92-year old vet kills a man with one shot page 3

110 posts

Flag Post

I think that’s your opinion, as I said, being a 92 year old man might make you a bit more fearful for your safety, and make you a lot less willing to “determine” whether or not the person coming out of the door is going to kill him or not.

 
Flag Post

Old age might indeed make the average person more fearful for their safety, the article and the householder’s reported actions indicated that he wasn’t the least bit afraid…

1st paragraph… ‘92-year-old farmer and World War II veteran Earl Jones, who reportedly said he had no fear of the man and aimed “right for his heart.”

a little later… ‘“Was I scared? Was I mad? Hell, no,” Jones said. “It was simple. That man was going to take my life. He was hunting me. I was protecting myself.”

Given the ‘lack of fear’ I fail to see how this particular householder can reasonably claim that he believed he was being hunted and that the intruder was going to take his life… unless, of course, there’s something serious missing from the report. He comes across as an angry old man who’d been robbed a couple of times before who decided he’d rather act as judge, jury and executioner.

 
Flag Post
You go ahead and take that chance.

i didn’t actually oppose the shooting, if that’s what you mean. i was deliberately vague, because even though i believe the shooting was maybe wrong, and unnecessary…

and while i oppose the owning of firearms, at least where unnecessary (and it certainly is unnecessary in any neighbourhood i know and most probably my entire country) … i still would imagine if i lived in a house (rather than a studio), and people broke in and i didn’t know their intentions, and i had a gun i’d go fetch it and stay quiet, i’d then go look what they were doing and i imagine i would shoot them as soon as a would see them, and would aim to kill.

i oppose it, but it’s a tense and dangerous situation that THEY created, not the old man. fear…

and that’s even without considering this guy is 92.

still, there are some good mace guns out there.

 
Flag Post

I’ll be honest and admit I didn’t read the article and was responding to the misinformation people have about discharging firearms, but I agree with your assessment. I still don’t think it’s a legally sound argument, though. If someone enters my home by force, it’s both my opinion and my legal right to assume they’re there to harm me or my family, and they’ve negated their right to explain themselves. That said, I’m deathly afraid of killing another human being even if they probably deserve it, so I’m more likely to get shot asking why they’re in my house like an idiot.

Ninja Edit: Omega, do you at least acknowledge that your suggestion to aim for the legs is incredibly misinformed, now? If not, I’d like the opportunity to do some more convincing.

 
Flag Post

that wasn’t me, BSG.

 
Flag Post

Ah excuse me, I both misappropriated your first statement as agreeing with the post above yours, and the implication that you think shooting someone is easy, but I see you were talking about morally impressive and not technically, or I could be misunderstanding still.

Damn, communication, you a hard one!

 
Flag Post

you mean my first post?

i mean just generally not impressed. i don’t know in what way i should be impressed. handling kick-back at 92 maybe, but…

 
Flag Post

I like happy endings. That robber got what he deserved…

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by TheLoneLucas:

What disrepect young people have today

I have one thing to say. ’’lol’’.

This man fought for what we have today and this generation of people are out of control.

And you base this on?

If someone broke into my home I’d shoot them sight no questions asked.

Right, so you won’t even bother checking if it’s someone that needs help, or anything other than a criminal before you shoot. Nice.

I’ve worked hard for what I have and noone will take it from.

Pro tip: You can purchase back something that’s stolen, and if it’s one of those things that are unique, (Pictures), you can back up most things. Also, shooting someone for a wallet or a TV, or anything easily replaced seems ridiculously harsh.

That’s why I don’t understand if you have morals or just a plain waste of human space then you should be put in cage like a animal is when it’s out of control. I do mean jail.

First part: wat

Second part: Not if you shoot them first, assuming that a crime is being committed.

Lucas, you would have done better not to answer this post as you just confirmed what he was trying to say. Yes, the young are disrespectful and he told you straight out you would not have what you do today if the older generations had the same attitudes of those of today. You go right ahead and try to hold a conversation with your bad guy and when he has shot you, you can say oops I didn’t know what I was talking about.

Why should a person give up what he worked so hard to get? What gives a criminal the right to steal your property? The bad guy is a bad guy and he will not only rob you, but if you are an easy mark, he will come back again. I honestly don’t understand the thinking of some of you people.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by jhco50:
You go right ahead and try to hold a conversation with your bad guy and when he has shot you, you can say oops I didn’t know what I was talking about.

Except for the part that you keep forgetting about how that’s not what people here are adovocating.

Why should a person give up what he worked so hard to get?

Assuming he did.

What gives a criminal the right to steal your property?

Dunno, why do you ask?

The bad guy is a bad guy and he will not only rob you, but if you are an easy mark, he will come back again.

I’m getting really tired of how you keep “forgetting” what people are saying just so you can say bat-shit insane things like that.

I honestly don’t understand the thinking of some of you people.

Partially because you’re blatantly skewing it just to make you seem more “right.”

 
Flag Post

jhco

Why should a person give up what he worked so hard to get?

the burglar is also working very hard to get it, even risking his life for it.

What gives a criminal the right to steal your property?

what gives you the right to claim it your property in the first place?

