Boys Attack Cyclist Who Fights Back, Kills 1

[ileus]

http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/weird/Thun-Trail-Shooting-Juveniles-Cyclist-138097778.html

The cyclist was near the Bertolet Fishing Dock at S First Avenue and Chestnut Street in West Reading, Pa. around 11 a.m. when one of the teens knocked the man down, police said.

Adams picks it up from here:

"One of the juveniles punched the bike rider in the face, knocking him off his bike. Julius Johnson ran up to bike rider and kicked him."

That was when the 65-year-old pulled a gun and shot, officials said.

Johnson, 16, died at the scene while his 15-year-old alleged accomplice was taken to the hospital with a gunshot wound, officials said.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

And people wonder why I carry my LCP when I ride. One little 14oz safety device could be the difference between life and death...

[TheWraith]

1. Play stupid games. Win stupid prizes. nt

[ellisonz]

2. Boys pull out knife, gun in argument in 7th-grade class

January 26, 2012 | 4:05 pm

Security was beefed up at Samuel Gompers Middle School in South Los Angeles on Thursday after two boys pulled out a knife and gun during an argument in a 7th-grade class.

The boys began arguing Wednesday afternoon when one of them pulled out a knife, prompting the other to grab a backpack and take out a gun, said Patrick Sinclair, spokesman for the nonprofit Partnership for Los Angeles Schools, which operates Gompers.

"The minute it happened, the other children were on their feet and out the door," Sinclair said of the 20 or so students in the class when the confrontation broke out about 2:45 p.m. "It all happened very quickly."

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/01/boys-knife-gun-gompers-school.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+lanowblog+%28L.A.+Now%29

[ileus]

3. Your post belongs in this thread why? Same kids? Same bike rider?

Your point is what?

[Hoyt]

5. Seems perfectly clear to me.

[ileus]

8. So they were the same kids in my story?

[Remmah2]

18. Eyes wide shut. nt

nt

[Callisto32]

91. WAR IS PEACE!!!

We've ALWAYS been at war with Eastasia.

[SteveW]

139. Yes, a perfect distraction from the OP. nt

[Ecumenist]

6. You aren't seriously suggesting that these twi situations are the cyclist fighting

for his life and two misguided children? Right? Two complaetely different situations.

[ellisonz]

7. Hey the kids have guns too...

I'm surprised he was even able to pull his gun considering the was knocked off a bike and kicked.

[Ecumenist]

10. Makes no sense and you know it. I'm not a gun fanatic but those two boys who atttacked

that man were Darwin Award candidates. The situation in LA is just sad. Adults have sex but although Children are capable, it is neither right nor appropriate that they do. What you posted has NOTHING to do with the OP.

[ellisonz]

14. lol

"Adults have sex but although Children are capable, it is neither right nor appropriate that they do"

And that makes sense?

I'm sorry to get all Crash with you, but you must live in another world if you can't see the absurdity of this notion that an over-armed populace is somehow going to reduce violence. We need more effective gun control in this country. Yes he used a gun defensively, but we could just as easily read how this man on the bike was shot down in the street.

[Ecumenist]

15. Bless your pointy head, you don't understand metaphors.....

You make no sense and I'm not the only one who thinks that.

[ellisonz]

16. Please elaborate...

"Adults have sex but although Children are capable, it is neither right nor appropriate that they do"

How is this metaphor and what is it metaphor for...

[Ecumenist]

17. You know what I mean. the fact that a 65 YEAR OLD MAN WAS DEFENDING HIMSELF in

an area KNOWN for attacks on people with a LEGALLY obtained gun against attackers in comparison with the sad situation that happened in LA is really stretching. You know damn well that those CHILDREN attacking one another with weapons, including a gun, is about as comparable to a 65 YEAR OLD MAN DEFENDING HIMSELF to children engaging in sex because we have a VERY sexually centered society that encourages adults to have sex all the time. I'm not arguing with you. you know damn well what I'm talking about. Don't play with me. It's a stupid comparison.

[ellisonz]

19. They could have just shot him...

...if they had a gun, which they probably needed to defend themselves from all the other people with guns. Good thing this is America and we let people buy as many handguns as they want so long as they meet some very minimal restrictions! All I'm saying is that old dude is lucky they didn't relieve him of his gun...

And I'm proud to be an American, where at least I know I'm free...

[Straw Man]

23. Or they could have just beaten him to death ...

They could have just shot him...

...if they had a gun, which they probably needed to defend themselves from all the other people with guns.

... like this man, who might still be alive today if he had had a gun:

http://www.whptv.com/mostpopular/story/UPDATE-Reward-offered-in-case-of-man-brutally/sKP9OQEnmUCI-rCkFi3VXw.cspx

[AtheistCrusader]

118. Actually, we don't allow minors to purchase handguns.

Laws were broken, interesting that you think one or two more laws would have altered that outcome.

[SteveW]

140. Couple a young strong punks attacked an elderly man...

...why use a gun when "fists/hands" are used in more homicides than an "assault weapon?"

[cbrer]

50. Just as easily?

Bullshit. You talk as if there's a gun fight at every corner. And your comment about gun control is "pie in the sky". This is the society we've built. For better or worse, this is the one we have to deal with. Examining the mindset of people who commit depraved acts is a subject of many other threads. This thread is about the occasional consequences of those acts.

There are too many laws on the books now being selectively enforced, or not at all. More political involvement will mean:

Create a committee
Write some alarmist legislation that will pacify the "chicken littles". (no chance of passing)
Go back to speeches and insider trading.

We will advance (or not) as a society by our actions and how we conduct ourselves durring the trying moments of our times. This is a universal truth, and we're fucking it up pretty badly in lots O ways.

[Union Scribe]

25. Nice threadjack. nt

[ellisonz]

27. Thanks buddy! n/t

[montanto]

44. I've got news for you.

1. This is a whole different topic. 2. 7th graders are not allowed to own handguns. (probably for that reason.) 3. Adults are allowed to own handguns, so that they might be able to protect themselves in an extreme situation. There, now we are back on topic!

[burf]

4. One of the comments to the story

was these attacks by teens were not unusual in the area.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

9. The former criminal was even wearing an electronic monitoring device as part of his probation.

[ileus]

11. Biggest concern...was the bike damaged?

[BiggJawn]

12. I knew a couple who carried PPK's

Matching his n' hers Walthers in the handlebar bag. For use on "dogs"...

[ileus]

13. I carry mine a few different ways depending on if I'm riding alone or with the kids.

with the kids I'm just riding for fun so I clip my LCP to my waist in it's fobus holster.

By myself I have it mounted on the handle bars so I can set the pace I need without it being in the way.

[Hoyt]

20. Dang, I'll have to check my bike store to see if they have handlebarholster -- If I carried.

i can not image biking with a gun. That's sick. Next thing you know, they'll have a holster for practicing yoga and meditation.

[EX500rider]

21. Sick?

Why would one give up the right to self defense simply because they are on a bike?

I suppose it would have been less "sick" if the old guy was kicked to death?

[Hoyt]

22. If that happened. Besides, a million more guns for relatively few instances. Seems like pollution.

Glad old biker is OK. But next innocent kid that takes it in head so that some gun toter can feel good about himself walking down street, seems a steep price to pay. To me anyway.

Carry on.

[friendly_iconoclast]

24. Good to know you're worried about our precious bodily fluids.

"Guns: The New Flouride?"

[one-eyed fat man]

32. Wasn't he supposed to

take off his front wheel and use it as a club?

He must have slept through that class at the "Hoyt Academy for Bicycle Ninjas."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=482303&mesg_id=482577

[jeepnstein]

34. That one was pretty funny, actually.

[PavePusher]

48. Yeah, the old guy should have let them abuse him. 'Cause that wouldn't have been too steep....

a price to pay.

