it is OK to hang them before they are apprehended and rendered harmless?

LOL. No. Obviously if you have apprehended someone and rendered them harmless to the point where you can tie them up and put a rope around them and hang them they are apprehended and harmless enough to hand over to the police.

[rl6214]

68. His bigotry is showing again.

Or still.

[Glassunion]

46. That is so cool.

I like it when people recycle.

[Starboard Tack]

47. I know and his fashion sense is perfect.

Newton and the recycled socks. Though the flag could do with an update.

[Glassunion]

48. This is a rather staged photo.

My best guess is that it was taken somewhere in the northeast US.

[sarisataka]

59. Please tell me where I can get shorts like that n/t

[gejohnston]

70. I take it the pic is from

Ohio or PA? Not Florida. Not that it really matters, Florida is really New York/PA south.

[Starboard Tack]

76. I've no idea where it's from

Popped up on FB. Depends where one is in Florida. The panhandle might as well be Alabama.

[gejohnston]

80. the architecture is wrong

There is a reason why it is called Fucking lower Alabama (a play on the abbreviation) or Redneck Riviera. I'm guessing he went to the same gun safety course as Dick Cheney.

[Callisto32]

89. Them roofs looks to be fer sheddin' snow.

[one-eyed fat man]

72. You are right!!

A good store owner would have handed over the cash, come up off that pussy, or anything else the sixteen year old thug wanted and relied on his good graces not to splatter her brains all over the walk in cooler.

[Callisto32]

86. Meh.

Heard it before, debunked it before.

"Wild West?"

Hell, we WISH our cities were that safe.

[Starboard Tack]

2. Another tragedy made your day. Congratulations.

Another dead kid in Florida. The shooter already admitted lying and you already started cheering.

[Atypical Liberal]

16. Seeing good triumph over evil usually does make my day.

Try rooting for the good guys for a change.

[sinkingfeeling]

19. "Evil"? A 16 year-old trying to hold up a store for $20-$100 is your

definition of 'evil'?

[Atypical Liberal]

20. It certainly isn't my definition of "good".

I don't know what you call armed robbers, but they are pretty evil in my book.

Bear in mind I don't subscribe to any magical or mystical viewpoints on evil.

Evil simply means "really bad".

Armed robbers are really bad people. They are people who have decided to kill to acquire someone else's property.

[sinkingfeeling]

27. No wonder we can't discuss guns, safety, crime, nor other subjects. We

don't speak the same language nor view things the same. You see 'really bad people' and I see people who break laws.

I think armed robberies are committed by people who use the threat of force to obtain property. I don't think the majority have decided to kill anyone.

I honestly cannot think of any property that I have that is worth taking a human life. If somebody wants the sterling silver, let them take it. It's insured.

[Atypical Liberal]

34. LOL.

No wonder we can't discuss guns, safety, crime, nor other subjects. We don't speak the same language nor view things the same. You see 'really bad people' and I see people who break laws.

So how, then, do you differentiate between people who break the law of, say, jaywalking, with people who break the law of, say, homicide? Clearly there are some major moral differences between the two.

I wouldn't say that someone guilty of breaking the law of jaywalking was necessarily a really bad person. I would probably say that a person guilty of homicide was probably a really bad person.

Trying to whitewash the seriousness of the crime by simply calling it "lawbreaking" is, well, whitewashing.

I think armed robberies are committed by people who use the threat of force to obtain property. I don't think the majority have decided to kill anyone.

I think that is a very dangerous and naive assumption to make. If someone makes the threat of force, particularly deadly force, you should assume that they intend to make good on that threat.

I honestly cannot think of any property that I have that is worth taking a human life. If somebody wants the sterling silver, let them take it. It's insured.

I don't understand this point of view. Clearly the armed robber had no moral qualms about taking the store owner's life for their property. And just as clearly the armed robber had no qualms risking their own life over whatever property they set out to steal.

So if someone is willing to kill me for my property, and they are willing to risk their own life for the value of my property, I don't see the moral conflict in returning the favor.

[sinkingfeeling]

42. I'm sorry that you live your life without compassion and in constant fear.

[Atypical Liberal]

52. I have plenty of compassion and I am not in constant fear.

Now, care to answer my question?

