70 year old guy kills mugger

[horton]

it's not very likely you kill someone when restraining them.

That's not true at all. It happens all the time.

I posted a link to another case of it (and there's many more if you google it) in my post above this one.

I would imagine it only happens when you have the intention of harming/hurtiing/scaring the person you are restraining, or when you are such a grade A retard, that you dont realise that restricting someones ability to breathe might also restrict their ability to stay alive.

Ive been restrained by the police, and even though they were being cunts, at no time did I feel that my life was at risk...however the cunt would have probably broken/dislocated my arm, if I had fucked with him too much.

[Nightshade]

Jesus Henry Christ, some of you people are complete fucking pussies. So fucking what if some scumbag mugger got offed committing a crime against an innocent person? One less dirtbag. You touchy-feely liberals make me want to puke.

[hate]

no shit

if someone pulls a weapon on me for whatever reason

and i get a chance to fucking snuff em out

done

[Nightshade]

Precisely. I don't value property over life per se, it's the fact that I'm being threatened with deadly force for said property.

[Wabbit]

Ive been restrained by the police, and even though they were being cunts, at no time did I feel that my life was at risk...however the cunt would have probably broken/dislocated my arm, if I had fucked with him too much.

That's just it horton, you were restrained by people with training. People that have (hopefully) had experience and are there specifically to deal with those types of situations.

You can't expect the same kind of knowledge from a bunch of frightened senior citizens on vacation that are being attacked or a group of airline passengers that aren't really sure what's going on.

[Wabbit]

Precisely. I don't value property over life per se, it's the fact that I'm being threatened with deadly force for said property.

Things change when faced with the actual situation. You strike me more as a contain-the-situation guy than a kill-them-all guy. Turning them over to the police safely is the optimal situation, if that's not possible, oh well.

[Scourge]

Lots of people die in muggings whether they cooperate or not. Are you going to flip a coin to decide if this person is gonna flip out and kill you anyway? If I can take them out without killing them I will, if not they're dead.

[LBt1st]

hmm some dirtbag that goes around mugging old people?.. yeah I DO value my property over his life!
He's a piece of shit. If this old man didn't kill him he'd still be out ruining other people's lives. Fuck him, and fuck his friends.

Not to mention they had a gun.. That makes it a life or death situation. Yes, kill the little bastards!

-Bean

[rofl]

Cry me a fucking river you lot.

Jesus Henry Christ, some of you people are complete fucking pussies. So fucking what if some scumbag mugger got offed committing a crime against an innocent person? One less dirtbag. You touchy-feely liberals make me want to puke.

Well said.
Muggers are nothing but fucking scum. If you do this..

"20-year-old and two other men armed with a knife and gun held up their tour bus"

and this...

"Hernandez said Segura had previous charges against him for assaults. "

.. and you accidentally get killed in the process, then tough fucking shit for being a cunt in the first place. You wanna play tough guy, take the consequences.

[Fender]

I thought it was hysterical that he got back on the cruise ship and continued on his vacation.

fuck the mugger

[[xeno]Julios]

.. and you accidentally get killed in the process, then tough fucking shit for being a cunt in the first place. You wanna play tough guy, take the consequences.

I think the point some people are trying to make is that it would be wrong for the 70 year old to do what he did if he:

1) did it on purpose

AND

2) knew he'd've been safe had he not killed him.

[vesp]

There are a lot of mugger-lovers in this thread.

[rofl]

.. and you accidentally get killed in the process, then tough fucking shit for being a cunt in the first place. You wanna play tough guy, take the consequences.

I think the point some people are trying to make is that it would be wrong for the 70 year old to do what he did if he:

1) did it on purpose

AND

2) knew he'd've been safe had he not killed him.

Yeah but does it really matter anyway? The guy had previous assault charges, was carrying a gun and/or a knife, was obviously prepared to hurt people, and would no doubt hurt again in the future if not actually kill. I'd call it a blessing in disguise.

[[xeno]Julios]

Yeah but does it really matter anyway? The guy had previous assault charges, was carrying a gun and/or a knife, was obviously prepared to hurt people, and would no doubt hurt again in the future if not actually kill. I'd call it a blessing in disguise.

that's equivalent to recommending capital punishment for armed robbery and assault.

[hax103]

i hate to interrupt your mutual ass kissing session, but in the case such as this one where there were

- three muggers armed - read "guns"
- all of the action occurred during a heated fight

i would treat it as survival instinct against deadly opponents

its not like the elderly guy had time to settle down and then killed the three muggers. it seems like the action where the mugger was killed happened while the elderly guy's friends were still fighting the other muggers. its not like there was a cool off period.

i'm not for cold calculating premeditated murder, but i can understand action taken to survive in the heat of the moment.

edit: horton, you strike me as someone with a strong sense of justice, I admire that

thank you, sir.

