|
|
Date: 12/3/2003 9:52:00 PM From Authorid: 62410 Hero. Sorry to say our justice system (even though I work for it) isn't always just. He only shot the punk in the arm ferrchissakes! I hope he is acquitted. Scall |
Date: 12/4/2003 2:53:00 AM From Authorid: 53054 ok maybe he shouldnt be carrying a gun! i would be really scared if someone what ever reason there is jsut shot at me! seriously! maybe he shouldnt of got involved! |
Date: 12/4/2003 2:54:00 AM From Authorid: 46585 He's a hero by far. And there is no way the court will charge him for attempted murder. I bet that kid will think twice about beating up an old man again. - Faded Fiction |
Date: 12/4/2003 4:01:00 AM From Authorid: 62118 Shouldn't of got involved? His friend was getting beaten, so he should've just relaxed inside with his friend being the last thing on his mind? |
Date: 12/4/2003 4:17:00 AM From Authorid: 10722 They should've gotten shot for hitting cars anyway. (Well..depends on what kind of car it is.) |
Date: 12/4/2003 5:22:00 AM From Authorid: 3648 One word...HERO! |
Date: 12/4/2003 6:52:00 AM From Authorid: 2030 I wish he was a better shot and fired more bullets. So I'll just call him a novice. |
Date: 12/4/2003 6:54:00 AM From Authorid: 160 Maybe these injustices happen because people sue for any and everything. There really is no justice any longer. Judges take bribes, the justice system is veering to the guilty and no longer the innocent. It's also a system that will soon be replaced by a righteous new government, one that will be ruled by people that will benefit all mankind. And senerios such as the one you described will no longer be the case. |
Date: 12/4/2003 7:14:00 AM From Authorid: 62410 Pamyjo - sounds like you have the inside scoop - please - tell us more about this "righteous new government"!!?? How do you know about it? How far off is it, and how/when will it be implemented? Scall |
Date: 12/4/2003 7:37:00 AM From Authorid: 62222 LMAO, BCAR! <RH> |
Date: 12/4/2003 7:41:00 AM From Authorid: 160 From the scriptures, I am one of Jehovahs Witnesses and study the bible in depth. The system that we know it will soon be done away with as man has had more than enough time to rule himself and has failed. Isaiah the 65th chapter describes in detail how things are going to be in the new system of things. Revelation 21:1-4 tells us that soon God will wipe out every tear from their eyes and death will be no more and neither will mourning nor outcry nor pain be any more, for the former things have passed away. Jesus came to teach about his Father and he showed on a small scale what he was going to do on a larger scale in the new system. He taught his followers to pray "Let your kingdom come" This is the kingdom (or government) that will do away with all of mans problems, and restore the earth to the paradise that God purposed it to be in the first place. There will be a resurrection of the dead, people will build their own homes and live in them. No more will we have to pay a mortgage. Food will be aplenty, the desserts will bloosom and peace will prevail everywhere. Isaiah 65. The prophesies that point to this being the end of this system are being fullfilled so we know we are living in the last days. Hope I have explained this to your satisfaction. |
Date: 12/4/2003 8:13:00 AM From Authorid: 53284 From what you have written, I would also have to say he was a hero. |
Date: 12/4/2003 8:23:00 AM From Authorid: 59418 hero for sure |
Date: 12/4/2003 9:16:00 AM From Authorid: 12835 Hero. Hey BCAR, aren't you turning 80 this week..... |
Date: 12/4/2003 9:47:00 AM From Authorid: 12133 Hero. And I believe he should have shot the other boys too. AND made them pay for the damages, AND made them replace the bullets he used. |
Date: 12/4/2003 9:59:00 AM From Authorid: 13729 HERO......If we all did that there would be less crime........ |
Date: 12/4/2003 10:11:00 AM From Authorid: 53314 How is he a hero? What is wrong with you people? He is at fault just as much as the 3 "punks". Ever heard the phrase "An Eye for an Eye, leaves everyone blind?" Your basically saying it's ok to shoot people if one of your friends is getting beaten up. The man getting beaten up was 70, How much longer was he really gonna live? While the teenagers had their whole lifes infront of them. Hey instead of trying to help our nations youth, Lets say it's ok for 80 year old men to shoot at them. Great plan isn't it, I mean 80 year olds and guns go so great with each other.I think the teen that was shot should sue. |
Date: 12/4/2003 10:17:00 AM From Authorid: 12133 I sincerely HOPE that was a joke, Rowley! So, its ok to beat him to death because he's 70? ANd NOT to shoot the teenager beating him up, because "he has his whole life in front of him"? If they act like that, I think society is better off without them. |
Date: 12/4/2003 10:52:00 AM From Authorid: 53314 It was no joke, It's not right to shoot people...under ANY circumstances. The fact that you condone the shooting is proof of how messed up society already is. Do you people even know the definition of a "hero"? The replies to this debate are absurd! |
Date: 12/4/2003 10:59:00 AM From Authorid: 16442 But its OKAY to beat an old man to death, because "How much longer was he really gonna live?" Ugh.,.... whatever Rowley, you contradict yourself I believe. |
Date: 12/4/2003 11:01:00 AM From Authorid: 12133 Ok, Rowley. I have a baseball bat, and I'm beating your grondmother over the head with it, you have a gun. So....I have no worries, because since she's old, you're not gonna shoot me? |
Date: 12/4/2003 11:21:00 AM From Authorid: 53314 How do I contradict myself? If I saw you beating my grandmother, I would call the police. Then you owuld goto jail for a long time, woulnd't you? |
Date: 12/4/2003 11:25:00 AM From Authorid: 2030 Rowley, On what planet do you reside? If you saw someone beating your grandmother. "I would call the police and you would go to jail for a long time". And you wouldn't help her? I hope I never have Grandchildren as sorry as that. |
Date: 12/4/2003 11:26:00 AM From Authorid: 12133 Yeah, if she wasn't almost already dead, or I ran before the police got there. Then, she'd be dead, and I'd get away. |
Date: 12/4/2003 11:26:00 AM From Authorid: 53314 I believe YOU(Moon) misunderstood me, I never said It was OK for the 3 "punks" to beat the oldguy , reread my reply please. |
Date: 12/4/2003 11:28:00 AM From Authorid: 16442 "The man getting beaten up was 70, How much longer was he really gonna live? While the teenagers had their whole lifes infront of them." <------ please tell me what there is to misubderstand there? Lets the kids live, dont shoot them and who cares if the old guy dies, heck, he's old anyway. I believe I interpreted it just as you meant it. |
Date: 12/4/2003 11:29:00 AM From Authorid: 12133 Maybe I'm wrong too. That's how I read it also, Moon |
Date: 12/4/2003 11:29:00 AM From Authorid: 16442 *understand |
Date: 12/4/2003 11:31:00 AM From Authorid: 2030 3 men beating an old man. Anyone who wouldn't do what they could to stop it is a coward, plain and simple. Now not everyone can physically do that, like say if they are an 8 year old girl, running and calling the police is probably the best thing they could do. |
Date: 12/4/2003 11:34:00 AM From Authorid: 12133 Sorry, I would have shot them, and they wouldn't HAVE "their whole life to look forward to". Maybe you could leave, but then hopefully you could expalin to some little kid why you let their grandfather die, because you were too scared to help. |
Date: 12/4/2003 11:36:00 AM
From Authorid: 53314
If you people would actually READ my reply, you wouldn't have so many negitive comments. "Lets the kids live, dont shoot them " GUNS DON'T solve ANYTHING, what is so difficult to understand about that?! My message was that guns should not be used under ANY circumstances, but you obviously missed that because you were to busy thinking of ways to make me look like a bad guy...Haha! |