The bad guy is a bad guy and he will not only rob you, but if you are an easy mark, he will come back again.

unlikely. smart robbers stay away from the scene. plus, if you want to be safe, have an alarm or a security camera, or put a tracking device in something highly valuable.

I honestly don’t understand the thinking of some of you people.

because you’ve assumed some premises others have not.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by OmegaDoom:

Plus, if you want to be safe, have an alarm or a security camera, or put a tracking device in something highly valuable.

I would add on to this that if your house even looks like it will be a nightmare to crack, most burglars will go somewhere else. The only sort you will get, are the sort who research as to what they are likely to find in that house in the first place – and they’re the sort who will wait until it is empty to try anyway.

 
Flag Post

Because all criminals are logically minded people. I’m shooting anyone who thinks breaking into my home is okay. Yes I agree that confirming their intentions is probably a good idea, I don’t understand this aversion to shooting someone who has absolutely no respect for your private space and is willing to threaten you and your family. The chances they’re high on something capable of giving them the ability to withstand being shot is just as likely as them being a logically minded person that’s going to leave when I yell throughout the house.

 
Flag Post

Depends where you live, BSG. Here for example, if you shoot an intruder, you are going to prison. No ifs, no buts, no maybes. As a result, the general consensus is on finding ways to stop intruders getting into the property in the first place.

It does perhaps unfortunately mean that the number of burglaries has dropped right down, to the point where when one happens it is major news. But you get the bad with the good, right?

 
Flag Post

what gives you the right to claim it your property in the first place?

The US Constitution, you moron.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by LukeMann:

what gives you the right to claim it your property in the first place?

The US Constitution, you moron.

Quoted for truth.

 
Flag Post

Ironically enough, this man was on my favorite radio station earlier this month. Quite a colorful character.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by OmegaDoom:

the burglar is also working very hard to get it, even risking his life for it.

Is that a serious question, OD? I mean really, there’s a big difference in the homeowner and burgler; one has a right to the property and premises, the other doesn’t.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Twilight_Ninja:
Originally posted by OmegaDoom:

the burglar is also working very hard to get it, even risking his life for it.

Is that a serious question, OD? I mean really, there’s a big difference in the homeowner and burgler; one has a right to the property and premises, the other doesn’t.

I think Omega plays devil’s advocate just to stir the pot. But, then again, some people really are that crazy.

 
Flag Post

well i’m at least half serious. if we’re talking moral right, legal right isn’t a good argument to base it on, because that’s reverse.

and jhco made the worked hard for it argument. i just said the burglar is also working hard for it, which is true. the claim that a burglar’s work is a “big difference” from the work done by this “homeowner” is not a good argument. show me in what way that guy’s work is more valid or meritable or whatever than the burglar’s?

and you can’t use legality, because circular logic. if we’re talking about what is right and what is wrong, we’re talking about what a law would try to reflect, not the other way around.

you may also want to argue that what the old man did for “work” that allowed him to have said properties was work that was benificial to society, but then you’re making assumptions that you have no basis for at all.

even if the guy’s work is legal, doesn’t mean it’s useful to society.

so the question still remains: what gives the old man the right to claim it his property? other than blanket claims and begging the question.


i’ll remind you, which society seems to have completely forgotten, that “burglar” is seen as an inherently bad profession in todays society, and that this is merely a premise that people assume, that requires no argument because it is unquestionable truth. and we assume this because of our education system which conditions us to accept certain societal dogmas like that; not because it is necessarily true.

two centuries ago, people did not think burglars were bad people. in fact, the people were on the side of all of the famous burglars, which havfe always had a Robin Hood status.

 
Flag Post

His work is not productive. He has not produced anything. He has taken something, but there is no produce, nor contribution to production. As nothing is produced, he has no claim to ownership of anything.

About your 200 year historical view of how people treated burglars, using the “Robin Hood” case study: http://www.warof1812.ca/punish1.htm

 
Flag Post

yeah, but those punishments were enacted by authorities. and authorities have always been seen as evil. that’s the difference.

and yes, burglar isn’t a productive profession. my point is that we also don’t know if this 92 year old’s profession was.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by OmegaDoom:

yeah, but those punishments were enacted by authorities. and authorities have always been seen as evil. that’s the difference.

and yes, burglar isn’t a productive profession. my point is that we also don’t know if this 92 year old’s profession was.

Evidently, his present or past profession was enough to secure valuables capable of burglarizing. Anyway, if you don’t recogize something as fundamental as ownership, because you don’t accept arguments of legality, then you don’t have nearly the same perspective on society as most people, except extreme communists.

Robin Hood. /eyeroll

 
Flag Post

Communists would recognise collective ownership, MyTie. They would not recognise unknown person X entering the commune, and taking random valuables as acceptable behavior.

Some forms of anarchist are about all I can think of who would accept that sort of behavior. A ‘you own what you can take for as long as you can hold onto it’ mindset. It is not a mindset that is compatible with advanced civilisation.

 
Flag Post

Robin Hood is the protagonist of the story is he not? he is also the burglar of the story, is he not? that proves my point.

legality is not an argument for moral rightness. that is not the argument of a communist (what the fuck does communism have to do with that, anyway? in fact, weren’t they known to be very strict with laws?), but the argument of anyone with at least a moderate sense of logic.