Seriously, WTF?

I'll note you haven't yet offered to provide security for anyone. Where are the police you continually promise? Where is the duty to protect? Where are society's approved, appointed guardians you want us to rely on?

[ileus]

30. well he is getting close to the end of life.

Consider those kids the park death panel.

[ellisonz]

28. Or you could get one of these puppies...

[Jean V. Dubois]

35. The "Velo-Dog" revolver was specifically marketed as a defense for cyclists against dogs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velo-dog

Different times...

[gejohnston]

147. on dogs I

would rather use spray. I would use lethal only if I had nothing else. FSAs, not so much.

[PavePusher]

49. I like it. I could usse that to go to the range on weekends.

I'd need to use my bike trailer for the ammo, however.

[ileus]

29. 2" piece of velcro and a fobus holster is all you need.

Some use small frame bags but that leaves you having to unzip and play catch if you should need it. Keeping it mounted to the bars allowes you to just pull it as you would from your waist normally if you OWB carry.

The other side I have my android running my trip program with the same mounting "system"

[BiggJawn]

31. What's sick about it?

I've been chased by dogs that I thought I wasn't going to be able to outrun, had beer bottles thrown at me, been yelled at by rednecks...

IF you carried... C'mon Hoyt, you think a gun would spark at your hand like Dorothy's Ruby Slippers if you tried to touch one.

[iverglas]

38. ah, the dangers of trying to insult

C'mon Hoyt, you think a gun would spark at your hand like Dorothy's Ruby Slippers if you tried to touch one.

Ya just make yerself look silly.

Maybe some of your colleagues will disabuse you in private, to spare you further embarrassment.

I do love the variation on pearls here though!

Isn't there just an infinite variety of girly metaphors one can produce to try to demean people?

Seldom does one accomplish anything but making one's self look silly and unpleasant, but if it floats your boat, eh?

[SteveW]

141. "Girly metaphors?" Trying to tag on some worn-out feminist appeal? ha.

[montanto]

46. lol. you should read the story that your post is attached to!

[liberal_biker]

54. What is sick about it?

Do you somehow think biking is an activity utterly immune from the dangers of the world?

[Callisto32]

93. I promised myself..

I would turn over a new leaf when DU changed.

Reading your...thoughts...makes it very difficult to remain cordial.

However, just now, I decided that your non-responses just aren't worth the rise in blood pressure, however slight.

Troll Fail.

[SteveW]

142. Why, Callisto, you can use the "alert" function. Really. yep. nt

[AtheistCrusader]

119. You say 'sick' I say 'prudent'.

I carry when I run marathons too. Tell me how sick I am.

[Union Scribe]

26. Pfft, he should have just used his anti-dog spray bottle! nt

[ileus]

33. or took his front wheel off and used it as a shield.

[Glassunion]

36. Oh what a cruel uncivilized world.

I'm sure these boys were just trying to help the old fellow off his bike.

[iverglas]

37. "And people wonder why I carry my LCP when I ride."

Um ... to kill 16-year-olds?

Forgive me if I am not coming up with the correct answer.

One little 14oz safety device could be the difference between life and death...

Are you asserting that the beating victim would be dead if he had not killed one of the attackers?

I'd appreciate it if you would show your work in that regard.

[X_Digger]

39. Since you seem to be particularly nit-pickety about word choice today..

[div class='excerpt']One little 14oz safety device could be the difference between life and death...

To which you asked, "Are you asserting that the beating victim would be dead if he had not killed one of the attackers? "

See, 'could be' is conditional, unlike 'would be'.

Goose sauce, also good on ganders.

[iverglas]

40. and now, how it went

The firearm in the tale in the OP WAS used.

Nothing conditional about that.

If you want to pretend that the poster to whom I responded was not referring to the possibility (conditional) of an attack occurring, go ahead.

That poster is the one who brought "death" into it, not me. If the implication was not that the individual in this incident would have been dead if not for the gun, well, I'm blowed.

[X_Digger]

43. You seem to be channeling Carnac today..

The way I read it (and I think anyone without an agenda would read it the same way) is that the OP carries in the event of an attack and that having the means to defend himself might be life-saving.

How you twisted that into a prediction about the person in the article and whether or not they would be dead if not for a gun is beyond me.

[Callisto32]

98. SHE NEVER SAID THAT!!!

Either that or we are all constitutionally incapable of cogitation on the level of le grande iverglas.

[SteveW]

143. "I must have silence." "You've had it many times before." nt

[ileus]

41. who really gives a flying fuddernut about the attackers.

are you asserting that the victim would not be dead if he didn't defend himself from the attack?

In this case the bicyclists safety device functioned properly, it stopped the attack and allowed him to peddle in peace another day.


Waiting until after they beat you to death to determine their intent is not really much of an option. Play stupid games take a dirtnap.

[iverglas]

42. their families, their communities,

... decent people everywhere.

are you asserting that the victim would not be dead if he didn't defend himself from the attack?

Why do you ask, dear heart? Did you really think I was asserting that?

Maybe, though, you thought I hadn't read the news item. Maybe you didn't.

The three teens had cut school and were set on robbing people -- having already attacked two elderly men -- when they came upon the 65-year-old riding on the Thun Trail, according to Berks County District Attorney John T. Adams.

Unpleasant youths indeed. No evidence of intent to kill anyone.

Once again: "justified" and "good" are not identical sets.

People who use force in self-defence are not to be second-guessed from the perspective of a detached observer, and especially not based on facts not known to the person in question. That does not mean that any particular use of force claimed to be in self-defence is wise or good or even necessary, "justified" though it may be.

The fact remains that there is no good reason for us to believe that this individual would have been hurt any more, let alone dead, if he had not used force, let alone to the point of killing someone -- that is, if he had not had a gun.

Comments in this thread, and hundreds of comments like them over the years in this forum (many by posters no longer with us, of course), have nothing to do with assessing the actions of someone who used force in self-defence. They have to do with the urge for vengeance -- blood lust, as someone just put it.

Force is not used in self-defence in order to rid the world of vermin, or cleanse the gene pool. It is used to protect the person using it against injury or death.

When the comments depart from that subject and instead cheer the killing of human beings, the speakers are not speaking on the topic of this forum, are not speaking as liberals or progressives or democrats, and disqualify themselves from the category of decent people.


What the gun didn't do in this case, in any event, was prevent him from being attacked and hurt, eh? Had the punch or kick been intended to kill, or had worse effect than they did, it wouldn't have saved him from death, either.

[Straw Man]

45. What it did and didn't do.

What the gun didn't do in this case, in any event, was prevent him from being attacked and hurt, eh? Had the punch or kick been intended to kill, or had worse effect than they did, it wouldn't have saved him from death, either.

Nice conditionals. Yes, a person can be killed by one kick or punch. The gun wouldn't have saved him from that. But the "killed with the first punch" scenario is less likely than the victim suffering many blows, any one of which may be a fatal blow, whether alone or by cumulative effect. The gun quite possibly saved him from that. But of course, we don't really know. Once one starts speculating, it's all just ... speculative, eh?

The fact remains that there is no good reason for us to believe that this individual would have been hurt any more, let alone dead, if he had not used force, let alone to the point of killing someone -- that is, if he had not had a gun.

Well, you see, we (or he) wouldn't really know that until such time as he actually was hurt more or, in fact, dead. Had I been in his place, I would not have waited to find out, as he, rightly, did not. He reasonably protected himself against injury or death.

[TPaine7]

47. Some of your points are good, others not so much...

People who use force in self-defence are not to be second-guessed from the perspective of a detached observer, and especially not based on facts not known to the person in question.

Perfectly correct.

That does not mean that any particular use of force claimed to be in self-defence is wise or good or even necessary, "justified" though it may be.