So how, then, do you differentiate between people who break the law of, say, jaywalking, with people who break the law of, say, homicide? Clearly there are some major moral differences between the two.

You seem to want to render all forms of lawbreaking as equally egregious. Is this a correct assessment?

[sinkingfeeling]

95. Clearly there is a difference between breaking a jaywalking law and

committing homicide. And there is just as much difference between committing a hold-up and being evil. I didn't say that armed robbers were angels. I simply don't see shooting a 16 yr.old dead as proper 'punishment'. We, as a society, don't think armed robbery requires a death sentence.

[X_Digger]

98. Interesting spin.

Defending yourself is not 'punishment'.

'Punishment' is the purview of the justice system, long divorced from the actual act between aggressor and victim.

When faced with a credible threat of death or grave bodily harm, a person is justified in responding with deadly force.

[Atypical Liberal]

99. I'm glad you agree.

Clearly there is a difference between breaking a jaywalking law and committing homicide.

I'm glad you agree that there is a difference. Clearly it is inaccurate to call people who commit serious crimes simply "lawbreakers".

And there is just as much difference between committing a hold-up and being evil.

I don't really want to delve into semantic variations of "good vs. evil".

You can call it "good vs. not-quite-angels" if that makes you more comfortable.

The bottom line is, a dangerous person was stopped by an innocent person. And that is a good thing.

I simply don't see shooting a 16 yr.old dead as proper 'punishment'. We, as a society, don't think armed robbery requires a death sentence.

Self-defense is not punishment. It's self-defense. If the armed robber had been caught by the police, disarmed, and rendered harmless, and tried in a court of law, he would not receive the death penalty.

But today, the most effective, affordable, easy-to-use self-defense tool is the firearm, and it is a deadly weapon. If we are going to allow people to defend themselves with such tools (and we should), then death is a likely possibility. It's not a punishment, it's a consequence of logical self-defense.

Maybe someday they will invent a good non-lethal substitute for firearms, and then this entire issue will melt away as we will simply make it illegal to use deadly force for self-defense ever.

[sinkingfeeling]

100. I hope we will replace deadly 'tools' as well. However, I will continue

through my life with only my wits as my self-defense tool. I will never own a gun.

[Atypical Liberal]

103. I respect your choice. I hope you will respect the choice of others who think differently.

However, I will continue through my life with only my wits as my self-defense tool. I will never own a gun.


I respect your choice. I hope you will respect the choice of others who choose to actively resist with a weapon.

[Simo 1939_1940]

58. Good grief - how in hell did you come up with those assumptions?!

Pretty sick IMO.

[sinkingfeeling]

94. If you think you have to have a gun with you at all times to

'protect' yourself from others, than I'd call that living in constant fear.

[PavePusher]

113. Unfounded accusation. Nice dodge.

I guess you had no acctual rebutal to the response to your comments?

[sinkingfeeling]

114. Can you not see reply 94?

[PavePusher]

119. I see it.

I see no sense in it, just assumptions with no reasoning behind them.

[X_Digger]

41. If the person holding the gun/knife/bat didn't make you think that you actually expected..

..death or great bodily harm, you'd tell them to piss off.

Their 'success' is predicated on making you believe that they actually will kill or seriously harm you.

Why don't you take them at their word?

[sinkingfeeling]

45. Maybe they would kill me and maybe they wouldn't. If their aim was solely to

murder, then why do they bother to say, "This is a hold up. Give me your money." Why wouldn't they just kill first? Most want something material and do not want to kill people. I've read stories where the victim did just say, "No" and the robber left. And something like 90% of all armed robbers take the goods and leave the people alive.

[Lizzie Poppet]

50. If you had a 10-shot revolver....

"And something like 90% of all armed robbers take the goods and leave the people alive."

If you had a 10-shot revolver, would you be willing to load one chamber with a live round and play Russian roulette with it?

Didn't think so...

[X_Digger]

55. Are you willing to risk being the one in ten?

Or one of the ones who aren't killed but are nevertheless shot or seriously injured?

[sinkingfeeling]

93. I already answered that question. Yes, I'm willing to take that risk.

[X_Digger]

97. And I'm not.

I especially wouldn't be, in a case like this, where the person knew, could identify and name the robber.

