Ah ok. Words fail or easily mis-interpreted. Adult, when they commit a crime, it's hard for me to have much sympathy for them (although they can also change as any human can become better). Kids, not yet fully developed, easily influence, doesn't think thing through.... have a better chance at learning, improving and becoming a better person. Our court system generally believe in this in how they usually treat under 18 different from adult. So, my view is, with kids and armed robbery, do we treat them as deserving to die for that crime or someone that is deserving of a 2nd chance. 2nd chance doesn't mean forgiveness. There are consequences to one action and in this case, clearly jail time. Even death is a consequence of their action as we have seen (and no, in no way I blame the Marine for the robber death - that is to me a consequence of his action). But as a society, what do we think? I think as there are consequences for individual actions, there are consequences for society actions. If society think such crime by kids is very deserving of death or no 2nd chance, I think we see a society that lacks compassion and in the long run, creates harden criminals (assuming if they go through jail, they have little to no rehabilitation) . If society think such crime by kids is very deserving of jail time and rehabilitation and death is something that should be avoided, IMO, in the long term, we have a more compassion, understanding society that has much more potential to create an even future better society.
We are talking about armed robbery, not shoplifting a DVD from Wal-Mart. Once you are sticking places up at gunpoint, you are already a criminal. If you point a weapon at someone, you are threatening to kill them, someone who threatens to kill innocents deserves to die, no matter who they are no matter how old they are. By that point, it's too late. Also, it's not like we have a shortage of idiots out there, the world having one less isn't a tragedy.
Everybody involved "escalated the situation." Yes, the two men who robbed the store were ultimately at fault and completely in the wrong. However, the CHL holder made the deliberate choice to escalate even further by pulling out his weapon, whereupon the robbers escalated further by drawing (or pointing) their weapons, and then there was the escalation to the fullest extent when the weapons were discharged. The point, there was escalation on both sides, absent any of those links the causal chain that led to a man being shot dead would have been broken.
The mind boggling part is that you don't see the nuance in RR's statement. He hasn't portrayed the robbers as "victims" in the least, he is merely saying that escalating the situation by going to your car to retrieve your weapon, then inserting yourself into the situation by pointing and firing is irresponsible. Innocent people could have been killed and there were ways to ensure the robbers' capture that would not have involved endangering bystanders.
I don't have any sympathy for the robbers. I do worry that a similar incident could result in a bystander being shot.
I think the counterpoint to the escalating argument is that there's no way to stop armed robberies without escalation. Someone (cop or citizen) will have to at some time point a gun at suspects. It is then that the onus is on them to give up, as it was on them not to commit gun crimes in the first place. And while I agree with the concerns that a bystander could be hurt (which is why I think it's fortunate that this guy had combat training), I also have a concern that most have overlooked itt for future victims of the armed robbers. That have already possibly murdered people, and their threat to the safety and welfare of society doesn't end just bc they got away with an xbox that day without no one getting killed that day.
I don't think someone committing armed robbery "deserves to die" but I DO think they have forfeited the protection of their life. If you are using a gun to commit a crime, your life is now at the bottom of my priority list. I hope you stay alive and get arrested, but I don't think anyone has any obligation to work towards an outcome in which the criminal with a gun lives.
Actually . .. it is part of what we pay police for . . . . the job is not to shoot first second or third but . . . alas that has been lost in the lore of fantasy now it was not an easy job . . .it was not a safe job . . .that was why it was so respected If killing the criminal is now the protocol . . the kind of easy way out . . .then it diminished the office. I d*ng sure don't have alot for a civilian doing it. Rocket River
I don't think police have ever been instructed to place the life of an arms gunman on their priority list when other people are in play or they themselves may be in danger.
Yeah what we want is cops doing it. They can shoot the business owner a few civilians then their dogs. Since when are cops the only people capable of competency?
No, the lamenting is not that innocent people,could have died, it's that the robber died over an xbox. You can spin it however you want for him, but that is the true position that rr is taking.
Not the lamenting that I'm reading. What I'm reading from the VAST majority of posters taking issue with the CHL holder's actions is that making the choices that he did could have endangered bystanders. I'm sorry you are interpreting lament over the dead robber, but I don't see anyone expressing that sentiment, except for the voices in your head apparently.
A gunfight in the streets over titanfall is the thing that should be painted in a bad light - the point you don't want to acknowledge.
The disconnect here is that some don't seem to realize that fault for a gunfight in the streets would be the fault of the armed robbers, not the Samaritan.
It was all of their faults. The major fault goes to the robbers because without them, there would be no need for anyone to intervene. However, the "Samaritan" made the conscious choice to engage in a gunfight in public, so he deserves some of the "fault" as well.
Again, nobody knows the facts yet, so we're just arguing hypothetical situations until the facts come to light, if ever. The thing is, I can't envision any way to stop armed robbers without "escalation." Whether it's a Marine, off-duty cop, uniformed cop, or whoever, anyone confronting that situation will draw their gun. The robbers can either respond by giving up and laying down, running away, or shooting. Assuming that the Marine didn't go Joe Horn free fire on the robbers (which we don't know), then the Marine didn't do anything different from what a cop would do. And those robbers needed to be stopped eventually. They possibly already were murderers and will willing to commit armed robberies over an xbox. They weren't stopping at video games. At Gamestop, you can just pretend like you're buying, then dash with the equipment. Burglary is a bad, but there's a big difference between that and armed robbery in my eyes. If these dudes were unarmed and just dashing off and got gunned down, then Marine would have been in the wrong, but that doesn't seem to be the case here.
The only difference is that if the cops were handling it, they could come in with superior numbers, surround the guys (making it more likely that they give up and don't try and shoot their way out), block off the area from other people entering it, etc.