In legitimate self-defense, the use of force is always necessary from the point of view of the intended victim. It may not be necessary from the viewpoint of a detached observer. However, detached observers have no right to deprive innocent people under potentially deadly threats of the means of self-defense.

Force is not used in self-defence in order to rid the world of vermin, or cleanse the gene pool. It is used to protect the person using it against injury or death.

Absolutely. If someone has such thoughts on their mind while shooting defensively, they are almost certainly unjustified. Ridding the world of vermin, or cleansing the gene pool are not appropriate goals for defensive shooters. That does not mean, however, that ridding the world of vermin is not a positive side effect in some cases.

As a detached observer with the benefit of hindsight, I wish that someone had rid the word of the vermin known as the BTK (Bind, Torture Kill) serial killer. Ridding the world of vermin wouldn't have been an appropriate goal for the intended victim--but it certainly would have been a great side effect as far as I'm concerned. Had his first intended victim killed him, it would have saved 10 people. Preventing the horrific deaths of 10 ordinary people by killing 1 monstrous predator--while he is in the very act of attempted kidnapping in the service of murder--is, IMNSHO, an unqualified good. YMMV.

What the gun didn't do in this case, in any event, was prevent him from being attacked and hurt, eh? Had the punch or kick been intended to kill, or had worse effect than they did, it wouldn't have saved him from death, either.

Nonsense. A punch or kick that is intended to kill can easily fail to meet its goal. And as far as we know, the boys may have intended to kill him and only been stopped by bullets. Saying that had "the punch or kick been intended to kill, ... {the gun} wouldn't have saved him from death, either" is totally unjustified and one-sided speculation.

Even if this was intended as a simple robbery they could have accidentally killed the man, and as your post correctly implies, he had no obligation to bet his life or health on the goodwill and competence of two younger males who would knock him off a bicycle and assault him as they did. I would take your implied point further--society has no right to deprive him of the means of self-defense in order to protect people who physically assault him with potentially deadly force.

One more thing your analysis fails to recognize is that though the victim has no business evaluating the effects on society at large of killing an attacker, there are at least two ways that killing attacking felons can benefit society.

First, in a significant number of defensive killings the defensive killing actually is necessary to prevent the death of the intended victim. In such cases, there are only two possible options. Society can lose an intended victim or society can lose an intended murderer. Losing an intended murder is the better option in the vast majority of cases.

Second, people start out with smaller crimes and graduate to larger crimes. Murder is very rarely a first crime. Not all who violently assault go on to murder, but almost all who murder start with violent assault. It is quite possible, even probable, that the dead boy would have gone on to more severe criminal behavior, if not murder. Many people would have probably suffered from his crimes. And it is also quite possible that the simple self-defense of this gentleman saved the world from the next Jack the Ripper, BTK killer or garden variety murderer. (Though of course, that was none of the defender's business at the time of his legitimate self-defense.)

[burf]

51. There is an old adage about not picking a fight

with an old person. Being old, he is not as quick nor as strong as youngster. He probably is in some pain everyday just due to his age. He also takes longer to heal when injured.

So, he would just as soon kill an attacker than put up with the pain and suffering of getting his ass whooped by a young assailant.

The older I get, the more sense it makes.

[iverglas]

58. it's OT

but you really can't be very old.

65 isn't actually elderly, y'know?

Nonetheless, if a person feels they are at risk of harm from other persons when they engage in some activity, for whatever reason, I am quite comfortable saying the onus is on them to organize there lives differently. For example, I don't doubt there are lots of places to bike in that area that are not deserted and where one is not easily victimized, or where one could bike in company. Risks cannot be completely avoided, but they can be reduced.

Back on T:

So, he would just as soon kill an attacker than put up with the pain and suffering of getting his ass whooped by a young assailant.

And I'm back to being glad I live where I live, where people aren't permitted to kill someone intentionally because they don't feel like "putting up" with something.


What I really want to see here are just a few of all the stories of people who were robbed or assaulted in the US in a day who did not have a gun, who did not shoot or kill anyone, and who survived.

Because the plain fact is that there are millions of people not carrying firearms around, and some of them are victims of crime, and the large majority of them are neither killed themselves nor kill anyone else in the course of it.

So once again, the mere fact that someone used a firearm in the course of a crime committed against them does not mean that the outcome for themself would have been significantly different had they not had it.

In a very few cases presented here over the years, it has seemed likely that someone would have come to very grave harm or possibly been killed if they had not had a firearm. In far more cases, it is patently obvious that an unnecessary death occurred when the victim used a firearm.

The evidence is all the people who did not die when they had no firearm to use.

[beevul]

60. Thank you.

"Nonetheless, if a person feels they are at risk of harm from other persons when they engage in some activity, for whatever reason, I am quite comfortable saying the onus is on them to organize there lives differently. For example, I don't doubt there are lots of places to bike in that area that are not deserted and where one is not easily victimized, or where one could bike in company. Risks cannot be completely avoided, but they can be reduced."

That applies to those who feel at risk of harm from people...open carrying guns for example, right?

"the onus is on them to organize there lives differently"

I like that. I'll have to use it when and where applicable.

Have no fear, I wont hesitate to give proper credit to you for it.

[iverglas]

64. oh no

"the onus is on them to organize there lives differently"

Did I really type that??

[cbrer]

66. ONUS?

So the onus to organize ones life diffferently falls on the victim and not the criminal(s)?

All they had to do, in order to save their own lives, is follow your own advice. They chose not to.

Are we supposed to organize our lives, to surrender parts of our nation, and keep backing up to fit into the space that criminality has left us?

Don't get me wrong. Taking a human life irrevocably changes one. But I'd rather I had to do it, than leave a mess for the future.

I will not ignore the differences between sheep, sheep dogs, and wolves. If you choose to live as a sheep, it really is ok. There are sheep dogs that will protect you as well as we can.

To ignore wolves, is to invite destruction. This is not a political stance.

[liberal_biker]

67. I have to wonder about the mind of a person...

...who can say with a straight face that the victim is obligated to change his life so as not to come in contact with the criminal element (as if that were possible) and at the same time insist they should not have to change their lives so they don't come in contact with those who may be legally carrying a firearm.

[gejohnston]

69. what perplexes me is how

giving parts of public space to predatory sociopaths makes a more civilized society.

[iverglas]

80. not at all!

the victim is obligated to change his life so as not to come in contact with the criminal element

Did I express myself unclearly? Perhaps.

A person has the onus of organizing his life so as to reduce the risk of harm if they want to avoid harm.

If not, who cares? Their choice. But choosing not to avoid the risk of harm doesn't mean nobody gets to say a word if you kill somebody when the risk you could have avoided materializes.


at the same time insist they should not have to change their lives so they don't come in contact with those who may be legally carrying a firearm.

I suppose somebody may have said that. Not me.

I just say nobody should be carrying a firearm. Simples.

[TPaine7]

89. B. U. L. L. S. H. I. T. !!!

No, a person does not have the onus to reduce the risk of harm if they want to avoid harm due to felonious attacks by others when exercising their rights.

* Cartoonists do not have the onus to not make or publish pictures of Mohammed to avoid being attacked by religious lunatics.

* Women do not have the onus to not wear revealing (but legal) clothing around biker gangs in order to avoid being raped.

* Jews do not have the onus to avoid living in an area after skinheads move into the neighborhood.

* People do not have the onus not to express liberal ideas because they live in red states.

* Gays to not have the onus not to hold hands in public in the Bible Belt.

It would be better that all the fanatics who would forcefully restrain freedom of expression, all the bikers who would rape women, all the skinheads who would attack Jews, all the lunatics who would attack someone for their political beliefs and all the violent gay bashers be stopped--and if that entails their deaths, so be it--than that there be an "onus" placed on free people in order to protect felons.