Date: 12/4/2003 11:37:00 AM From Authorid: 53314 I never said I'd leave, I said I woulnd't shoot them, can you please, PLEASE, actually READ my reply?!?! |
Date: 12/4/2003 11:39:00 AM From Authorid: 12133 If I'm not mistaken, I believe the post said the second old man only wounded one of them, but YOUR comment was "The man getting beaten up was 70, How much longer was he really gonna live? While the teenagers had their whole lifes in front of them." Maybe if more people SHOT punks like this, they quit beating up innocent people. |
Date: 12/4/2003 11:40:00 AM From Authorid: 12133 Ok, in this day and age, yes, you could call the cops on a cell phone. But, that would make you someone calling the cops on the phone while WATCHING the old man get beat. Which is worse? |
Date: 12/4/2003 11:41:00 AM From Authorid: 2030 If a gun can stop an old man from getting beat up or possibly killed then I'd say it solved quite a bit. |
Date: 12/4/2003 11:41:00 AM From Authorid: 53314 "I hope I never have Grandchildren as sorry as that." Nice ad hominem argument =0) |
Date: 12/4/2003 11:42:00 AM From Authorid: 16442 <---- agrees with BCAR |
Date: 12/4/2003 11:42:00 AM From Authorid: 12133 Ok, another scenario. Some punks break into your house, and are ripping your daughters clothes off, and are about to rape her, there is a gun in the house. Now, do you A. Go call the cops, and let her get raped until they get there, or B. Do you protect your family? |
Date: 12/4/2003 11:43:00 AM From Authorid: 12133 <---agrees with BCAR as well |
Date: 12/4/2003 11:43:00 AM From Authorid: 53314 Do you people not have morals? How can you dignify the oldman getting beaten up by shooting the assailants?? It is NOT right to shoot people, I'm sorry you can't understand that. |
Date: 12/4/2003 11:44:00 AM From Authorid: 12133 Do you not have a conscious? Just let the old man get beat up, because you might "traumatize" a punk kid who's trying to kill him? |
Date: 12/4/2003 11:45:00 AM From Authorid: 53314 "Ok, another scenario. Some punks break into your house, and are ripping your daughters clothes off, and are about to rape her, there is a gun in the house. Now, do you A. Go call the cops, and let her get raped until they get there, or B. Do you protect your family?" There is a difference between protecting your family, and shooting people is there not? If someone comes into your house, it completly changes the scenario, so try again please. |
Date: 12/4/2003 11:46:00 AM From Authorid: 12133 Oh so if they're RELATED, its ok to shoot them, but helping an innocent person is wrong? YOU try again. |
Date: 12/4/2003 11:47:00 AM From Authorid: 12133 Let me clarify. If the person being attacked is related, then its ok... |
Date: 12/4/2003 11:48:00 AM From Authorid: 53314 "because you might "traumatize" a punk kid who's trying to kill him?" Replace traumatize with KILL, why do you people talk as if you were actually there? You speak as if you knew these kids were horrible? How do you know the oldman wasn't threatening the kids? You don't do you? |
Date: 12/4/2003 11:48:00 AM From Authorid: 53314 I said Nothing of the sort, I said if it's in your house! please READ my ENTIRE reply!! |
Date: 12/4/2003 11:50:00 AM From Authorid: 53314 "If someone comes into your house, it completly changes the scenario, so try again please" Meaning if someone breaks into your house, by law you can "protect" yourself. |
Date: 12/4/2003 11:50:00 AM From Authorid: 12133 the traumatization was in referrance to shooting the kid, without killing him, that was said in the above post. And as far as the information I have, it was from reading the same post you read. So therefore, you don't know anymore about what happened than *I* do, as to whether or not the old man threatened the kids, or whether the kids just decided to beat the old man just for fun. |
Date: 12/4/2003 11:52:00 AM From Authorid: 12133 Um, the law does not differentiate about "protecting yourself" whether inside a house or not, IF you can prove your life was in jeopardy. I think that the second man had the right to walk out of the house with the gun, to protect someone. |
Date: 12/4/2003 11:53:00 AM From Authorid: 2030 Here is another Scenario; Rowley, 3 guys are beating YOU, they may stop eventually, they may not. They may very well intend to kill You. I come out of my house. I say "Stop please you misunderstood young men!" They keep beating you, I have a gun. What do YOU want me to do. |
Date: 12/4/2003 11:53:00 AM
From Authorid: 53314
"you don't know anymore about what happened than *I* do" Hmmm I'm the one keep an objective vantage point where as you immediately call the kids "punks." |
Date: 12/4/2003 11:54:00 AM From Authorid: 12133 And for the punks to have tire irons, or pipes, would give him the right to use a weapon also. |
Date: 12/4/2003 11:55:00 AM From Authorid: 12133 Well, seeing as how they were vandalizing cars, and then decided to beat up a 70 year old man, I don't think they classify as "altar boys" |
Date: 12/4/2003 11:55:00 AM From Authorid: 53314 Oh I'm sorry, I forgot that our law system is filled with vigilantes now. I'm gonna go shoot a robber(Cause he is threatening someone else), I'll be back in 5 minutes. |
Date: 12/4/2003 11:56:00 AM From Authorid: 12133 That's the spirit...just don't kill them..shoot for the arm |
Date: 12/4/2003 11:57:00 AM From Authorid: 12133 And I think there is a BIG difference in "threatening" someone, and beating the crap out of a 70 year old man! |
Date: 12/4/2003 11:57:00 AM
From Authorid: 53314
"Well, seeing as how they were vandalizing cars, and then decided to beat up a 70 year old man, I don't think they classify as "altar boys" " 70-odd year old man heard the young men hitting cars with pipes (or tire irons, I believe" So Your saying these kids are "unks"based on that staement by the author, that's an awful lot of faith to put in the author. Wait, facts never get distorted by the media, you must be right. |
Date: 12/4/2003 11:58:00 AM From Authorid: 12133 As opposed to making up your own version of what happened, based on NOTHING that has been said? So, now you're clairvoyant? |
Date: 12/4/2003 12:00:00 PM From Authorid: 53314 When did I make up my own version? Can you please fill me in on that one? |
Date: 12/4/2003 12:04:00 PM From Authorid: 12133 Well, you're claiming that the author or the media distorted the facts, so therefore, you are saying that someone is lying. Therefore making it look like you know more about what happened than the person who wrote about it. So, you are basing your argument on the fact tat you don't believe the story that has been posted. |
Date: 12/4/2003 12:05:00 PM From Authorid: 16442 I'm going shopping..... |
Date: 12/4/2003 12:05:00 PM From Authorid: 53314 No, I'm basing it on the fact that it's plausible and also on the fact that it is not right to shoot people. I didn't say I knew more then anyone else, but you knew that cause you have been paying so much attention to what I've been saying. Bottom line - It's not right to shoot people. |
