I don’t see a strawman. 
So your interpretation of “it sucks that a 15 year old kid died” is “that old man should have just taken his beating and offered up his PIN with an apology for how little cash he was carrying?” Really?
If it’s just ridicule then it’s pretty far off the mark. It’s bad form to ridicule people for saying something that they never said.
Since neither Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson (or Louis Farrakhan) has poked his nose into this affair, its a safe bet the story will disappear.
I would like to hear the surviving (wounded) lad’s lawyer’s statement-maybe they were trying to borrow a little money from the old man?
If I were the judge (and the old man on trial), I would sentence the guy to firearms training-he should have gotten all theree.
I gather that the third either was not attacking him, or was running away.
Did I say that? Pretty sure I didn’t.
Odd. This is *also *something I didn’t say. You may be unfamiliar with message board conventions. Generally speaking, when you quote someone, and then type something, it’s expected that the part you type bear some relation to the part you quote.
When more empathy is given for the perpetrator rather than the actual victim what do you expect? Did you actually read the post I was satirically responding to because if you did then you’d see that it wasn’t such a great leap to say that the old man should have just taken what was given him, nay even assisted them in their en devour? Sometimes the best response is to point out the ridiculousness (maybe too strong a word) of what a person has said.
The implication was there.
So, you deny the implication? You deny your post said this (I’m adding bolding to emphasize particular items):
Good start.
What do you think this says about your first sentence? In fact, you are saying he was wrong to defend himself.
.
Indicates that the response was unjustified.
Which means what? We find out later that he, or they, do in fact have a history. I don’t know how the old man should know or care about this, though.
Again, indicating the response was unjustified.
And more empathy for the teenager rather than the senior citizen. Why do I say that? Because we know the teenager was 16 and we know the senior citizen was 65. Yet you only mention the age of the teenager rather than the age of the senior citizen.