Riddle me this, iverglas: if a woman can't get an abortion without being exposed to risk from anti-abortionists, is the onus on her to avoid the risk? What if the only realistic options are to get an abortion that involves that risk or carry the child to term?

What if she "{chooses} not to avoid the risk of harm"--if she chooses to get the abortion? What if someone attacks her because she insists on getting an abortion and in the course of stopping their potentially lethal attack she kills them? Who "gets to say a word if {she kills} somebody when the risk {she} could have avoided materializes"? Pat Robertson?

Would you accept this line of argument in a case involving a woman who chose to wear a short skirt? A tight top? No bra? Would this line of argument apply to any thing else, or is this a special rule made up to suppress gun rights?

[iverglas]

92. IF THEY DON'T WANT TO GET HURT THEY DO

Like I said, if they don't care, I don't care.

One does not get to assume a risk that could have been avoided and transfer the resulting harm to someone else. Basic rule of stuff.

IF YOU HAVE A CHOICE, you don't

walk alone in deserted parking lots late at night
live in dangerous neighbourhoods
publish incitements to hatred

etc. etc.

If you do those things, even though you have the choice not to, then killing someone when the risk you could have avoided materializes makes you a dangerous asshole.


Riddle me this, iverglas: if a woman can't get an abortion without being exposed to risk from anti-abortionists, is the onus on her to avoid the risk? What if the only realistic options are to get an abortion that involves that risk or carry the child to term?

What the fuck? How far do you stretch without snapping?

What are you suggesting, that she attend at the clinic being picketed and open fire?

As far as I can tell, you are.

But don't let me interrupt your gleeful attempts to exploit women in the service of your agenda no matter how bizarrely you fail.


Would you accept this line of argument in a case involving a woman who chose to wear a short skirt? A tight top? No bra?

No, dear heart. I neither accept nor reject it. It's a big old mu for you. And the reason why I don't is that it isn't a line of argument. Arguments require true premises to call for responses.

Women are not assaulted because of their manner of dress. That's just an old husband's tale you've accidentally swallowed, I guess.

Women are assaulted because they are women, by men with the desire and opportunity to do it. You might want to read up on this some.

[TPaine7]

115. Your loyalty to violent felons is impressive

What are you suggesting, that she attend at the clinic being picketed and open fire?

As far as I can tell, you are.

Yes, I guess that would be the analogy I presented--at least under the Gun Control Reality Distortion Field, where you live--and there is no craven sophistry, BS or bald-faced lying taking place when you make that statement. That's really sad. The Field has shown you no mercy.

Women are not assaulted because of their manner of dress. That's just an old husband's tale you've accidentally swallowed, I guess.

Women are assaulted because they are women, by men with the desire and opportunity to do it. You might want to read up on this some.

Ok, I get it. If twins go out in a rough area--one with a skintight micro skirt and no panties the other in a nun's habit--they are equally likely to get raped. OK.

I am vaguely familiar with some feminist theory. Some of it--equal pay for equal work, equal rights and responsibilities--I believe in. Some of it--"Intercourse is the pure, sterile, formal expression of men's contempt for women" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrea_Dworkin), there is no relationship between provocative dress and the risk of rape--I don't buy. The twins in my example above, though equally women--down to the genetic level, even--are not equally likely to be be raped. And a loving man whose wife repeatedly asks him for sex is not engaging in a "pure, sterile, formal expression of contempt" when he makes love to her.

Forget that example, iverglas. What about a Jew who continues jogging every morning before work--even after the skinheads move into the neighborhood? Does your "principle" apply to him?

One does not get to assume a risk that could have been avoided and transfer the resulting harm to someone else. Basic rule of stuff.

IF YOU HAVE A CHOICE, you don't

walk alone in deserted parking lots late at night
live in dangerous neighbourhoods
publish incitements to hatred

etc. etc.

If you do those things, even though you have the choice not to, then killing someone when the risk you could have avoided materializes makes you a dangerous asshole.

So the Jew, who refuses to knuckle under to fear and change his daily routine because some skinheads moved in, is a dangerous asshole?

Bullshit. He is perfectly entitled to jog when and where he pleases, and not to rearrange his life. Society should not rearrange itself to suit felonious thugs, racists, rapists, armed robbers, etc., nor is any person morally or legally obligated to rearrange his life. And if, while doing something that person has a perfect right to do--or being somewhere that person has a perfect right to be--they are obligated to use potentially deadly force in self-defense, they have a perfect right to do so.

And that is so, even if it leads to the death of every single violent racist, rapist, armed robber, violent religious extremist, kidnapper and murderer on earth. It is better that they all die that that one single person be obligated, morally or legally, to sacrifice his rights.

That is one of the great divides. Who should be repressed, forced into the shadows, and have the onus of yielding to the other--violent felons or law abiding people? I say felons. You disagree.

[iverglas]

122. you actually did get it

Ok, I get it. If twins go out in a rough area--one with a skintight micro skirt and no panties the other in a nun's habit--they are equally likely to get raped. OK.

Too bad you're pretending you didn't get it. And, of course, once again, in your excitement at the possibility of exploiting sexual violence against women in the service of your agenda (why IS it always Rape! Rape! Rape! in your posts???), you pretend to disregard that the vast, vast majority of such assaults are not committed against women in mini-skirts (or any other women) by strangers in dark alleys.

Did you want some cheese with the rest of what you seemed to think was on that subject? The alternative would be, as I suggested, that you inform yourself about actually relevant facts and leave out the nonsense you thought you'd toss in there. (What you "buy" and don't "buy" about feminism, or women, is really, you know, just not of the slightest interest to me, or the slightest relevance to anything here.)

(Oh, and: do you wear "panties"? Take that as a hint. I know what a Pavlov's bell that word is for men, but a lot of grown women consider it infantilizing and really dumb. Always happy to help out.)


If there are actually not things that you refrain from doing, despite how perfectly entitled you are to do them (and I get the feeling you feel pretty entitled all round), because you think doing them is unwise and elevates your risk of harm, well ... you must be living in Canada!

[cbrer]

117. Let me see if I understand you

You group moms that have to work nights and park in a parking lot, or can't afford to live in a better neighborhood, with people who publish incitements to hatred?

(your words) "What the fuck? How far do you stretch without snapping?"

Plus, for the benefit of the board, you're a complete expert on human male, thought and behavior during violent, psychotic acts.

My aren't you versatile!

Your credibility...your morals and values...your apparent willingness to be subjugated by violence...your sense of proper behavior of victims...

Fill in the blanks.

[iverglas]

123. I think my best advice here

would be to take a nice deep breath.

Oh, and stop saying nasty things that you know aren't true about people you don't know. You can start with me, there. You know that what you said isn't true, I know it, everybody here knows it. Don't you feel silly wasting calories saying it?

And stop misrepresenting what I say. That is a really, really good place to start. You could start with the first line of your post, which is false, just sadly, horribly false. I think you know how to fix it; just copy and paste what I actually said!

If you want to get back to me with something sensible and sane, you can start by not referring to sexual assault as a "psychotic" act. Your own absence of expertise ... or apologist position? ... is pretty glaring.

[cbrer]

137. Deep Breath?

It seems like a cheap shot by saying that you need to get some oxygen up to your head.

A: I am not referring to what is "true". I am referring to what you wrote. Which was a group of activites that could be collectively called "dangerous behaviors". If you don't want them to be thought of together. Simple! Don't put them together.

B: Misrepresentation? Wow. I don't know you, and I couldn't guess at what goes on behind those eyes. I have been around the world enough to have met some, what I would call, seriously warped people.

C: I did copy EXACTLY what you wrote. Oh.. it wasn't the part you wanted me to? Tough shit.