Date: 12/4/2003 12:06:00 PM From Authorid: 13119 I read every reply and although I don't think that Rowley made a great impression with his first reply I do agree with him. I think that the old guy does deserve to be charged, how can you call him a hero for vigilante justice. He could have fired the gun into the pavement, it would have jolted the kids and given the other old guy some time to get away. This all happened because the first old guy took the law into his own hands, if he had called the police in the first place instead of confronting the punks he wouldn't have been placed in such a vulnerable position. I think the punks deserve to go to jail for their vandalism but they shouldn't have been shot by some old man going off half-cocked. I place alot of faith and believe in the justice system and I don't think that creating anarchy by taking the law in your own hands is excusable. And as for the 2nd guy being a cancer patient what does that have to do with anything. Should he be treated any different from a 30 yr old man who shoots someone in the arm because he is defending his buddy. Nope, justice is blind, all are created equal. |
Date: 12/4/2003 12:07:00 PM From Authorid: 12133 But you said earlier, that if was family, there's a difference. Unless you weren't talking about shooting the would-be rapists. In that case, I woould like to know what your course of action would be? |
Date: 12/4/2003 12:08:00 PM From Authorid: 12133 Ok, Magoo. He fires a warning shot into the pavemement, it richocetes up, killing one of the kids, instead of just wounding him. Then what? Charge him with murder? |
Date: 12/4/2003 12:11:00 PM From Authorid: 53314 Please, READ MY REPLY "But you said earlier, that if was family, there's a difference. " I NEVER SAID THAT, I said it's diffrent if and only if he comes into your HOUSE. PLEASE I beg you Read my reply instead of assuming you know exactly what I am thinking. |
Date: 12/4/2003 12:12:00 PM From Authorid: 53314 Instead of confronting the teenagers, the FIRST oldman should have called the cops, It's that simple. Good call Magoo. |
Date: 12/4/2003 12:14:00 PM From Authorid: 12133 ok, my mistake, you DID say "in your house". So, if my scenario happened with your daughter on the street, then since its not in your home, you wouldn't protect her? |
Date: 12/4/2003 12:15:00 PM From Authorid: 12133 I agree, he should have called the cops. AFTER he got them off of the other old man. by ANY means necessary. |
Date: 12/4/2003 12:15:00 PM From Authorid: 53314 My daughter wouldn't be dumb enough to confront 3 "punk" kids...=0) |
Date: 12/4/2003 12:17:00 PM From Authorid: 12133 I didn't say she confronted them, I said if she was attacked by them, and they were trying to rape her, please read MY comments thoroughly. |
Date: 12/4/2003 12:18:00 PM From Authorid: 53314 Crash, You are NOT understanding what Magoo said? The oldman that was getting beaten up, SHOULD NOT HAVE CONFRONTED THE TEENAGERS. HE should have called the cops. Then he wouldn't of gotten beat up, and the second oldman would not have even been aware of the 3 kids. |
Date: 12/4/2003 12:19:00 PM From Authorid: 12133 Maybe he was trying to protect his car? Or trying to make them quit? I never said he was brilliant for trying to stop them, but that was no reason for them to jump him |
Date: 12/4/2003 12:19:00 PM From Authorid: 53314 What does the 3 teenagers trying to rape a young girl have to do with an oldman CONFRONTING 3 teenagers and getting beaten up have to do with each other? |
Date: 12/4/2003 12:20:00 PM From Authorid: 13119 Crash, he could have fired into the grass, if you know how to use a firearm properly he could have done it without causing damage to anyone. |
Date: 12/4/2003 12:22:00 PM From Authorid: 53314 Trying to protect his car? That's what insurance is for, is it not? |
Date: 12/4/2003 12:26:00 PM From Authorid: 12133 Yes, that's what insurance is for. To protect people and to keep them from getting killed by stupid kids..that's what guns are for. |
Date: 12/4/2003 12:26:00 PM From Authorid: 12133 Yes, he could have fired into the grass, but you specifically said "asphalt" |
Date: 12/4/2003 12:27:00 PM From Authorid: 12133 It has to do with the fact that people should have the right to protect other people, not just themselves. |
Date: 12/4/2003 12:27:00 PM From Authorid: 62410 ROWLEY: "It's not right to shoot people...under ANY circumstances." But obviously you believe it's okay for the police to shoot people. You attack the validity of the reporting but let's just say this is a hypothetical situation: The boys have tire irons, they're beating the old man. Chances are he will die before the police arrive if called. There is a reason we have the RIGHT TO KEEP and BEAR ARMS. I got a little chewed up in my post "To Kill or Not to Kill" because I said I wouldn't kill someone raping my daughter - but I argued that I didn't need to kill the attacker - I could counter-attack and personally I would go for the wound then call the police. This man shot this kid in the arm. I would have done the same thing. Scall |
Date: 12/4/2003 12:29:00 PM From Authorid: 12133 IF the old man had shot the kid in the head, and killed him, on purpose, then I would argue that he should have tried to wound him. But, as he DID shoot him in the arm, wounding him, I think he was justifiable in his actions. |
Date: 12/4/2003 12:33:00 PM From Authorid: 53314 YOU PEOPLE DON'T UNDERSTAND, THE FIRST OLDMAN SHOULD NOT HAVE CONFRONTED THE KIDS, OPEN UP YOUR EYES, PLEASE. THE ENTIRE INCIDENT WAS THE FIRST OLDMANS FAULT. Also "But obviously you believe it's okay for the police to shoot people. " How did you draw that conclusion, I firmly stated that I belive shooting people is wrong, yet you conclude I think it's ok for police to shoot people? |
Date: 12/4/2003 12:35:00 PM From Authorid: 13119 How can you call this man a hero? I don't see it, he took the law into his own hands and has to pay for his actions.The punks were in the wrong for their actions but the old men were in the wrong for their actions. This all could have been avoided if the first old man didn't try and act like dirty harry and get involved in something that he had no way of winning or even of assuring his own safety. I never said asphalt I did say pavement, sorry, I thought that people would understand what I was saying. Fire a warning shot. In the Rules of Engagement as soon as you fire your weapon you are intent on deadly force. what gave the old guy the right to try and inflict deadly force on anyone. All involved should pay for their actions. |
Date: 12/4/2003 12:45:00 PM From Authorid: 59876 i don't agree that the first old man should have been non confrontational at all. the only thing he had against him is his age. when you sit back and live in fear of of the bad things going on around you instead of confronting and challenging those bad things, those bad things move in agrssively until you are boxed in by your fears both mentally and physically. |
Date: 12/4/2003 12:45:00 PM From Authorid: 59876 *agressively |
Date: 12/4/2003 12:48:00 PM From Authorid: 62410 Oh? Sorry, my bad -- I just assumed you knew police shoot people. Do you think then that we should enact law that take police guns away? You know - there is a black market and the bad guys will ALWAYS have guns. Scall |
Date: 12/4/2003 1:09:00 PM From Authorid: 62410 Also, how do we KNOW the first old man wasn't senile? Perhaps he went out there because he thought he was young again and wasn't thinking right. Scall |
Date: 12/4/2003 1:11:00 PM From Authorid: 2030 What the first old man did or did not do is completely irrelevant. The man with the gun saw three individuals beating another man and intervened. True maybe the first guy should have just called the cops but then again I should think a citizen should be able to tell someone to stop breaking the law and leave without getting beat up. Now Again the 2nd old man tried to stop an assault in progress, and he didn't kill anyone. My opinion: He did what he felt he had to do. The wimpification of America folks, we deter crime by letting it be known we aren't going to stand for it. Let the police handle everything? Sure, that's what they are there for, but we as citizens can and must take an active role. And that first man (who you say should mind his own business) was doing just that. |