[sarisataka]

60. and sometimes

the person cooperates and the robber shoots them anyway.

In my eyes, threatening with a weapon implies that they are ready to use it,

[WinniSkipper]

82. Because they don't know how to open the register

..or safe

[one-eyed fat man]

130. Armed robberies are a crapshoot!

It's not just about stuff. Being a criminal is a choice. The low-life isn't stealing bread to feed his starving family. He might be miserable, but he ain't Les Miserable. If it was only about stealing stuff or money, he would be breaking into places where no one is home or pilfering cash from his mother's purse.

Robbery is confrontational. That is where the rush is. He wants to see the fear. Why should someone who'd threaten with death a minimum wage clerk at a fast food joint or a convenience store be treated as if he had just created a new social compact? "Give me what I want and I might not hurt you."

Subway clerk murdered

A 22 year old clerk, paralyzed with fear, unable to open the cash drawer, and the vicious vermin says to her, "Girl you’re too slow. You gots to die." Then the misbegotten bastard shoots her three times.

Robbery is about cash like rape is about sex. The goal is subjugation, humiliation, and domination, the rest is incidental. The robber's threat of bodily harm makes it personal. You have no clue what the bastard has in mind. He might take the money and run, or he might splatter your brains all over the walk in cooler. If his intention is to kill you anyway, you still going to meekly comply?

Paul Dennis Reed

You really believe he turned to robbery because he was down on his luck Nashville songwriter?

[link:http://www.truecrimereport.com/2010/08/video_robbers_executive_2_stor.php|
Robbers Execute 2 Store Clerks]

This Florida robbery might go down as one of the most senseless double-homicides ever. These men rob a convenience store. Even though both clerks are obviously compliant, the man guarding the door shoots them both -- all for $77... looks like a definition of "EVIL" to me!

Guess poor misunderstood armed robbers killing people to take stuff that's not theirs is not as reprehensible as shooting criminals to keep them from taking your life.

[AtheistCrusader]

133. Can the victim trust a person who has threatened to kill them, and is holding a weapon ready

that they won't be killed? If not, then yes, I would say 'evil' is afoot, not just 'hurf durf, a law has been broken, tisk tsk'.

If someone uses the threat of lethal force to place a mortgage on someone elses life for gain, it is entirely appropriate to assume that person MEANS IT, and react accordingly.

[hack89]

22. 16 year olds can't be cold blooded killers?

would you gamble your life that he was only interested in money?

[sinkingfeeling]

25. Yes.

[Atypical Liberal]

35. That is your choice to make.

That is your choice to make. Everyone is free to decide their own fate as they will. If you wish to submit to the demands of an armed robber, that is your choice to make, and I respect your choice.

[sinkingfeeling]

44. Thanks.

[Atypical Liberal]

54. No problem. It's all I expect from anyone.

[ileus]

30. No

Not today, not tomorrow, not ever...it's not a chance I gotta take thanks to the 2A

[Starboard Tack]

38. You haven't seen the half of it.

Our very atypical friend has some very atypical ideas about good and evil. He has stated quite clearly that he doesn't care how "evil" children like this kid, die, whether by gun or by hanging from a tree. Yes, believe it or not, he said that.

Personally I think the law ought to be that if you get killed during the commission of an armed robbery it shouldn't matter how you got killed. Shot in the front, shot in the back, or hung from a tree.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/117217038#post13

He also advocates shooting people who break windows and using guns against teenage girls carrying toilet paper in the trunks of their cars.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/117214124#post7

[pipoman]

63. Your disingenuity is showing

this juvenile is not "children". Children don't hold up convenience stores with hand guns.

[Starboard Tack]

65. Thought he was 16. OK not a child, a youth.

Kids of that age can hold and shoot guns. I read he was a neighborhood kid, a regular. Very sad situation. I'm not defending his actions and I'm not condemning the store keeper. Mostly, I'm not celebrating.
My problem here is with the OP. Atypical Liberal is a cheerleader of tragic killings like this. I find that rather perverse.