D: Psychotic: Characterized by, or demonstrating "Psychosis". Psychosis: Any severe form of mental disorder, as schizophrenia or paranoia. Gee you sure got me there. No rapist could EVER be thought of as that!

E: Me an expert? Dude (dudette?) I graduated from HKU. No classes in Psychosis.

Look, it really is OK if you want to live as a sheep. Millions agree with you. But when debating positions such as these with those who would protect you despite your silly notions, expect some blowback.

[cbrer]

138. Oh, and while we're at it...

You seem to think it's bad, or unfair, or maybe unreasonable to "say nasty things that you know aren't true about people you don't know." YOUR WORDS.

Yet you responded to TPAINE with this:


"What are you suggesting, that she attend at the clinic being picketed and open fire? As far as I can tell you are".

Do you see the duplicitous nature, and the willingness to condemn with untrue assumptions, your words are?

Prolly not. Me thinks thou are busily trying to score points. Hypocritically so, but that doesn't seem to matter when you run out of reason.

Referring to your words of course, not you as a person...

[SteveW]

144. If I'd used that language, I would have been alerted. And hidden. nt

[PavePusher]

81. It's "blame the victim" time again. And Jello. n/t

[burf]

62. As far as my age, I'm pretty close to the guy on the bike.

So, your take on the situation, as I am reading it, is the old man is to blame. If he hadn't been riding alone in the area, none of this would have happened. But there are stories out there the bicyclist was the third victim that day of the hoodlums. One of the bad guys was wearing an ankle tracking bracelet due to a prior conviction.

If you encounter a similar situation, you handle it any way you like. You may give them what they and hope they leave you alone. What happens if they decide its not enough, or maybe you are holding out on them? Good luck.

One thing the old man had going for him, which due to the laws of your country you cannot have. The item that may have helped save his well being and perhaps his life. The fact he was armed and proficient in the use of his firearm.

[iverglas]

65. quick! get new spectacles!

So, your take on the situation, as I am reading it, is the old man is to blame.

If the ones you have now are distorting things that badly, you're at risk of doing yourself an injury!

Or doing somebody else an injury ...

[burf]

74. Wasn't he the one who should organized his life differently?

Why should he be forced to? What other things should we do to accommodate the criminal? Maybe just walk around with some cash to "provide" the criminal with a "stipend" so he will leave us alone. The classic "just give them what they want and they'll leave you alone" variation of appeasement?

What happens when others see how well this is working out for the predators and next thing you know, the predator class now outnumbers the givers (sheep).

Then what does one do?

[iverglas]

75. seriously, you're going to get hurt

Why should he be forced to?

I give up. What colour is orange: true or false?

What other things should we do to accommodate the criminal?

What's a henway?

... Then what does one do?

I told ya! New specs!

[iverglas]

124. as you are reading it?

So, your take on the situation, as I am reading it, is the old man is to blame.

My, that is odd. Have I suggested that you get new spectacles? It's worth a try!

The item that may have helped save his well being and perhaps his life.

Ah yes ... it "may have" ... well, you know what's been said in this thread about that already ...

One thing the old man had going for him, which due to the laws of your country you cannot have.

I'll have to go count up all the senior cits who have been killed in Canada for want of a gun, shall I? Or maybe you should do that.

Or, just do as I've asked a few times in the past:

Find us a significant number among all those many homicides in the US in a year where the victim having a firearm "may have" saved their life ...

It really is quite important that somebody do that, don't you see?? Not "I didn't get hurt/killed because I had a gun", but "They got hurt/killed because they did not have a gun."

That's what I want to see.

Otherwise, we're stuck being expected to believe what Kleck's people told him, all those hundreds of thousands of people who'd be dead if they hadn't had a gun.

[Kellerfeller]

73. Hey Womens!!!!

Better not dress all sexy because you are just inviting men to rape you!!!


"Nonetheless, if a person feels they are at risk of harm from other persons when they engage in some activity, for whatever reason, I am quite comfortable saying the onus is on them to organize there lives differently."

Seriously?

[iverglas]

76. would you settle for an E for effort?

I'll betcha the women you know will tell you they make every effort not to do things like walk to their cars alone late at night in large empty parking lots in deserted areas.

Sad fact of life, but true.

If women need to organize their lives around the risk of attack -- which women do and have done since forever -- why would old geezers not feel the same need?

Why would anyone not avoid taking unnecessary risks with their safety?

Sshhh ... I won't tell anybody ... but I'll bet you do.

Btw, the onus is only there as regards the effects of their actions on other people, too obviously.

If somebody wants to wander abroad in risky situations when they have no need to do that, that's entirely up to them.

But to choose to do that and arrogate to themselves the "right" to kill other people if a problem arises, nope, sorry.


Will you people stop quoting that horrific grammar typo of mine?? It's embarrassing me. A long hard week is just no excuse.

[gejohnston]

77. they should not have to

If women need to organize their lives around the risk of attack -- which women do and have done since forever -- why would old geezers not feel the same need?

Neither should need to.

[iverglas]

79. it shouldn't snow in January, either

And one day maybe it won't.

But it does.

[gejohnston]

82. doesn't where I live

maybe that is why half of Ontario and Nova Scotia is here (Quebec likes the east coast, Prairie Provinces go to Arizona)

[Kellerfeller]

86. First, don't worry about the typo. We all do it.

I do it more than most. I definitely know the difference between there/their, to/too/two, no/know, etc but sometimes my fingers do whatever the hell they want. So you'll see no stones thrown from this direction.

Now to the real point. Yes, you are correct, that people should take reasonable precaution. However, I'm not going to live my life stepping around douchebags. I'm not going to talk softly for fear of upsetting some asshole with a hot temper. I generally do just because it is polite. But sometimes some people take offense at my beliefs and I am not going to scamper around trying not to offend everyone. that is what you are proposing, after all.

The point you are missing is that the old guy DID take reasonable precautions. He came armed! He quickly deescalated the situation and ended the violence.

Yes, he possibly could have avoided the violence by having a visible holster on the bike or a big "I am armed" sign. But then the douches would have just preyed on the next person. Frankly, I'm glad for the sake of those other future victims that they chose this old guy.

If you want to give "don't put yourself in that situation" advise, give it to the asswipes who feel the need to go around preying on people. If they had avoided that activity, they wouldn't have gotten shot.

[iverglas]

88. nah, I'm not missin nuttin

The point you are missing is that the old guy DID take reasonable precautions. He came armed! He quickly deescalated the situation and ended the violence.

Fail.

His gun did not stop him from being attacked. Duh.

Didya watch the video? The area is desolate and deserted, from what I can tell. The kind of place where, yes indeed, geezers and anybody else should be able to go for peaceful bike rides. But should just isn't is, y'ken?

I should be able to go anywhere anytime I want without let or hindrance. The fact is that if I do that, I take a risk. I assume the risks. My choice.

What exactly did this guy plan to do with his gun, in what circumstances? He's riding a bike, an undertaking that generally takes both hands. In what circumstances would he have been able to avert harm with his gun? Take it out and aim it at every individual he encountered along his way, in case they were planning to jump him?

The gun DID NOT protect him from violence. It enabled him to ESCALATE the violence in his own favour once it occurred.

And I am just not simple enough to say that in this case or all the many others we are constantly presented with, the killing of another person was necessary in order to avert worse harm than had already occurred. Reality just isn't on that side.

And yes, if what they were after was his bike or his money, yes, you DO relinquish them RATHER THAN KILL SOMEBODY.

That's the simple moral code that the vast majority of decent people in this world live by.

[Kellerfeller]

95. Ah, but it did keep him from being attacked MORE

Were the aggressors leaving after the initial attack? It doesn't appear so.

So yes, he did minimize the attack.

"I assume the risks. My choice." As do criminals.