Date: 12/4/2003 1:16:00 PM From Authorid: 2030 And my question above has never been answered. What if it were YOU on the ground being beaten. And I was watching; Should I: A. Call the police (they will be there in 5-7 minutes if you're lucky) Or B. Stop it. |
Date: 12/4/2003 1:24:00 PM From Authorid: 59876 i'd want you to shoot mr. bcar crackshot lol |
Date: 12/4/2003 1:32:00 PM
From Authorid: 53314
"What if it were YOU on the ground being beaten" I'm not dumb enough to walk up to 3 peope and tell them to stop what they are doing because it's wrong, I think I'd call the cops on them first. There it's anserewd. You should not take the law into your own hands, and further more shooting people is BAD, stop trying to put another face on this argument, it's ugly enough. |
Date: 12/4/2003 1:39:00 PM From Authorid: 13119 BCAR how can you say that what the first old man did is irrelevant, without his actions this would not have escalated as it did. I can see what you mean about the second old guy not knowing the whole story and going to his buddies rescue but it still doesn't excuse the use of deadly force (maybe he aimed but missed, who knows) |
Date: 12/4/2003 1:55:00 PM From Authorid: 12133 I don't think BCAR stated that they were beating YOU up, for trying to stop them, I think he just said "If 3 guys were beating you up... |
Date: 12/4/2003 2:08:00 PM From Authorid: 53314 Why would 3 guys beat me up for no reason? That's a compltly diffrent story, you can't take appples and call them oranges? |
Date: 12/4/2003 2:18:00 PM From Authorid: 12133 Umm...I believe he's trying to put YOU in a similar situation, and see what your reaction would be. |
Date: 12/4/2003 2:19:00 PM From Authorid: 53284 I think that if we all carried guns the world would be a much more polite place. There would be a few very violent years then things would calm down. |
Date: 12/4/2003 3:16:00 PM From Authorid: 12835 Rowley, do you believe in self defense ? Can a police office shoot at a criminal with intent to kill, if being shot at by the offender ? |
Date: 12/4/2003 4:19:00 PM From Authorid: 55967 I've read all the replies up to here. Now, first, I agree the first old man was wrong for confronting the 3 punks. He could have called the police; after all, the young men were well known to the local law enforcement, and a desription of them to the police would likely result in their eventual arrest. However, Rowley, I believe the main point by BCAR and Crash is that there could NOT be the required amount of time wasted in calling and getting the police there because the old man's life was in serious danger. Dumb move or not, should the first old man be left to be pummeled into a pulp for five more minutes, which could cost him his life, or should the other old man do what he knew to be his only recourse in saving the life of someone? I say he did it right, and I believe the court will probably acquit him. |
Date: 12/4/2003 5:07:00 PM From Authorid: 62410 "I firmly stated that I belive shooting people is wrong, yet you conclude I think it's ok for police to shoot people?" I'm still waiting for an answer to my question -- if police shouldn't shoot people either then how should we enforce the law??? |
Date: 12/4/2003 6:17:00 PM From Authorid: 2030 Well Gypsy Hawk (55967) you made more sense out of my arguement than I did. I will repeat however that what the First Older man did is Indeed irrelevant to the subsequent actions of the 2nd older man. But the actions of the 3 men beating him certainly were. Deadly force IS justified to save someones life, IF they were indeed threatened. THAT is up to the court to decide. |
Date: 12/4/2003 6:35:00 PM From Authorid: 34476 Hero. |
Date: 12/4/2003 6:46:00 PM From Authorid: 34476 *smacks face on keyboard* ***HARD*** I just read about 2/3 of these replies. *WOW* I just need one question answered, Rowley: Do you believe that it is the 70 year old man's fault that he got beat up? That HE is the one to blame for the situation, because he tried to stop 3 vandals before calling the police??? |
Date: 12/4/2003 7:03:00 PM
From Authorid: 53314
"Do you believe that it is the 70 year old man's fault that he got beat up? That HE is the one to blame for the situation, because he tried to stop 3 vandals before calling the police???" Yes it's his fault. "if police shouldn't shoot people either then how should we enforce the law?" Police are here to protect us, It does not say in the constituion police is here to shoot people. What about england, they have police officers without guns, and I have to say I MUCH rather live in England then the US. |
Date: 12/4/2003 7:08:00 PM From Authorid: 53314 Ha, I love stirring up trouble, I think I'm odne with this debate. =0) |
Date: 12/4/2003 7:31:00 PM From Authorid: 34476 I read your other comment after I had posted my question, Rowley. Also, I wanted to make sure that I had your point of view correct, as earlier replies (apparently) did not understand what you were trying to say. |
Date: 12/4/2003 7:32:00 PM From Authorid: 16671 I agree with crash and Bcar. |
Date: 12/4/2003 7:33:00 PM From Authorid: 16671 The man should NOT have been arrested in the first place for defending the health and welfare of the other man. They should give him a medal. |
Date: 12/4/2003 8:02:00 PM ( From Author ) From Authorid: 15070 I found the story from the St.Petersburg Times (Clearwater Edition). Now, I did get the ages incorrect. And our Channel Nine (cable) news made mention of the fact the man who did the shooting was a cancer patient (this news article does not mention it). Now, I agree, I believe Thugs take silence as permission to continue. Maybe we NEED more people to speak=up, and maybe people are tired of being victimized. I believe this man is a hero. I also believe it would have been unrealistic to wait for the police. Now-say the 63-year old victim walked out his door because he heard the Thugs causing problems. Now the Punk kids, who really LIKE creating a scene, are probably looking to see if people notice them. |
Date: 12/4/2003 8:05:00 PM ( From Author ) From Authorid: 15070 <cont>,.......now if the kids see the 63-year old watching them & then the police arrive, how hard is it going to be for the kids to put two-and-two togather & figure out who called the cops? Don't you think the 63-year old would REALLY be victimized then ? Come on.....I think the shooter should be released of all charges. |
Date: 12/4/2003 8:09:00 PM ( From Author ) From Authorid: 15070 BRW-I wasn't ignoring this post, when I went to bed last night, there were no comments. I even waited a while after posting. I am glad to see so many replies here. Rowley, I see from your tag, you are from Great Britan, where your citizens (and Police) do not have the freedom to carry firearms. I believe your solution is unrealistic. |
Date: 12/4/2003 8:13:00 PM ( From Author ) From Authorid: 15070 Rowley-I can teel you-if I woke-up & someone was in MY house, with MY children sleeping in the other room, I would do a lot of damage that I cannot express on a g-rated site. Once you enter MY house, with MY family, my "fight-or-flight" instincts would tell me to "kill-or-be-killed". I can assure you of that. I don't care if I have to brain them with my cane (on a bad night), they would know they REALLY picked the wrong home to enter |
Date: 12/4/2003 8:14:00 PM ( From Author ) From Authorid: 15070 I mean "tell"......sheesh, typos. |
Date: 12/4/2003 8:16:00 PM From Authorid: 3125 I think the 70 year old man would have been wise to call the police and let them handle the situation. The 80 year old had reacted to immediate danger and very possibly saved the 70 year old man's life. I don't think they should have arrested him and charged him with attempted murder. We must remember we do live in a society where a thief can get trapped in a garage after he had intended to rob the owners and he then sued the owners because he had no way out of the garage and had to eat dog food for a few days and he won the stupid case. |