I have no problems with someone snapping the arms and legs of someone who is trying to mug them, however I dont believe in the death penalty, I dont think police should shoot unless to save a life, and I'd hate to take a life.

Its hard when emotions are flying, my gf's cousin was murdered a couple of months ago, and my first thoughts were to have someone cut his throat in jail. but when you step back and try to think fairly, rather than with emotions, its never the right thing to take a life.

I didnt support the execution of saddam, so a mugger has the right to live.

[rofl]

Yeah but does it really matter anyway? The guy had previous assault charges, was carrying a gun and/or a knife, was obviously prepared to hurt people, and would no doubt hurt again in the future if not actually kill. I'd call it a blessing in disguise.

that's equivalent to recommending capital punishment for armed robbery and assault.

Not really. I'm not recommending capital punishment because assault doesn't warrant it until someone gets killed. My argument however is that if someone gets killed accidentally for instigating this type of trouble on innocent people, especially someone like this guy who pushed his luck several times by all accounts, then I have no sympathy for them. The way I see it, the death was accidental through self defence.

[Scourge]

Yeah but does it really matter anyway? The guy had previous assault charges, was carrying a gun and/or a knife, was obviously prepared to hurt people, and would no doubt hurt again in the future if not actually kill. I'd call it a blessing in disguise.

that's equivalent to recommending capital punishment for armed robbery and assault.

No it's not. That would be after the fact, not during a conflict with an unknown outcome.

[mjrpes]

lol julios has arrived.

*awaits page 12*

[[xeno]Julios]

Not really. I'm not recommending capital punishment because assault doesn't warrant it until someone gets killed. My argument however is that if someone gets killed accidentally for instigating this type of trouble on innocent people, especially someone like this guy who pushed his luck several times by all accounts, then I have no sympathy for them. The way I see it, the death was accidental through self defence.

try to follow the reasoning here - remember:

I think the point some people are trying to make is that it would be wrong for the 70 year old to do what he did if he:

1) did it on purpose

AND

2) knew he'd've been safe had he not killed him.

At which point you said:

Yeah but does it really matter anyway? The guy had previous assault charges, was carrying a gun and/or a knife, was obviously prepared to hurt people, and would no doubt hurt again in the future if not actually kill. I'd call it a blessing in disguise.

In other words, you're saying that it's ok to kill someone even if it's not necessary, since it's a blessing in disguise.

Remember - we're not talking about sympathy here - we're talking about whether it's right or wrong to kill someone given those two conditions.

[[xeno]Julios]

No it's not. That would be after the fact, not during a conflict with an unknown outcome.

remember the two conditions.

[Scourge]

# 2 is nearly impossible to determine.

[[xeno]Julios]

# 2 is nearly impossible to determine.

it's not about whether it's determinable by a third party - it's about intentions.

I think the point some people are trying to make is that it would be wrong for the 70 year old to do what he did if he...

This is a coherent statement regardless of whether you can prove 1) or 2).

It's an if, then statement.

[mjrpes]

That's the point I agree with horton on... if this guy is some amazing defensive hand-on-hand vet skilled in the art of killing, and he

a) killed the guy intentionally
b) knew that the situation was such that he didn't need to kill him

then killing him was wrong. BUT: since the whole situation started from an act of self defense (their lives were threatened), I hold little guilt on him, even if the two point above hold.

The most sympathy I have for the mugger is that he was in the wrong place, at the wrong time, dealing with the wrong 70 year old vet.

[Scourge]

Being that #2 is practically impossible to tell, that could be used to say that his intentions were justified. Can you say for certain when someone points a gun at you if they will kill you or not? Or if they regain their freedom from you if they will or will not attempt to kill you? Imo, that pretty much negates the second statement.

[[xeno]Julios]

Being that #2 is practically impossible to tell, that could be used to say that his intentions were justified. Can you say for certain when someone points a gun at you if they will kill you or not? Or if they regain their freedom from you if they will or will not attempt to kill you? Imo, that pretty much negates the second statement.

that's not what I'm trying to get at here scourge - obviously if the 70 year old wasn't sure, then my conditions don't apply.

I'm talking about the case where they do apply.

It's entirely possible that the 70 year old knew that he had sufficiently incapacitated the assailant, and that he knew that if he stopped cutting off air supply he could very easily deal with the situation in a non-lethal manner.

I'm not saying that this was the case - I'm saying that if it were the case, then some people here, including me, would consider his actions wrong.

Try to understand that this is an exercise in abstract moral reasoning, meant to extract our intuitions.

For example, if somoene responded to my 2 conditions, and said:

"well even if those 2 conditions are met, I'd still consider it ok"

then we could advance the discourse.