Man shoots unarmed black juvenile stealing from car, no charges pending

Yes it is when people are saying that thieves should be punished even if that punishment is death. That is their response to this, not mines.

 

Okay, so, just to confirm, you don't think there is any age that is too low where it is unethical for someone to kill the perpetrator of a non-violent crime? So, when I said that earlier, I wasn't putting words in your mouth then.

And, to answer your question, kids of any age can be dangerous if they are armed. The kid in question was not, nor was he attempting to engage in a violent act. Killing a child for a non-violent act is ridiculous in my opinion. And the fact you would support killing children even younger than this is despicable.

Throughout history what is legal has often been unethical. I would assert that this is the case here, where it is legal to kill adolescents engaged in non-violent theft.

 

They are both thievery which I do not tolerate, but one involves physically breaking into the property of another and the other is theft of intellectual property without any physical trespassing. That makes it a different story. Trespassing alone can be justification to shoot someone.

 

They are both thieves though so I ask, do you agree that they should be killed as well?

I don't even disagree with what happened here. The boy trespassed in the man's car and while the article says he wasn't armed or dangerous we really can't say that for a 60 year old man and speak for him. Whose winning a fight between your average 60 year old man and 13 year old boy? Also if I were the man and saw someone inside of my car I may think violent force is necessary whatever that violent force may be.

STILL that does not mean the kid deserved to die. Did he make a mistake? Yes, obviously. But this idea that we should be punishing 13 year olds for mistakes is just morally wrong. It just is. There is no argument for that, I'm sorry.

This idea that you stopped a career criminal is just wrong. Many people DO turn around their lives and it's sad that this kid will never have that chance.

 

So you wouldn't personally shoot someone over $9 but you believe that if someone else did you would support them and defend their action, correct?

I think killing someone over the theft of $9 should be illegal. Guns should be used to prevent serious crimes like murder, rape, and theft of major property. But not misdemeanors.

 

Once again, don't put words in my mouth. Just because you say it over and over doesn't make it true. Besides, Ethics are subjective. I'm speaking of the legal right the victim had.

If the law needs to change, so be it. Until that law changes, thieves of all ages should understand that they can legally be killed by their victim.

 

What does the law say? Your opinion is yours to have. That's your right. Who cares what action I defend or condone?

 

If I have said something you don't believe please feel free to clarify precisely what you think on the matter. I think any reasonable person reading your responses would believe that your position is that there is not an age at which you subjectively think it is unethical to kill a child for non-violently stealing. if that is not the case, then please say what age you think is too young to kill a kid for engaging in non-violent theft, in your opinion.

And yes, I understand what the law is -- I am arguing that the law is wrong, as laws often have been throughout history.

 

when it happens, how do you know what the intent is? if you come out there and catch him, how do you know the thief has a gun and will shoot back? just because you have a specific example of someone stealing $9, it doesn't apply to every situation.

In this situation, the man was outnumbered 3 to 1 and he has no idea if someone or all have gun. We don't know how things played and he certainly doesn't know the ages of the thieves. My fiance has a nail salon and I seen some of the girls that come in that are only 13 and they look older than my fiance. Anyways, if you play with fire, be prepare to get burn. Sucks he died young but at 13 years old, you should know the consequence and risk at hand by stealing.

 

This country is sick. We're sitting here having an argument about whether it's cool to kill a child for trying to steal money from your car.

Guns, guns, guns. Human life has little value around these parts, especially when a minority is involved.

This country is sick.

 

Duh he knew he was stealing lol. Doesn't make it less of a mistake.

Yes, there is nothing morally wrong about punishing a 13 year old for stealing. There is something morally wrong about saying he should die for that decision though.

 

Of course it is unethical to kill a child for a nonviolent crime. For that case, it is unethical to kill any person for an unethical crime.

Is that what you wanted to hear?

So what have you done to change the law?

 

Who ever said it was cool to kill a child for stealing money?

Did you really just play a race card on a black on black killing?

 

everybody is stuck on the 13 year old part. in a scenario where a split second can have you killed. the man came out saw 3 people in his car and doesn't know if they're armed or not. he just reacted to the situation. pretty sure he didn't come out there and had intent to kill a 13 year old, it just happened and it sucks but when people are getting killed for $10 nowadays, what can you do. Be careful out there during this season where crime rates spike.

 

It is not about what I want to hear, it is about whether or not people defending the killing of this kid have an actually consistent and logical reasoning and principles for doing so or are rather just callous flag waving ideologues. Unless I hear from any of them demonstrating the former, it certainly will seem like the latter to me.

And, considering I did not know that this was the state of the law until yesterday, I haven't done anything yet. But I am active in a lot of radical groups that are engaged in trying to change these sort of things, so now that I know that this is the state of the law, I will certainly look for things I may be able to do about it.

 

Not defending the killing of a child, but the reality is no matter how this played out, the victim of the theft has the law on his side.

The 13 year old made choice to steal(mistake #1) in a state that legally allows victims to use firearms to prevent theft(mistake #2) from an armed person willing to use a firearm to prevent being stolen from(mistake #3).

 

You are pretty consistent in calling this "punishment" for the crime. I would argue that that characterization is incomplete. It's not like he was arrested, taken out behind the police station, tied to a post and shot.

Let me give you a slightly different scenario. Imagine the child stole the car, and a copy tried to pull him over. The child then tries to run away, and a high speed chase ensues. While fleeing the police, the child crashes the car and dies. Would you say that the police are guilty of killing the child as punishment for his crime?

 

I am not sure what you are trying to argue. That the kid made a mistake. Yep. That the law is on the side of the guy killing the kid. Apparently so.

I am not disagreeing with either of these things. I am questioning how people can defend this legal set up considering that doing so means one is defending the killing of children who engage in non violent theft.

 

You don't understand at all. The fact that violence is so ingrained in our culture that an average person can look at a horrible situation like this and go "well, tough luck. He shouldn't have tried to steal" is really sad. Why does violence have to be so excusable? Why should killings be justified? Police shoot first, ask questions later. Civilians shoot first, ask questions later.

This country is sick.