" He's riding a bike, an undertaking that generally takes both hands. " Really? I must be really coordinated then because I can ride with one hand if necessary and no hands even. I'm awesome.

"And yes, if what they were after was his bike or his money, yes, you DO relinquish them RATHER THAN KILL SOMEBODY.

That's the simple moral code that the vast majority of decent people in this world live by. "

I guess I'm not decent then. They have no right to physically attack me or take my stuff. Clearly they do not want to play by the rules of "decent" society and therefore assume the risk of their choice.

Think about how much less crime there would be if every criminal knew there was a 50/50 chance that the person they are thinking about attacking or robbing is armed?

[iverglas]

125. will nobody be outraged??

Ah, but it did keep him from being attacked MORE

Will nobody demand to see Kellerfeller's ticket stub for the ride on the alternate timeline machine he has just taken??


They have no right to physically attack me or take my stuff.

Gosh, one would almost think someone had said they did ...

Try not to upset yourself. Nobody is saying anybody has any right to do anything to you or your stuff. You still live in a society where the laws protect people and secure their rights.

Well, I may be speaking hyperbolically, so we'll just say the odds of you being in a situation where your right to life isn't violated by laws that let somebody kill you are probably slim, but it's always worth being careful when you're in one o' them "castle doctrine" states, eh?

Think about how much less crime there would be if every criminal knew there was a 50/50 chance that the person they are thinking about attacking or robbing is armed?

Well, I've thought about how much more likely it would be that criminals would shoot first and look for the thing their victim was armed with later. Have you tried thinking about that at all?

But if I may be so bold, let me ask you what I've been asking for a while, and just now in this very thread:

Find us a significant number among all those many homicides in the US in a year where the victim having a firearm "may have" saved their life (or, since you seem to have access to that handy alternate timeline machine, would have saved their life) ...

It really is quite important that somebody do that, don't you see?? Not "I didn't get hurt/killed because I had a gun", but "They got hurt/killed because they did not have a gun."

That's what I want to see.

Otherwise, we're stuck being expected to believe what Kleck's people told him, all those hundreds of thousands of people who'd be dead if they hadn't had a gun.

[gejohnston]

127. given that Kleck

is a respected criminologist, used the scientific method, and his studies are not that much different than Cook's, dead or robbed. Either way, it does sound like you are saying that they guy should have let these guys beat the crap out of him.

[Kellerfeller]

132. By definition, I'm right

He was hurt no more than he was hurt.

"Gosh, one would almost think someone had said they did ..."

You sure are implying it by saying we have no right to stop him by whatever means necessary.


"Well, I've thought about how much more likely it would be that criminals would shoot first and look for the thing their victim was armed with later. Have you tried thinking about that at all?"

That is a logical fallacy. If they were going to do that and risk the jail sentence for murder, they would be doing that now. Having armed victims raises the bar as to how bad the criminal wants the stuff before committing the crime.

"Find us a significant number among all those many homicides in the US in a year where the victim having a firearm "may have" saved their life (or, since you seem to have access to that handy alternate timeline machine, would have saved their life) ..."

Here's a high profile one just recently.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/okla-woman-shoots-kills-intruder911-operators-shoot/story?id=15285605#.TySfLILAydA

[oneshooter]

134. Why don't you do it yourself? I'm pretty sure you could.

[gejohnston]

100. Actually most people in the world hate your "moral code"

And yes, if what they were after was his bike or his money, yes, you DO relinquish them RATHER THAN KILL SOMEBODY.

That's the simple moral code that the vast majority of decent people in this world live by.

I am betting most decent people would give you a huge "up yours". Did you read the article?

"One of the juveniles punched the bike rider in the face, knocking him off his bike. Julius Johnson ran up to bike rider and kicked him."
I'm sorry, that is the most morally repugnant and a bigger threat to civilized society, giving to fucking sociopaths.
simply handing it over would not have prevented it because according to the article, that was the initial encounter. The victim had no reason to assume they were just after his wallet or bike. He had no reason not to think they were going to beat him to death just for the hell of it. They were sociopaths. In order to have the perfect civil society, they must be removed from civil society.

[iverglas]

128. you're sorry?

I'm sorry, that is the most morally repugnant and a bigger threat to civilized society, giving to fucking sociopaths.

Welll, I'm sorry, but you're making up your own rules.

There are a whole lot of sociopaths and people who are a threat to civilized society in this world, and probably quite a few within a short drive of wherever you're sitting.

We are not permitted to kill people because they are sociopaths and threats to civilized society.

You do understand that, do you?

They were sociopaths. In order to have the perfect civil society, they must be removed from civil society.

Strap on your six-gun, pardner. There's a big job for you to get started on.

[gejohnston]

129. I did not say

going around being a vigilante. I did not say we had to kill anyone. Why must you misrepresent what others say? You do that often.
In this specific case, the bike rider had every right to ride where he wanted. He has no moral or legal obligation to avoid any area. You said he had a moral obligation to avoid riding his bike in that area.

He was physically attacked by two people. He was under no moral or legal obligation to ask "my bad, do you just want my bike and wallet?" No. His response was proportional to the threat. He was on the ground being kicked by two younger and stronger guys. Type of weapon does not matter. Even in duty to retreat states, his shooting would most likely be ruled justified.

why do you assume the best of predators and the worst of defenders?

[iverglas]

130. too bad you don't stick to the facts

He was on the ground being kicked by two younger and stronger guys.

No, he wasn't. He had been punched once (knocked off his bike) and kicked once (on the ground). Exactly the behaviour I'd expect from a gaggle of punks wanting to rip somebody off: put them into a position of weakness, and demonstrate power over them. Did the attacker kick him in the head? Not that I heard. Someone intending to kill doesn't kick somebody once in some random body part, generally.

The intent seems to me to have been rather obviously robbery, especially knowing that they had committed two robberies just previously and no one was killed.

NOT that the victim is expected to have known this or calculated the odds or anything like that. NOT.

Simply that those odds ARE that if he had not had a gun, he WOULD NOT be dead or likely even more seriously injured. He would have been ROBBED.

Then there's the part that nobody wants to whisper here: if the attackers HAD kicked him in the head and rendered him unconscious (or dead), or otherwise controlled his movements, where would that gun be now?

In the hands of three extremely unpleasant and violent youth. Now there's a nice thought.

Speculation works many ways.

[ileus]

131. so much for getting him in a position of weakness....getting killed...ain't that a bitch.

Lucky for him he had taken the time to arm himself and didn't have to take a short beating or get robbed.

[gejohnston]

135. I did.

You assume, but he would have no way of knowing that.

Easy for you to say, the victim did not know that. He saw an immediate threat and acted accordingly. I doubt the shooter knew about the other two robberies. What happened to the other victims? Were they beaten as well? What are their ages?

Who are you to expect others to play the odds? He probably would not have been killed, but would have huge medical bills and physical damage for the rest of his life. Neither one works.

If they found the gun.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

136. re: "Speculation works many ways."

Yes it does. I speculate that the world is better off without such unpleasant and violent youth.

[SteveW]

145. You've confused self-defense with deterrent. Really...

"His gun did not stop him from being attacked. Duh."

No, his gun protected him from further injury, and put an end to the attack. You really need to review "deterrent" and "self-defense."


"And yes, if what they were after was his bike or his money, yes, you DO relinquish them RATHER THAN KILL SOMEBODY."

When two young punks are attacking me, I do not put any credence in their wishes; I take self-defensive action.


"That's the simple moral code that the vast majority of decent people in this world live by."

Actually, most people in this country have a "simple moral code" which recognizes the right to self-defense. And I believe most people in the world "live by" this code as well.

[EX500rider]

90. "I am quite comfortable saying the onus is on them to organize there lives differently."