[pipoman]

69. Yeah,

16 year olds account for a fair portion of all murders..



http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/teens.cfm

And no, this incident will change many lives, including that of the shooter. The vast majority of people who have guns for defense never want to use them, just like people with fire extinguishers want to use them. Everyone who uses a gun to kill someone justifiably or not regrets it...I've only met one person who claims to not regret any murders he committed, he's in a cell in AdMax, Florence for the rest of his life. The other 10 people I have known, who killed people all visibly regretted and/or second guessed their actions. Some were obviously to everyone justified killings...they still second guess themselves to this day.

[Starboard Tack]

77. Looks like they did during the 90's

Not so much anymore. Must've been the gang thing getting cleaned up combined with Dubya's alternative of giving them all new opportunities in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Makes you wonder when some people cheer these killings.

[PavePusher]

115. That's a pretty vile insinuation to make about the military.

Probably had nothing to do with the co-inciding popularity of "crack" cocaine.

[Starboard Tack]

121. Excuse me, but what is vile and what am I insinuating?

And I agree that "crack-cocaine" was also a factor, but the wave of "patriotism" that followed 9/11 had a huge effect. At my daughter's HS graduation (2003), kids were practically lining up to sign up. It was in WV and they were buying the Jessica Lynch propaganda big time. The valedictorian made a huge speech about what a hero she was and how we need to rally round the flag etc.. When I enlightened him later that evening at a party, as to the truth about Jessica's "Hollywood style" rescue, he was devastated and felt totally betrayed by the government and it's stooges in the military who ran that little propaganda machine.
I have as much respect for our military as the next guy, but I don't make excuses for those in politics who exploit depressed areas of this country to supply cannon fodder.

[gejohnston]

122. something in common

When I enlightened him later that evening at a party, as to the truth about Jessica's "Hollywood style" rescue, he was devastated and felt totally betrayed by the government and it's stooges in the military who ran that little propaganda machine.

Pvt Lynch also felt betrayed for being used for propaganda. She basically said so at her televised homecoming.

The account I read, Lynch said she was well taken care of in a civilian hospital. They tried to return her to US forces, but gate guards started firing on the ambulance. That is when the medical staff decided let the Americans go to them.

[Starboard Tack]

128. Absolutely. It was a total fiasco.

And the shameful abuse of Jessica and the military for political purposes.

[PavePusher]

127. This:

"Must've been the gang thing getting cleaned up combined with Dubya's alternative of giving them all new opportunities in Afghanistan and Iraq."

...sure sounds like an accusation of taking gang members into the military so they could indulge a desire to kill people. If that is not what you meant, you need to reword it. Desperately.

P.S. Forgot to add that the steep decline took place, and leveled, well before Iraq/Afghanistan.

[Starboard Tack]

129. Oh, please! "Indulge a desire to kill people"? You need to reword.

Do you think that is why kids join gangs? To kill people? They join gangs because of a need to belong, band of bro's, BSA, Crips, Bloods, LAPD, USMC. All kids feel that need. Don't tell me the military doesn't pick up any of the slack.

[slackmaster]

85. That kid could have KILLED SOMEONE!

Hell yes that's evil.

[sinkingfeeling]

96. Wow. But he didn't kill anybody. The clerk did.

[slackmaster]

104. His death was an unfortunate but justifiable result of HIS BAD CHOICE to point a gun at the clerk

[Callisto32]

90. Threating violent force against a fellow human being for such small sums sure as hell is.

I guess that young man looked at the clerk's life as worth $20-$100, eh?

[Straw Man]

101. Evil.

"Evil"? A 16 year-old trying to hold up a store for $20-$100 is your

definition of 'evil'?

Works for me. The definition of hold up includes the threat of deadly force. Someone who holds someone up is saying, "Give me your material goods or I will kill you," or, if you prefer, "Your life is less important to me than $20 - $100."

If the threat were not credible, hold-ups wouldn't work. So they don't always kill? Small comfort. I prefer not to entrust my well-being to the person who is sticking a gun in my face.

I would not judge crimes of passion quite as harshly: humans in the grip of powerful emotion aren't making a calculated decision to subordinate human life to their own greed.

Yes, if you believe in evil at all, then hold-ups are evil. If you don't, then we'll just consider them another case of inadequate socialization.

[sinkingfeeling]

102. As I stated up-thread, you and I don't agree on even basic definitions.

Your 'evil' is the criminal act of a hold-up and mine is a 'tool' that projects a deadly bullet at speeds noone can outrun. I find all hand guns to be 'evil' as well as drones, nuclear devices, bombs, chemicals and poisions used only to kill humans, and the act of war.