Date: 12/4/2003 8:28:00 PM ( From Author ) From Authorid: 15070 Hi Barb! It is so good to see you! Our judicial system, *sigh*, is so backwards now. It really is. I know, I lived in Glenview, Illinois when the burgler tried to rob a farmhouse & the farmers German Shepard attacked the guy as he was coming through the window. Guess what? The dog was destroyed, the Famer was sued, and the would-be robber ended up owning the farm. Literally.....how wrong is that? |
Date: 12/4/2003 8:37:00 PM From Authorid: 12341 Justice was done. If three rotten people were beating on ANY seventy or eighty year old, I would shoot them myself. And sleep good, probably in jail. But I'm sick of stories like this. |
Date: 12/4/2003 8:45:00 PM ( From Author ) From Authorid: 15070 GO SHADOW GHOST!!!!! I agree 100% |
Date: 12/4/2003 10:41:00 PM From Authorid: 47296 Based on my knowledge of the law, and the use of deadly force, the man who did the actual shooting did not use deadly force by shooting the asailant in the arm, but the force he deemed necessary to prevent an elderly man from being beaten in a way that could have caused serious bodily harm to a person his age. Deadly force is justified when a person is jeopardy of serious bodily harm or loss of life. If you have three punks with an elderly man on the ground, and they are kicking and beating him, then serious bodily harm, and death are possible. All it takes is one well aimed kick to the head and the elderly man would be dead. The shooter yelled at least three times for the punks to quit, and they refused. He then did the only thing he saw left to do, and that is to take matters into his own hand. Personally, I believe the man should be awarded a medal by the governor for his actions. If the man is found guilty, all it does it tell the punks of the world that they can do whatever they please, and law abiding armed citizens can do nothing to stop them. Next time though, maybe the person doing the shooting will be smart enough to shoot to kill, and then put a knife in the punk's hand so he can tell the cops he was defending his life. |
Date: 12/5/2003 1:42:00 AM From Authorid: 62118 As far as I know there is no law saying you can't tell people to stop vandalising cars. |
Date: 12/5/2003 2:35:00 AM From Authorid: 53314 First, off you people obviously don't know what qualifies you to be a hero, Maybe you should look the word up? I don't think shooting someone qualifies you? Note, anytime you shoot a firearm, it is considered deadly force by the law. "Rowley-I can tell you-if I woke-up & someone was in MY house" I have said it about 4 times that in your house is a completely different scenario then in the middle of the street with other people around. I guess no one read that part? Hmm I got a question to all of you, what if the 80 year old man that shot the assailants had accidentally missed and killed one of your children? I mean he his vision is bad and all, but lets praise him for keeping a firearm in his possession? What if he would have shot one of your loved ones on mistake, you would be furious. That is why guns are bad people, and if you don't understand that then eh, what can I do? Shooting people = BAD No exceptions! I think I posted this twice, it is 5:36 AM though. |
Date: 12/5/2003 7:50:00 AM From Authorid: 16671 Rowley , guns are not bad but some people that carry them are bad. NOT all that own guns are bad. |
Date: 12/5/2003 8:16:00 AM From Authorid: 13119 Two Spirits, it doesn't say anywhere in this post that the 2nd old guy yelled any warnings, let alone 3, to the punks it says that he thought his friend was in danger and he shot one of the kids in the arm. |
Date: 12/5/2003 8:19:00 AM From Authorid: 13119 AND for everyone that keeps on bringing up home invasions, that is not what this is about! I do have to agree with Rowley that people are mixing apples and oranges. THE OLD MAN CONFRONTED THE PUNKS!! He contributed to the situation, the 2nd old man would not have just gone outside and shot a vandal, he was trying to safe his friend in a manner that he thought was appropriate. I do think that he should be held accountable for his actions, just as everyone should be. But honestly the situation escalated out of control because the first guy did something that a normal reasonable person would realise could result in harm to themselves. |
Date: 12/5/2003 8:26:00 AM From Authorid: 13119 FirstBorn I have to agree with your last statement, people not guns are bad. Two Spirit, the author has just amended her story to show the whole thing now I see what you are talking about. |
Date: 12/5/2003 8:55:00 AM From Authorid: 13119 safe = save sorry about the booboo |
Date: 12/5/2003 9:31:00 AM From Authorid: 57723 That is such bull! |
Date: 12/5/2003 9:40:00 AM From Authorid: 13119 What is such bull? You kinda have to choose and tell us what you think is bull. |
Date: 12/5/2003 9:57:00 AM ( From Author ) From Authorid: 15070 I live on a dead-end street. There are only 35 homes on my street. I know ALL of my neighbors, having lived here over 10 years. I am very much a live-and-let-live neighbor.BUT, if I saw some men/boys/you-name-it outside by our cars, banging things about & causing heck, yeah. I would confront them. This is MY house & my neighborhood. What does that mean? That means that I am not going to watch property destroyed & vandalism happen. If I am in the house, I will call 911 & if the punks are close to the house, I WILL step outside & tell them to bugger-off. If they want a face-to-face discussion, I am NOT above having one. The MINUTE a blow is struck, all bets are off, and I will do whatever I can to protect myself. I am drawing this analogy because of the "home invasion" argument. I will also tell you-if I saw a neighbor confront some punks & be attacked, I would call 911 & the GO OUT THERE MYSELF. If I have a baseball bat, I will use it. If I have a gun, I will fire in the air & if the punks don't scatter, someone is going to get shot. That way I can make sure my neighbor survives serious, or potentially deadly harm. |
Date: 12/5/2003 10:02:00 AM ( From Author ) From Authorid: 15070 Magoo-the first old man confronted the punks, true. That was HIS judgement call. HOWEVER-no matter how you feel about what the first man did, whether or not you believe he should, or should not have confronted those guys, the MINUTE those Thugs started to beat & stomp him, his friends & neighbors had EVERY RIGHT, to save him, anyway they could. No not confuse the "He shouldn't have been out their in the first place", from the seperate issue of "There is an old man being stomped, I/we must save him". If that involves a gun, warning shots, and someone being winged, I have NO problem with that. |
Date: 12/5/2003 10:11:00 AM ( From Author ) From Authorid: 15070 Rowley-let's stick to the issue, o.k.? "Hero", is a subject term, and open to the intrepretation of the person(s) using it. My Mother fought a very ugly & painful battle with Oral & Lymph-Node Cancer. My Mother battled it with a dignity that touched everyone who knew her, especially the Hospice Workers. My Mother became THEIR Hero, for her dignaty. The Hospice Workers were MY Hero, for caring for my Mom with such compassion. NOW-if I see a crime being commited & I DON'T act, that makes me a coward. And as guilty as the Perps. If I see a crime & I GET INVOLVED, yeah, that makes me a Hero. Ref'ing to <First, off you people obviously don't know what qualifies you to be a hero, Maybe you should look the word up?> once you have reached the point of no longer debating an idea, or an issue, and you resort to innuendo & insult, it becomes apparent your argument is losing merit, and you are attempting to either re-direct the conversation, or your frustration with a losing argument causes you to resort to such tactics, |