I agree, criminals should do that to avoid being shot to death.


"The evidence is all the people who did not die when they had no firearm to use."

The corollary to that being all the people who DID die when they had no means of self-defense.

[ileus]

52. They were just giving him a friendly beat down before robbing him.

Like I said no time for second guessing the intent of people already beating you....He did the right thing the community is thankful, and the families should be, the nightmare they've been suffering is finally over.

I remember when my first cousins dad was finally shot dead after years and years of run ins with the law. Pretty much everyone agreed it was for the better...up until that happened it had been Barry this, Barry that for as long as I could remember. And all he ever done was rob people and places...it finally caught up to him one night.

[cbrer]

53. Your statement is absurd

The gun didn't "do" this act. The man could have prevented his attack and subsequent wounds earlier if he had pulled earlier. He waited, suffered the attack, and justifiably determined that he was in mortal danger. And killed 1 thug, wounded another.

That's the reality. Cleansing society is a positive corollary of this mans act. The reason the act took place is clear. Those criminals won't be attacking anyone else.

Debates fall apart when opponents go through an act like that man did. Or would you think that you have a duty to die at the hands of those thugs because guns are "bad"?

[ileus]

55. rut row...you said thug.

get ready to be called a racist.

oh no you said Cleansing.....now you're considered not a true D (or little d) democrat....and your level of progressiveness will be questioned,


and on down I see you don't naturally assume they meant him no harm...



racist, rightwing, gun militant.


(Did I cover all the bases everyone?)

[TPaine7]

56. You forgot "misogynist"--all "gun militants" hate women. n/t

[ileus]

61. crap...

[cbrer]

71. hee hee

[iverglas]

59. MY statement is absurd?!?

The gun didn't "do" this act.



I have just awarded you the absurd statement of the week prize!

I'll have to go back to doing that, I think. Srawperson argument of the week used to be my favourite. But I'm sure I can find one for absurd statement.


The man could have prevented his attack and subsequent wounds earlier if he had pulled earlier. He waited, suffered the attack, and justifiably determined that he was in mortal danger. And killed 1 thug, wounded another.

You promise to be a source of great amusement! Will you share your secret videos with us?

Man sees gang of ne'er do wells approaching him, just keeps on peddling. Man sees them coming for him, and exercises great forbearance by allowing them to attack him. Man gets punched, shows great restraint in not pulling gun. Man gets kicked, finally just has enough, and starts shooting.

Do you write for the silver screen?


Cleansing society is a positive corollary of this mans act.

(You might want to look up "corollary" in a dictionary if you plan to make this your tag line.)

Just filing that one away. There are so many variations on the same filth.


Or would you think that you have a duty to die at the hands of those thugs because guns are "bad"?

Oh yes yes, you have caught me out, I must have tipped my hand, yes, that's exactly what I think! Why, I even said so, right there in the post you replied to:

People who use force in self-defence are not to be second-guessed from the perspective of a detached observer, and especially not based on facts not known to the person in question. That does not mean that any particular use of force claimed to be in self-defence is wise or good or even necessary, "justified" though it may be.

Silly me, to be so transparent. I should have realized I was typing you have a duty to die at the hands of those thugs because guns are "bad".



Are you here every Friday?



edited because I cannot type a subject line w/o a typo

[cbrer]

68. Oh no!

Animated emoticons! I'm screwed now!

Pulling the trigger on that tool killed that punk. You forward your argument by ignoring the obvious?

Um, I didn't write this man's wounds into the story. Again you selectively ignore reality to "score".

Society would be improved if criminal attacks were removed, or abated, IMHO. How silly of me.

You got me on the last point. Using sarcasm to illustrate silliness IS beyond certain mentalities, or agendas.

I'll be here twice a week. Try the veal!

[one-eyed fat man]

57. Unpleasant youths indeed. No evidence of intent to kill anyone.

Last edited Fri Jan 27, 2012, 06:06 PM - Edit history (1)

As we may surmise from your postings you are, "...of a certain age." How much of an ass-whipping are you willing to take at the hands of "unpleasant youth" to avoid damaging their psyches or the hand wringing and wails of lament from the mommas they so dearly loved? Bruises? Cuts not requiring stitches? Broken bones? Would it be different if they stopped beating you after they had gotten your wallet and valuables? What if they beat you because you had too little cash?

That they targeted elderly, I would class them as callous, and indifferent at best and as vicious and predatory at worst. They likely didn't care what damage they caused. It is just as likely had the old man died they would have had a jolly time laughing over it. How much cash do they suspect some pensioner getting a little exercise would have on him? It's not like they were knocking over the Bank of England.

Johnson had a criminal record and was on probation at the time of the incident. He was even on electronic monitoring, officials said.

Seems like Johnson had already decided to embark on a "life of crime." As it turned out, it didn't last all that long.

[TPaine7]

70. iverglas is a certified bad ass--ready, willing and able to hand out beat downs at a moment's notice

TPaine7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Thu Jun-18-09 10:38 AM
Response to Reply #37
73. For those of you who don’t already know iverglas,

Edited on Thu Jun-18-09 10:39 AM by TPaine7
I thought I'd help with the introductions:

Individual has obligation -- "moral" and, in civilized societies, legal -- to exercise whatever reasonable option is available, to avoid an assault, before choosing to use force...

Civilized, isn't it? Highly evolved. Refined. Doubtless iverglas is a fine example of what we should all strive to be.

Compare from yesterday (or so):

And no, I wouldn't rule out grabbing the person trying to make off with the purse from my shopping cart. ... And I wouldn't have ruled out beating up the person who did it, if I'd found him/her, frankly, but I'd recognize I was committing a crime ...

Source.hhttp://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x230249#230697


One "principle" of gun control and other pseudo pacifist BS is that it's always for the other guy. She can rule out violence for us in standing our ground in our own homes. That is perfectly proper, civilized, and evolved. Her defending her purse in public? Now that's different.

Your home. Her purse. Can you see the difference? Can you tell why one is worth defending with force and the other is not?

Sadly, many gun control advocates are like that. Your life, your children, your husband or wife, and your property are in one category--theirs in another. That is why, for instance, Mayor Bloomberg can wonder--with his bullet-proof limo and 24 hr armed detail--why anyone would want a gun. "Guns kill people." Gasp.

Debating hypocrites is embarrassing sometimes; it feels like boxing a paraplegic.

Source: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=230532&mesg_id=230923

[cbrer]

72. Can I get a big AMEN!?

[iverglas]

78. when you're old enough to drink

will you stop being so damned cute?

I hope not. I am living for the opportunity to pinch that little peach-fuzzy cheek of yours and give you a smooch on the nose, and then spit on my hanky to wipe the lippie off it.

[TPaine7]

83. That's as close as I've ever come to alerting on a post. My skin is crawling as I type.

Oh the vulgarity, oh the mental imagery, oh the torture! Do you work at Guantanamo?

It reminds me of that time you tried to kill me over the internet: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=184743&mesg_id=185051

A kiss from iverglas...

Lipstick on a... whatever you are.

*shudders*

I need to shower. And meditate. And listen to some soothing music. Very soothing.

[iverglas]

85. my work here is done!

Although for soothing, I recommend going back to one of those old Guns threads in your file folder and taking a stroll through the graveyard ... the tombstones are most wonderfully peaceful and pleasing.

Had we but world enough, and time,
This coyness, Tommy, were no crime.
We would sit down and think which way
To walk, and pass our long love's day;

... The grave's a fine and private place,
But none I think do there embrace.

[SteveW]

146. Close to alerting? Don't bother; keep your track record clean. nt

[cbrer]

84. What? No more animated emoticons?

When you lack a rational response, divert the subject and attack the poster. You're adding soooooo much to the discussion...