[ManiacJoe]

105. Your problem is that you think "things" can be good/evil.

Things do not have that attribute. Good/evil is an attribute of only sentient beings.

Things/objects can be dangerous, but that should not be confused with evil.

[sinkingfeeling]

106. The dictionary doesn't even agree with you. Evil as an adjective...

"1a : morally reprehensible : sinful, wicked <an evil impulse>"

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/evil

[ManiacJoe]

123. Thank you for proving me correct.

> "1a : morally reprehensible : sinful, wicked <an evil impulse>"

Your quoted definition describes a attribute of people, not things/objects. Objects/things do not have the ability to be good/evil using this agreed upon defintion.

[sinkingfeeling]

124. Read the entire definition. Things most certainly can and are 'morally reprehensible'.

[ManiacJoe]

125. I read the whole thing. You are still confused.

If you want to wander into the lesser definitions, ie away from "morally reprehensible", then sure you can start applying those definitions to objects.

Let's stay with "morally reprehensible". This requires the concept of morally good/bad decisions. This concept does not and cannot apply to objects/things/tools.

A hammer left to itself does nothing but collect dust and get rusty. If you use the hammer to pound nails, you the user do good while the hammer just does what hammers do. If you use the hammer to pound someone's head, you the user do bad while the hammer just does what the hammer does (pounds things).

Same for knives. You the user can do good by cutting food. You the user can do bad by cutting people. The knife just does what the knife is designed to do (cut things).

Same for guns. You the user can do good by shooting paper targets. You the user can do bad by shooting people. The gun just fires bullets as it is designed to.

Objects/tools/things have no decision-making abilities. They do not possess the ability to be morally good/evil.

Dangerousness is a property objects do have. However, being dangerous does not suggest being evil. In addition, the dangerousness of a tool is often what makes it useful as a tool. For example, a chainsaw.

[sinkingfeeling]

126. I find guns and violence morally reprehensible. And good-bye.

[slackmaster]

107. In this case, a 16-year-old CHOSE to pick up an "evil" tool and use it for an unlawful purpose

Where is the evil?

[sinkingfeeling]

108. IMHO, it's still in the gun. My belief system says people cannot be 'evil' nor

'illegal'. I think this explains my views.

There is a school of thought that holds that no person is evil, that only acts may be properly considered evil. Psychologist and mediator Marshall Rosenberg claims that the root of violence is the very concept of "evil" or "badness." When we label someone as bad or evil, Rosenberg claims, it invokes the desire to punish or inflict pain. It also makes it easy for us to turn off our feelings towards the person we are harming. He cites the use of language in Nazi Germany as being a key to how the German people were able to do things to other human beings that they normally would not do. He links the concept of evil to our judicial system, which seeks to create justice via punishment — "punitive justice" — punishing acts that are seen as bad or wrong. He contrasts this approach with what he found in cultures where the idea of evil was non-existent. In such cultures, when someone harms another person, they are believed to be out of harmony with themselves and their community, are seen as sick or ill and measures are taken to restore them to a sense of harmonious relations with themselves and others.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil

[PavePusher]

117. You imply that force in defense is morally equivalent to force used in offensive crime.

Being unable to differentiate between the two is, at best, pretty vile. What's your agenda?

[sinkingfeeling]

120. ROFL. My agenda? I'm a pacifist!

[AtheistCrusader]

132. A human threatening the life of another human is evil to me, yes.

Most vile.

[Starboard Tack]

26. Must be nice living in your monochromatic world.

You really believe that good guy, bad guy shit, don't you? I guess most of us did at one time or another. You remind me of why I quit being a cop - disgust at how low the human can stoop to justify his miserable existence. And I'm talking about both the "good guys" and the "bad guys". The day I realized there was very little, if any, difference between them was transcendental.

[Atypical Liberal]

32. Sometimes it just doesn't take much effort to see things as they are.

Must be nice living in your monochromatic world.
You really believe that good guy, bad guy shit, don't you? I guess most of us did at one time or another. You remind me of why I quit being a cop - disgust at how low the human can stoop to justify his miserable existence. And I'm talking about both the "good guys" and the "bad guys". The day I realized there was very little, if any, difference between them was transcendental.