Date: 12/5/2003 10:12:00 AM ( From Author ) From Authorid: 15070 Rowley-I am glad you enjoy starting up trouble, but next time, let's debate this issues, o.k.? |
Date: 12/5/2003 10:24:00 AM From Authorid: 13119 LSG You yourself just said what I said, you said that you would fire a warning shot first. If you read my first reply that is what I said too. I don't think going out and firing at them straight away was a proper thing to do. Had he fired a warning shot and they not heeded then all bets were off. but how do you know he was trying to "wing" him and not kill but just isn't a marksman? |
Date: 12/5/2003 10:35:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 15070
-->Spaulding held a .22-caliber pistol and warned the men once, twice, three times to stop. Then he fired, striking one in the right biceps. <--now, even if Spaulding had fired once, straight AT the Perps & killed or injured one, I still believe he would have been in the right, because he was protecting a neighbor from great harm, or possible death |
Date: 12/5/2003 10:39:00 AM ( From Author ) From Authorid: 15070 I will amend my statement by saying this: if Spaulding had stepped out the door, and immediately fired at one of the kids & killed, or badly injured him, them he could (and should) have been charged with assault with a deadly weapon. A charge I am sure he woulsd beat. The the facts in this case do not warrant an attempted murder charge. |
Date: 12/5/2003 10:47:00 AM ( From Author ) From Authorid: 15070 there are so many really good replies here, (I am carefully reading over all of them)....but I cannot understand the "I will stand here & wait for the police" mindset. Sorry......BCAR is right on. Stand there & wait for the Poice? or Shot? |
Date: 12/5/2003 11:31:00 AM
From Authorid: 13119
The 2nd man may have done the right action and he may have done the wrong action but it isn't up to us to decide, the question is should he be charged and I say YES!!! Vigilante justice leads to a lawless state. If you allow one vigilante to get away with it and not have to worry about being charged because people think he is a hero what is that going to tell every other person with a gun and the feeling that he is right. I am not debating what the 2nd man did, I am saying that he should be held accountable for his actions. |
Date: 12/5/2003 11:33:00 AM From Authorid: 13119 And the only time I said call the police it was in regards to the first man who created the danger to himself by taking on more than he could safely handle. I never said the punks were in the right, they are vandals and hoodlooms and deserve to be punished for their actions but by a court of law not by a neighbour. |
Date: 12/5/2003 12:11:00 PM
From Authorid: 25438
Well, the way I look at it, he was taking the law in his own hands. Nothing gives you the right to shoot at someone else unless it is self-defense. That the law and everyone knows it. He could have killed one of those kids. My guess would be he just shot at the crowd, not aiming at an arm. Its illegal, I know it, you know it, the police know it. They can't let him off because he and his friend were old. Age doesn't not make you exempt from the law. If there were three 18 year olds beating up a healthy huge 22 year old and someone shot one of the kids, I think you guys may feel differently. The age thing is a BIG factor but to let them go would be ageism. Not right. Just my opinion. |
Date: 12/5/2003 3:09:00 PM From Authorid: 53314 First off, How are guns NOT bad? They are Designed to HURT, they have no other purpose but to HURT people. We have Laws for a reason LSG, Your rights stop where another persons rights begin, am I correct? So what makes you think that it is acceptable to beat people with baseball bats? ("If I have a baseball bat, I will use it." Funny how you should bring up redirecting the debate when you brought in "well if someone was in my house I'd shoot them" That is irrelevant to the matter, Where as (If you read) I said something along the lines of "shooting people does not qualify you as hero, maybe you should look the word up" the remark was to make my argument of "guns are bad" more Salient. I guess it doesn't work, eh? Not to mention that it is almost NEVER a good idea to take the law into your own hands. |
Date: 12/5/2003 3:15:00 PM From Authorid: 59876 how is it not bad to disregard the life of a 70 year old man in place of three obvious thugs? |
Date: 12/5/2003 3:44:00 PM From Authorid: 53314 So since they are thugs their lives become worthless? An eye for an eye leaves EVERYONE blind -Ghandi |
Date: 12/5/2003 4:37:00 PM From Authorid: 59876 so the 70 year old man's life is worthless because he lived 70 years already? |
Date: 12/5/2003 4:47:00 PM From Authorid: 59876 if i had to choose one to survive or protect over the other based on the information at hand, i'd pick the 70 year old man that was protecting a fellow human being over any one of the three street thugs that were ganging up on an old man. i find your situational ethics and lack of compassion for a older citizen that was protecting another older citizen from being ganged up on by three young street punks frightening. any updates made by lsg aside, i am basing this said on what your before update replies are, i find your mentality frightening. the old man didn't kill anyone, he wounded one of three young men that was attacking someone. i'll never give up my guns, not ever, because the criminals will always have guns. |
Date: 12/5/2003 5:15:00 PM From Authorid: 12133 After careful thought, and consideration, I've decided to change my mind about this post. What right did that old man have to yell at those boys? They were out, having fun, smashing up some cars, not hurting anyone, when out of the blue, that old man had the NERVE to come out and tell them to stop. I think they SHOULD have beat him down. How DARE that old man ruin their fun? Geez, hoodlums can't even have a good time destroying property anymore, without some old man sticking his nose where it doesn't belong! And that OTHER sorry old man...what RIGHT did he have to pull a gun out, and try to WARN,,,WARN the three young poster children for Juvenile Hall, to stop beating his friend? And the NERVE of him, after warning ONLY 3 times, to have the NERVE to shoot one in the arm, so they wouldn't kill his friend. Some people!! Never let the kids have ANY fun anymore!! *I* say, lets all form a gang, and go trash people cars, and if any of the Geritol Generation says a word, we'll just beat the crap out of him!! Thank you Rowley, for changing my mind, and making me see the light. By the way, where does YOUR grandfather live? At least we know we won't get shot at there |
Date: 12/5/2003 5:17:00 PM From Authorid: 12133 Hero? Not at all, the 3 young men, who were out minding their own business (which included beating up an old man) and were just attacked, for no reason by that gun toting vigilante. THEY are the real heros of this story. |
Date: 12/5/2003 5:24:00 PM From Authorid: 55967 ^^^I think I detect a hint of sarcasm there. |
Date: 12/5/2003 5:47:00 PM From Authorid: 12133 Who me?? Sarcastic?? Never!! |
Date: 12/5/2003 7:23:00 PM From Authorid: 50435 He's not a hero. But he's not a murderer. He's one of the last of a generation who knew how to just get it done. |
Date: 12/5/2003 8:34:00 PM From Authorid: 34476 Rowley, how can an inanimate object be termed "bad" or "good"??? How one USES an inanimate object may be bad or good, but the OBJECT ITSELF cannot be either. It has no feelings, it has no opinion, it cannot do ANYTHING of its own volition. My children have known this fact since they were 4. I am amazed that other people do not. |
