well…as I understand it there’s video evidence, which supports that version of events, and eyewitness testimony which is similarly corroborative.
On what do you base your disbelief?
I’ve read each post you’ve made in this thread in which you’ve pretty much associated yourself with the views of the families of the armed robbers. And your posts appear to be intentionally ignoring the facts reported by the news story, principally in which the robbers were killed after they pointed guns at another person, who then acted in self-defense according to the police and district attorney, who apparently reached their conclusion after looking at a video and interviewing more than one witness.
To me, the differences here far outweigh the minor similarities. George Zimmerman’s suspicions were aroused because he saw Trayvon Martin walking down a street. The “concerned citizen” (his name hasn’t been released) saw Robert De Carr and William Medina in the act of committing an armed robbery.
The only stereotypical thing the article is missing is the statement that the men were just getting their lives turned around.
It’s a good reminder to all mothers to avoid speaking to the press if you find yourself in this situation. It’s not going to turn out well. Actually it ticks me off that the press does this.
One more armed robbery, and then it’s off to dental school.
I’m sorry for this mother and her loss, or at least I am trying to be, but I could use a little help.
Regards,
Shodan
Sure, agreed. If you’re just standing there on the street and these guys come busting out of the store and brandish a firearm at you, and you successfully kill them without getting hurt yourself, you’re entirely justified and really all that can be said is that you’ve got a lot of calm under fire. I think it gets murky if you threaten them with deadly force first, though, like, say, if you have a gun drawn on them when you try to stop them from fleeing.
Sure, you can complain about whatever you like. I’m not sure what you’re asking me; is it essentially whether I actually think these were good kids, innocent victims vs. big hard criminals? I’m sure they were terrible and destined for more terrible, but I don’t think that really matters.
[QUOTE=Bricker]
well…as I understand it there’s video evidence, which supports that version of events, and eyewitness testimony which is similarly corroborative.
On what do you base your disbelief?
[/QUOTE]
I don’t disbelieve it in the sense that I’m making any positive claim that I know what actually happened; if the video shows exactly the scenario you’re talking about - and I don’t know that it doesn’t, obviously - that’s the end of that. I just don’t see any specific statement anywhere that the guy wasn’t threatening force before he was threatened with force. I think it’s very possible that everything could be as described, except that when the concerned citizen requested that the robbers hang around, he did so while indicating his present capacity and intent to shoot them if they didn’t, and then he shot them when they didn’t. Which I think is not the same as them threatening a bystander.
No, armed robbed does not merit the death penalty. That has absolutely nothing to do with this. I am perfectly fine with every armed robbed getting shot to death while committing a crime though.
So-called ‘good kids’ and ‘family men who loved their young daughter’ don’t commit armed robbery. That’s pretty much the definition of a bad kid.
AFAICT that is how it happened - the citizen spotted a crime in progress, drew his weapon, and told the robbers to stay where they were. They declined to do so, drew their own weapons, whereupon the citizen shot them both and killed them.
Legally, I don’t think the citizen did anything illegal. Morally, I also don’t think it is particularly murky. People who are prepared to shoot so they can get away with armed robbery are people I can spare.
Regards,
Shodan
You commit a robbery armed with guns you relinquish your right to not get shot like the scumbag you are. Those mothers should be ashamed of themselves, and deserve to be shot as well for defending their scumbag children.
That would be justice.
Years ago there was a liquor store robbed, at gunpoint, in my city. The robber turned his back on the clerk to exit the store. The clerk reached below the counter, pulled out a gun, and shot the robber in the back, paralyzing him, and putting him in a wheelchair for life.
The robber then sued the clerk for using “too much force”, because he wasn’t directly threatening the guy when he was turning to leave. He didn’t win, but I knew people who supported the robber’s point of view.
When I lived in Lansing Michigan, for three years in the late 80’s, a late night convenience store was robbed, the robber turned to leave, then turned back and shot the clerk dead. The clerk was working nights to support his family while also trying to get through college.
So I feel that just because the robber has started to leave, I would still feel threatened, and think that deadly force would be justified.
No, the mothers don’t deserve to be shot. I support the citizen who shot their kids, but although the mothers sound like weasels, they haven’t actually committed a crime.
Great. "Open wide. OPEN WIDE! (Pulls out gun) “For the last time, OPEN WIDE!”
I understand that mothers love their children no matter what, and see the best in them no matter what, and mourn their loss no matter what.
But that can be done in private. In public she should STFU.
Not to mention that if they kept doing this at some point a robbery would have gone wrong and some innocent person would have been shot.
I can’t say I feel sorry for this loss and I don’t have much good will for someone who could either be so oblivious, so criminal or so stupid. But I understand it.
I do feel very strongly about how the press descends on families while they are still in shock. Even the most thoughtful mother would have the urge to say something, anything positive about their child. And I think they would be wise to resist or be presented in a foolish light.
In her case it was laughable and, you know, I kinda resent that I can read that article and snort.
At least we now know from which side of the family the mooks got their smarts.
Why should the victim of the crime always be the one to pray that the cops show up in time? How about if someone commits a crime and others are able to turn the tables on them, the criminals pray that the cops get there in time? We should say to the mothers the same thing they would’ve said to the poor store owner had the sons gotten away: “Oh well. Shit happens. Hope the cops are faster next time.”
I’m not going to go back and read the articles, but one of the family members said that she thought that the robber might have been trying to get money to pay child support for his daughter. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
I do feel sorry for the daughter. With any luck, her mother will try to minimize contact with the robber’s family, and the daughter will have a chance to learn that armed robbery is NOT justifiable.
I don’t often find myself in alignment with your way of thinking, but this works for me. Then again I’ve not been feeling well lately so… 
And it’s not that I believe the guys got what was coming to them and good riddance that makes my heart so calloused, it’s that their familes are so crassly oblivious to the terror their kids wrought on others.
Or all of their robberies would have gone off without a hitch and a bunch of innocent people would have been robbed.
There’s no outcome where these guys weren’t harming people.
Considering that the police don’t have an absolute duty to respond and may simply decide to tell people to shut up, leave the area and then later, give the store owner a case number for insurance purposes without ever bothering to show up in person, I’m often both curious and mildy annoyed at this silly notion that calling the police is the be-all, end-all of civilian actions and that no one should ever so much as look funny at a criminal or they’re in the wrong.
I don’t know the specifics of this case. But to totally Godwinize the thread (in case I missed it above), I’m quite sure that had Hitler’s mother still been around and been interviewed in late 1945, she’s say that her son was a good kid and didn’t deserve what happened to him.
There is no objective value in members of the person’s own family saying that he was a good person, other than learning a bit about that person’s own character.