Sometimes things really are pretty simple.

If you really think there is little difference between an armed robber and the store owner who shoots him in self-defense, all I can charitably say is you seem to have a serious problem with moral relativism clouding your judgement.

[Starboard Tack]

40. "you seem to have a serious problem with moral relativism clouding your judgement. "

Coming from you, that is truly unbelievable. You are the guy that thinks driving 10 miles an hour over the speed limit is a "crime" and tp-ing teenagers are vandals who need to be confronted with guns.
The kid was a regular, lived in the neighborhood, probably high on some shit. Give him a twenty or whatever and call his mom, or the cops if you must, but killing him so wingnuts like you can cheer is wrong and cheering by the likes of you is just plain sick. You've already stated your indifference to how armed robbers die.

Atypical Liberal
Response to safeinOhio (Original post)
Fri Feb 24, 2012, 10:47 AM

I find it hard to muster up sympathy for dead armed robbers.

The simple fact is two armed men decided that this clerk's life was worth whatever money and/or property he was carrying. They were willing to threaten and presumably follow through with killing him to get it.

I just can't muster much sympathy when their victim killed them instead.

Personally I think the law ought to be that if you get killed during the commission of an armed robbery it shouldn't matter how you got killed. Shot in the front, shot in the back, or hung from a tree.

[Atypical Liberal]

51. You keep rooting for the bad guy, mkay?

You are the guy that thinks driving 10 miles an hour over the speed limit is a "crime"

Driving even one mile an hour over the speed limit is speeding, which is a crime.

and tp-ing teenagers are vandals who need to be confronted with guns.

TP-ing teenagers are vandals. What they need to be is held for the police so that they can answer for their crime. I have no problem holding criminals with firearms until the police arrive.

The kid was a regular, lived in the neighborhood, probably high on some shit. Give him a twenty or whatever and call his mom, or the cops if you must, but killing him so wingnuts like you can cheer is wrong and cheering by the likes of you is just plain sick.

I don't care if he was Mother Theresa and visited the store every day before he committed armed robbery. At the end of the day, he was a violent criminal and the good guy won.

And here you are being an apologist for the violent criminal. Nice ethics ya got there.

You've already stated your indifference to how armed robbers die.

Yes, I am mostly indifferent to how armed robbers die during the commission of their crimes. I've also admitted that hanging them from a tree after the fact is absurd. I was wrong to suggest that we should kill armed criminals after they have been apprehended and rendered harmless.

[Starboard Tack]

64. I'll give you some credit for being honest about yourself.

Now try being honest regarding others. I do not and have never "rooted" for either the good or bad guy in these tragedies. You are the cheerleader, not me. You assume that those of us who are not thrilled at the death of a criminal or would be criminal are "rooting" for the criminal. Classic wingnut propaganda.
The shooting in this case appears to be lawful and legally justified. That does nothing to lessen the pain and suffering caused to all involved. Yet you find it cause to celebrate, which I consider beyond sick.

You say that you've admitted the absurdity of your prior statements about "hanging them from a tree". Mighty big of you. You have not retracted anything else, though. So, I assume you still find it commendable to shoot them in the back and to shoot widow breakers.

BTW, make sure you check your speedometer. Wouldn't want you committing the crime of going 1 mph over the limit. I'm thinking OCD maybe.

[Atypical Liberal]

92. No one is saying it wasn't a tragic situation. I am merely celebrating the outcome.

Last edited Thu Apr 5, 2012, 11:49 AM - Edit history (1)

The shooting in this case appears to be lawful and legally justified. That does nothing to lessen the pain and suffering caused to all involved. Yet you find it cause to celebrate, which I consider beyond sick.

No, it's a tragic, traumatic experience for everyone involved. It's very sad that someones life had so little opportunity or motivation or depravity in it that they wasted their life in such a manner and caused such trauma to people around them.

I'm not celebrating the trauma.

I'm celebrating the outcome. A good person triumphed in the face of a violent criminal, and that is worth celebrating.

You say that you've admitted the absurdity of your prior statements about "hanging them from a tree". Mighty big of you.