Date: 12/5/2003 8:39:00 PM From Authorid: 62410 Re: the police in England don't have guns and all is groovy. Tsk tsk... poor unrealistic Rowley. What is a police officer supposed to do to protect life if the perp has a gun or a knife. How does he protect himself or the victim without a gun if the perp has gun? In this country, we have the right by LAW to KEEP AND BEAR ARMS for a reason. [BTW LSG: HE'S FROM FLORIDA] The bad guys will always have guns due to the black market. There will always be bad guys and there will always be guns. Re: "an eye for an eye till everyone is blind" refers to revenge -- not preventing the taking of human life. Scall |
Date: 12/5/2003 8:42:00 PM From Authorid: 62410 err... I will amend that to say "not the prevention of taking life in an immanent situation" Scall |
Date: 12/5/2003 10:05:00 PM From Authorid: 12341 ummm...Crash has just become my heroe! OF common sense. I'm sick and fed up with people who do what they want to others and then cry foul when the bullet bites their butt. Try looking for someone for months who is already dead. Simply because she happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Try imagining what those last moments of her life were like. I have and I still to this day can't grasp it. Some thug comes along wanting to commit ANOTHER murder and crime because "life made me this way". Give me a break already! No one grew up poorer than me, I have true bleeding heart stories, but my compassion was heightened by my own poverty, I grew up with lots of problems and still managed to stay sane, get an education and contribute something back to society. And if rotton no goods don't want to be shot at by those of us who care more ABOUT victims than let them get a life. What the heck has happened to the basic common sense of knowing a victim from a perpetrator who makes his living from hurting, maiming, and killing innocent human beings. I'm sick of that mentality. Try scraping up the remains of a loved one left to rot simply because some have no regard for human life or existance. No regard at all for the loved ones left behind. I'm sick and fed up with the belly achers who condone and endorse human rights for those who have absolutely no respect for other human beings and thier right to just be safe and live without being beaten or murdered. Jeese Louise, whatever happened to common sense? |
Date: 12/5/2003 11:40:00 PM From Authorid: 34476 Common sense is no longer common, Shadow Ghost. Didn't you know that YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE if somebody beats you up?!? |
Date: 12/6/2003 4:26:00 AM From Authorid: 47296 Magoo, you mat want to read the article again. "Spaulding held a .22-caliber pistol and warned the men once, twice, three times to stop. Then he fired, striking one in the right biceps." I have my facts straight. Rowley, as a gun owner, sport shooter, and former military security, I am full aware of what constitutes deadly force. I am also aware of restraint of force in the use of firearms. Firearms can be fired without using deadly force, which is commonly known as the shoot to wound policy. Now, in those countries where there are heavy gun control laws, it may be alright for punks to go around destroying property and beating up defenseless old men. Here in the US though, it is not. Growing up, if me and my firends had gone around doing such, and an elderly neighbor said something, we had best do what our elders said, or face a serious beating. The sorry state this world is in today is because there are too many people who would judge such as in a case like this and say, "Oh, but those poor punks were only out having a little teen fun and meant no harm by it. That nasty old man had no business interupting there fun, and the other definitely had not right shooting them" Well guess what? If you come into my neighborhood and do like these punks did, feel lucky if you get out with just a gunshot wound. Us country folks don't play, and we shoot to kill. |
Date: 12/6/2003 7:34:00 AM From Authorid: 54987 A hero ... no doubt about it! Deserved a medal. |
Date: 12/6/2003 10:13:00 AM From Authorid: 51456 he is a HERO! i have no good points but this is totally ridiculous! and he shouldbe pronounced a hero!@ i know i would want my neighbour/friend to do this for me and at lest he shot him in the arm! |
Date: 12/6/2003 2:27:00 PM From Authorid: 48809 I agree that this guy is a hero and I think he had every right to protect his friend... what utterly stupid laws we have when the law upholds the criminal instead of the victims! That is why some people will not try to help others who are being accosted... because many times they will end up being blamed themselves! |
Date: 12/7/2003 6:50:00 AM From Authorid: 22080 DONT REFER TO THEM AS PUNKS. im sorry but i have friends who are street punks, that means they listen to punk music, and they would never do anything like this, these kids were probably some suburban kids hopped up on eminem lyrics. NOW! onto the debate, i think this guy was being a good man BUT he did the wrong thing in the eyes of the chirpers, now if this guy was a cop it would have been a different story probably. |
Date: 12/7/2003 11:18:00 AM
From Authorid: 12133
When I was in high school, they referred to guys with long hair as "hoods" short for hoodlums, and none of my friends would have done anything like this either. "Punk" is just a word. |
Date: 12/7/2003 6:21:00 PM From Authorid: 22080 ok so anything you've ever been proud of or cultivated your life with is just a word |
Date: 12/7/2003 8:46:00 PM From Authorid: 12133 "punk" was used to desribe people of dubious character, long before the "punks" you are referring to, took the name for themselves. Same way with "hoods". If they choose to take a name for themselves, that already has a meaning that they don't like, society is most likely not going to change the meaning of that word for them. |
Date: 12/7/2003 9:38:00 PM From Authorid: 47296 Jestr, down south the word "punk" means a kid ir teen who is prone to trouble. The word has been around for as long as I can remember. |
Date: 12/8/2003 2:46:00 AM From Authorid: 21867 If more people were like the old guy who shot at the fools...there would be less idiots smashing up cars and kicking over old folks. |
Date: 12/8/2003 9:43:00 AM
From Authorid: 13119
Two Spirit, I did go back and read what she wrote and I did tell you that waaay back up there. I still stand by the statement that the old man should be held accountable for his actions. If people see him as a hero fine but if he is truly a man of honour he will take what is given to him as determined by the justice system. |
Date: 12/8/2003 9:44:00 AM From Authorid: 13119 and Crash, sarcasm is the lowest form of wit. If you have a problem with someone you shouldn't try and use sarcasm to win your way it leaves a sour taste in the other persons mouth and a general disdain for your intellect. |
Date: 12/8/2003 9:59:00 AM From Authorid: 59876 really? because i quite enjoy an exchange of sarcasm. are you calling me inferior? lol |
Date: 12/8/2003 10:43:00 AM
From Authorid: 12133
2 words..."Duh, really??" |
Date: 12/8/2003 10:44:00 AM From Authorid: 12133 Sorry Magoo...I felt the need to lower my wit, so more people could understand what I was saying |
Date: 12/8/2003 1:40:00 PM From Authorid: 13119 I enjoy sarcasm as much as anyone and no Doheney, I wasn't saying anyone was lacking in wits. I happpen to know that Crash has an ability to use words to his advantage and he is intelligent. He doesn't have to resort to sarcasm when he is arguing with someone. |