[iverglas]

87. hush now

There's courtin' goin' on.

My last proposal in the Guns forum didn't get past the weekend of rollercoasters and BB gun shooting and absinthe drinking in Montreal. Don't spoil my chances here.


typo ...

[ellisonz]

101. oh my...

Don't be a Shallow Hal - Tpaine!

[Callisto32]

97. Wait...I don't understand how that box works, exactly.

Is that IVERGLAS saying "she's" vengeful?

The person who would physically injure another person has the gall to tell others they are bad people for using violence to end an attack on one's person!?

[iverglas]

99. I have the most gory and violent revenge fantasies

Oh, you should see the inside of my head. Littered with battered corpses, it is. The person who honked their horn in front of my house at 7 a.m., the person who didn't yield when I was crossing the street on a green, the guy who walked into my house and took my purse twice, the kid who was given the award for highest average in grade 3-4 because she had perfect attendance while I'd spent the first term in hospital and nevertheless tied her marks, the sales clerk who snubbed me because I don't dress my income ... all of 'em, bruised and bloodied. And in my imagination, the world is all the better for being rid of such specimens.

Now, look past all that and you'll see the Canadian humour compartment. No point in opening that one. You won't get it. The term "self-deprecating" just isn't found in dictionaries in the US, as I understand it.

[Callisto32]

104. Wait?

You just pretended to be self-deprecating while using that fact to build yourself up.

That, plus the deflection = failed post.

[iverglas]

107. yes?

You've heard of that whole thing of having to explain your jokes?

Damned if you do and damned if you don't, I guess.

[Callisto32]

108. No...

I think you need somebody to explain to you JOKES.

First, they are supposed to be "funny."

Sarcasm isn't a joke, if it isn't FUNNY.

Edit: Actually, now that I think about it, you are the only Canadian I have ever "met" without a great sense of humor. I don't think it's your culture's comedy that is the problem.

[iverglas]

110. okay, try looking up "dry"

Again, I know it's a foreign concept.

[gejohnston]

112. works best in person

and by Brits and myself.

[iverglas]

113. yes, that is quite true

But it works reasonably well in print when read with good faith.

When the co-vivant and I first spoke after meeting on line, I may have mentioned once, he was gobsmacked that I could be funnier in person than I was on his monitor.

No slouch himself either, that boy.

[TPaine7]

116. The bolded, indented parts are both iverglas. n/t

[Callisto32]

96. Decent people don't advocate for the disarmament of the most vulnerable among them.

"If you love something, make it more vulnerable to vicious attack."

Please....

It would be funny if you didn't actually seem serious about your schtick.

[Callisto32]

102. No, my urge is to defend people who had to defend themselves from those that would suggest Bludlust.

What's the point of vengeance? How are we talking about vengeance? Have you ever been in a fight for your life? I have. Believe me, you aren't thinking about vengeance. No, that's a sick thought that you get when you think about people stealing your purse, apparently. What you are thinking about is living on. You aren't even thinking about hurting the guy, not as a first line of thought. No, you are trying to live.

LIFE!!!

I AM HERE TO DEFEND THE RIGHT TO DEFEND THAT LIFE!

Vengeance, psh. What a juvenile state of mind you attempt to foist upon us.

[Callisto32]

94. To kill 16 year olds engaged in a life-threatening attack on a senior citizen.

You come in here, all high-and-mighty; trying to play what-ifs with someones life.

Ever hear the phrase "beaten to within an inch of your life?" How far is that inch? Do you trust a bunch of (clearly violent) people who have been empirically shown to tend toward piss-poor judgment and impulse control to be able to accurately gauge that inch? Can you prove the biker would not have been killed, had he simply allowed himself to be victimized?

Show your fucking work.

[iverglas]

103. I dunno

Can you prove the biker would not have been killed, had he simply allowed himself to be victimized?

We'll leave aside the fact that he WAS victimized, rather badly, and just ask: can you prove that he would have been killed?

Oh, wait, did I ask that already and your post is not an answer?

Nobody, least of all moi, as asking that HE prove it. But you aren't him. You're sitting in judgment of his actions. If you want to say his actions were justified in law, I might agree. (I'd really need to have the equivalent of trial evidence and be able to assess the credibility of the witnesses and all that, to say more, and I'd be considering law that I probably don't agree with.) If you want to say they were necessary, let alone anything more, you'll be needing something to back that up.

Sans alternative timeline crystal ball, you don't have it. So it's wise to quit while only that far behind.

And yes, the onus is really on the persons doing the applauding to put their money where their palms are.

And I'm going with my gut here, and the available evidence, and saying that the odds that he would have suffered any significant more harm had he not killed someone are slim. And if his bicycle wasn't insured, I imagine there would have been no shortage of donations to get him a nice new one.

So the point, in case you're missing it, is that the presence of the firearm in the situation did nothing good, and caused harm unnecessarily. That's my guess.

[Callisto32]

106. You told somone to prove something that can't be proven.

I told you to do the same thing. You were snarky about it. "Show your work." I'm so glad we are all your students, now...

The whole point is that WE CANNOT KNOW WHAT DID NOT HAPPEN!!!!

The point is, that your guesses don't mean shit, especially to somebody involved in the attack. Because you cannot know if the biker would have been more severely injured/killed but for the lack of the firearm.."that the presence of the firearm in the situation did nothing good" is a statement that CANNOT BE SUPPORTED.

[oneshooter]

111. But it is only a guess, you don't know for sure.

And that won't stand up in a court of law.

Well maybe in a Canadian court, but why should we care about that.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[iverglas]

114. how big a sigh do we think would be big enough here?

You could always try reading my post again and trying real hard to figure it out.

Not that you were actually doing anything but taking a chance to sneak in some petty xenophobic ethnocentrism ...

[oneshooter]

121. Despite your petty insults you have failed once again to answer the question.

"Well maybe in a Canadian court, but why should we care about that."

Why should Americans care about what a Canadian would say about a crime committed in America? Or even why we should bother to listen what a Canadian lawyer has to say about it. You have no say in what happens in our courts, just as I have no pull in Canadian courts.

"petty xenophobic ethnocentrism"
A pretty way to call someone(me) a racist.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[iverglas]

126. tsk

Did you think Canadians were a race???

I thought it was a sexual orientation ...



(Please, any pearl-clutchers, heh heh, in the area ... it's just South Park, and it's a joke about Canadians, and we think it's funny when people tell jokes about us ... and we have same-sex marriage and everything ... go Soviet Canuckistan ...)

[octothorpe]

148. Hey, Iverglas, I have a question for ya...

I read through most of this thread and I also recall reading another thread about a guy who shot some armed robber at a waffle house or something... Anyway, I don't agree with much of what you said, mostly because of the many issues other have raised. I'm not going to rehash the arguments. Agree to disagree type thing...

My question is if you think there is any point in which someone has the right (not legally, but morally) to use a firearm to defend themselves from an aggressor? If so, what is the criteria for that? When I say defend, I don't necessarily mean kill, but to stop the attacker. Which of course means shooting center mass and having a high probability of killing the attacker.

[iverglas]

149. nah

If you recall threads, you should check them out.

If you don't remember the many threads in this decade-long conversation that you may not have been here for and you've joined while it is in progress, get out your google.

iverglas "self-defence"

(I spell it that way) should tell you all you need to know!

[ileus]

105. yeah take that....beatings are good and civil...shooting an attacker bad.

Really really bad...victim first, defend yourself later. And hope some well meaning people pick up the tab for your bike, hospital bills, and maybe funeral.

[DWC]

63. Solid Defense. Sorry it had to happen. n/t

[slackmaster]

120. Tragic, needless waste of one life and ruination of two others

Those kids made some very poor choices.

[AzWorker]

133. good shoot, classic disparity of force

yup