I'm assuming this is sarcasm? Christ, am I damned if I do and damned if I don't admit my mistake? You were right, I was wrong. Shall I prostrate myself on the floor?

You have not retracted anything else, though. So, I assume you still find it commendable to shoot them in the back and to shoot widow breakers.

It would be preferable to detain a criminal if possible. If that is not possible, I don't have a problem with criminals caught inside a home who happen to get shot in the back, just as happened in this case:

http://gazettextra.com/news/2008/mar/06/judge-dismisses-burglars-lawsuit/

In this case the victim was acquitted of criminal charges and the civil charges were dismissed.

I also continue to have no problem with the use of deadly force to protect property.

[Starboard Tack]

110. A grain of humility will get you a grain of recognition in return.

It's a start. Now, pick up the shovel and start working on that mountain. It will be worth every ounce of sweat.

[Atypical Liberal]

118. You too.

Maybe we will build a tunnel meeting in the middle.

[Union Scribe]

83. If that's your attitude, I'm very, very happy you're not a cop

anymore.

Little if any difference? Miserable existences? Yeah, you don't need to be wearing a badge or gun.

[Starboard Tack]

109. Yeah me too, though I was a damned good one.

I was one of those young idealists who truly believed he could help make the world a better place. We didn't wear badges or guns, thank god, but even so I saw how power could go to some guys heads and it made me sick.

[davidthegnome]

3. Your choice of (news?) source is rather unreliable

[ManiacJoe]

9. Unreliable by what standard?

[Atypical Liberal]

14. I get most of my news via reddit.

I get most of my news via reddit (http://www.reddit.com). The end source was actually two levels down (from reddit to a blog to the fox affiliate), but I always link to the originating source.

[safeinOhio]

6. Was is not just a week ago

you all were saying, we don't have all of the facts yet, not enough information to go on? The SYG law didn't matter in this case, the old law would have worked just as well.

[Atypical Liberal]

15. Yup.

Obviously I'm just commenting on the facts presented. I reserve the right to change my mind as other facts become known, just as I did in the Zimmerman case.

The SYG law didn't matter in this case, the old law would have worked just as well.

I know, I was speaking figuratively.

[safeinOhio]

18. Thank you for the clarification.

[WingDinger]

8. sociopaths are more comfy with their own kind. Bubbye.

[eqfan592]

61. So....are you telling us you are a sociopath and are going to join your own kind?

...or what?

[tularetom]

12. It's immaterial whether or not he fired a shot at her

He entered the store and pointed a gun at her. She had every reason to expect that he would fire it. I don't know why she changed her story but she was acting in self defense either way. In fact it isn't even a SYG defense. It was righteous under the old statute.

But this shooting is in no way comparable to the Trayvon Martin case. Zimmerman apparently was not standing his ground, he was pursuing and harassing a kid for no reason other than his own paranoia and dislike of blacks. If anything Martin would have been within his rights, if he was carrying a firearm, to shoot Zimmerman in self defense. Like the store owner, he had every reason to feel he was in danger.

[Xela]

23. When the smoke settles...

Hopefully it will all be clear soon.

Sounds like it's good for her.

Xela

[Glassunion]

24. Holy Fuck! Unbelievable!!!

Smokes are only $4.29 a pack in FL?

[Starboard Tack]

28. Life is cheaper in Fla.

Where I am, smokes are $10/pack and regular gas is $7/gal.
Fortunately I'm a light smoker (1pack/week) and use about about 1/2 gallon of gas a week.

[Glassunion]

29. The pay is also lower.

I was offered a job (I would never leave where I work, company is too awesome) and it was close to half what I currently make.

I see $10 for smokes around here (thank goodness I quit) but $7 a gal, where the heck are you? I was in Manhattan last week and I paid $4.39 for Premium. Regular was $4.03.

[Starboard Tack]

31. On an island. But not one like Manhattan. No bridges.

[Glassunion]

36. Hopefully the island

Is warm and water clear.

I found an old HS classmate a few weeks ago... Turns out she works in an ice cream shop and surfs on an island in the Caribbean. Now she is living the dream.

[Air Marshal8]

71. Hey, good job! That's even better than most gated communities!

[Starboard Tack]

78. Way, way better!

[slackmaster]

84. Tragic waste of a young life

Quintavius Moore made some poor decisions.