Date: 12/8/2003 4:03:00 PM From Authorid: 47296 Well Magoo, I guess you feel the punks were justified in going around vandalizing or destroying property, and then beating on an old man when he had the nerve to say something about it. It is a sorry state of affairs when the punks and criminals in this country have more rights than decent law abiding citizens who only want to clean up their neighborhood. A word to the wise, is you have to shoot someone, kill them. Dead men tell no tales. |
Date: 12/8/2003 6:52:00 PM From Authorid: 22080 ok so........its wrong to say somethings gay.......hmmmmmmmm intriguing, that should be another debate |
Date: 12/8/2003 7:02:00 PM ( From Author ) From Authorid: 15070 JestR-I do not confuse a "punk", with a PUNK, as in a PUNK-rocker. When I use the term punk, as a derogatory term, I mean the type of young thug, who thought they were bad, until they ended up in prison & tried their "tough" act. Then they ended up someone's girlfriend when they found out what "tough" REALLY means. I think this old man is a hero. I for one, would NOT stand around and watch someone be victimized. Especially a senior citizen. He did the right thing. I think people would think twice about victimizing others, if we had more people who stand up & say "ENOUGH". |
Date: 12/8/2003 7:06:00 PM ( From Author ) From Authorid: 15070 JestR-the term "punk" is much older than you are. It holds a different meaning for some people. Do not attck Two-Spirits. She does not deserve it, and was merely pointing something out to you. Take a moment to re-think, o.k.? |
Date: 12/9/2003 4:56:00 AM From Authorid: 47296 Jestr, growing up in the 60s, punk was a word often used when talking about younger kids. Siblings would refer to their younger siblings as their punk sister or brother. Later, the term became synonomous with a young thug on the streets. Understand also, I was involved with security and law enforcement, so the term punk has a totally different meaning for me than it does for a lot of younger people. Think back to the old Dirty Harry moveis, where he said, "Go ahead punk, make my day". |
Date: 12/9/2003 5:44:00 AM From Authorid: 50435 When you're 71, you can use pretty much anything you like. |
Date: 12/9/2003 7:39:00 AM From Authorid: 13119 Holy Jumpin! I never said that it was okay to beat an old man, I never said that vandalism should be okayed. What I said was, fine if he picks up a weapon and points it at another and fires it at them THEN He should be responsible for his actions. Let him have his day in court and then allow the judge to determine if he should get off, BUT HOLD EVERYONE RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR OWN ACTIONS!!!! As an ex-MP Two Spirit you should realise that if you allow one vigilante to get away with anything then others are sure to follow and there is no way of knowing if they are half as smart or good as the first person. |
Date: 12/9/2003 9:40:00 AM ( From Author ) From Authorid: 15070 Magoo-I actually think there is a time & a place for vigilantes. That is probably a very radical statement. I know there is a negative association with the word "vigilantes", but I consider the people who chase pedophiles out of neighborhoods where there are small children, vigilantes. Also, this man was not being a "vigilante". He did not load-up his car with firepower & drive down to the red-light district & try his own version of the Guardian Angels. He was put in a "fight-or-flight" situation & acted accordingly. And, Magoo..no one thinks you endorse either vandalism, or attacking the Elderly. I understand your concern, you do not want Society to turn into a bad Western, with guns strapped to every hip. BUt, I think the legal system should NOT have pursured this man at all. |
Date: 12/9/2003 11:10:00 AM From Authorid: 59876 but there is a difference between vigilante justice, ie; going after someone before our justice system can take care of it, and trying to stop a crime in progress ie; an older man being beat, clearly outnumbered, by three younger men. |
Date: 12/9/2003 11:12:00 AM From Authorid: 59876 where we lived before, in a small city, calling 911 would take 15 to 20 minutes for the cops to show up for a non medical emergency. |
Date: 12/9/2003 1:44:00 PM ( From Author ) From Authorid: 15070 thank you for pointing that out Doheney. The older man was being beaten THEN, and a lot of damage, possibly fatal, can be done in a small amount of time. |
Date: 12/9/2003 2:22:00 PM From Authorid: 61897 The man did the right thing. I would love to jump into this discussion, but BCAR, Crash and others are doing a mighty good job handling it=) |
Date: 12/9/2003 2:27:00 PM ( From Author ) From Authorid: 15070 LOL-it's all good Chi-Girl, Your opinion matters, too! (Even if you didn't agree with me) |
Date: 12/9/2003 2:28:00 PM ( From Author ) From Authorid: 15070 what I mean is, you did agree with me, but even if you didn't agree with me, I would want your opinion! :P |
Date: 12/9/2003 3:36:00 PM From Authorid: 47296 Magoo, on more than one instance, I have pulled and was ready to use my personal firearm to stop a crime. Once was in protecting personal property from theft, once when going after someone attempting to break into an elderly neighbors home, and once to stop a group of punks from jmping on one kid. In all three instances, 911 was called. The quickest response time was 10 minutes, and that was for the instance with the punks. In both of the other two cases, it was 20 minutes or longer before authorities arrived. I use to listen to a police scanner at night, and many nights I heard more calls going out than there were cops on the street. If you live in the county like I do, there are a limited number of deputies to cover the entire county, and all it takes is three or four calls to come in close together, an instance arise where deputies need back-up, or a major accident, and the deputies are quickly overwhelmed. In cases like that, a person better know how to defend themselves and their neighbors, and had darn sure be ready to do it. One senior deputy even told me one time that if it ever came to a situation where I felt I had to shoot, then do so, and be accurate. For me, accuracy is no problem. |
Date: 12/9/2003 7:12:00 PM From Authorid: 22080 ok i have a relative who served time so im well aware of what it used to mean, but im just saying that i dont really like the term |
Date: 12/9/2003 8:03:00 PM ( From Author ) From Authorid: 15070 Sorry to offend you JestR-I meant no harm. |
Date: 12/10/2003 8:20:00 AM From Authorid: 61897 Thank you LSG. At first I was confused (I thought to myself, but I DID agree with her....), but then I figured what you meant |
Date: 12/10/2003 10:27:00 AM From Authorid: 13119 I am not disagreeing with you Two Spirit but what I am saying is, if you had shot your weapon would you be willing to stand trial for your actions or would you expect them to be honoured and excused? I never said that the man was wrong or anything I said he had to be held accountable for his actions. People are getting the two mixed up and it shouldn't be. The question of the post was. at first, should the man be tried for attempted murder or is he a hero. I don't think that the two are even the same thing. Many find him to be a hero for standing up to the punks and helping his buddy and that is fine but at the same time, all people must be held accountable for their actions. You can be a hero to someone and break the law but does that mean you shouldn't be held accountable for that action. |
Renasoft is the proud sponsor of the Unsolved Mystery Publications website.
See: www.rensoft.com Personal Site server, Power to build Personal Web Sites and Personal Web Pages
All stories are copyright protected and may not be reproduced in any form, except by specific written authorization