Man shoots teens who pushed him off bike.

[Oldcarjunkie]

Sorry, but the Old guy was justified in shooting this punk and the fact that Said Punk that was causing him bodily harm and robbing him just happened to die.. well **** em.
The Nah Sayers would feel different if the old man didnt have a gun and after they robbed him, they beat him to death. Then it would be, I wish the man had a weapon to protect him self.

Bond...If faced with such a attack, they pushed you off the bike and are now three of them attacking you and robbing you.. Are you going to let them continue and possibly beat you to death and not draw a weapon if you have one? Are you going to hold out on shooting them until you can no longer raise your arm to get a shot off? or worse yet so that your shot goes a stray and injures someone else?

 

[TopShot0352]

Sorry I don't fulfill your "Shoot first and ask questions later" party line. I used to believe in unrestricted carry, but the more time I spend on this forum, the more I have changed my mind.

PS...Maryland has SA's, not DA's.

 

[CAS_Shooter]

And assault is still not a capital offense. Apparently his body responded well enough to kill the one kid.

If everyone that might otherwise defend themselves, wait until after their body was not well enough to put up a defense, there would be very few able to defend themselves. If the litmus test for overpowering force in self defense is to wait until the assailant first applies their overpowering force on you, you have the bad guy winning nearly every time.

In this case, there was a gang of thugs that attacked an elderly man. That fact is indisputable. He was violently forced to the ground, staring up at a gang of strong young men that had already demonstrated a willingness to perpetrate assault and violence on an old man.

I am certain this man was is desperate fear, and the gang of thugs, through their demonstrated actions, showed he had reason to be in fear of having further violence perpetrated on him. He defended himself based solely on the terror state brought on by the gang. They put an old man in fear for his life by their violent assault. And you would have preferred he wait to defend himself until enough violence was perpetrated that his body was past the ability to respond.

I can imagine that you have reasonable positions on guns and carry. It is not a great idea to try to make a your point using an example of gang assault on an old man.

 

[CAS_Shooter]

Sorry I don't fulfill your "Shoot first and ask questions later" party line. I used to believe in unrestricted carry, but the more time I spend on this forum, the more I have changed my mind.

You and I might agree on some positions. But in this case, the poor old fellow did not shoot first and ask questions later. That axiom does not apply to his dilemma. He might have liked to ask questions first. However, the thugs made sure to take their "shot" first by way of assault and terror. Once that happened, there is no more concept of asking first.

 

[DeadeyeJack]

Rights are not an opinion.

 

[Klunatic]

Neither being pushed off a bike nor attempted armed robbery are capital offenses. It perpetuates the fallacy that being allowed to carry a gun (if this person was allowed to) means you are allowed to use it.

You are obviously confused. "Capital Offense" is what the government charges you with after you assault and kill someone (which is probably what would have happened with those kids if the old man wasn't armed).

A 65 year old man who is attacked by 3 punks in the woods, is engaging in the act of "self defense". Which is clearly enumerated as a basic human right. Unfortunately for the kids they picked the wrong fight this time and got more than they bargained for.

I only wish I had the same right to bear arms in Marylandstan.

 

[clandestine]

Of course it could be a combination of intended purpose and collecting and shooting paper and clay would you agree?

 

[Atec]

Here we go. A group of punks, who were no doubt just about to turn their lives around, attack 1 old man and it's the victims fault. He should have called 911 and got beat to death.

If this type of situation turned out this way more often maybe the punks of this world would learn some valuble life lessons.

If that was here in Baltimore the old man would have been dead.

 

[Docster]

You are obviously confused. "Capital Offense" is what the government charges you with after you assault and kill someone (which is probably what would have happened with those kids if the old man wasn't armed).

A 65 year old man who is attacked by 3 punks in the woods, is engaging in the act of "self defense". Which is clearly enumerated as a basic human right. Unfortunately for the kids they picked the wrong fight this time and got more than they bargained for.

I only wish I had the same right to bear arms in Marylandstan.

Agree. Self Defense is what this is all about. Nobody in there right mind will let a situation devolve to the point of no return before taking action. Nobody in their right mind, being attacked by 3 young men, having been thrown off a bike and in the act of being robbed, would or should be expected NOT to take any and all action to protect themselves and neutralize the threat by any means possible and available to themselves to ensure that life-threatening injury does not come to bear on them. That is what self-defense is all about. Anyone who believes otherwise has that right, but is foolish in believing.

That is the basic difference between a liberal, who believes the dead robber is a victim in this case ('victim of society'), and a conservative, who believes the person who was attacked was the victim (victim of a crime). It's these kind of situations that reveals ones' true position

 

[Ab_Normal]

You're kidding, right? He was physically over matched. He had every right to defend his property and body. That IS what firearms were first designed to do.

"God created all men but Sam Colt made all men equal".

 

[Pushrod]

And assault is still not a capital offense. Apparently his body responded well enough to kill the one kid.

So the old man is suppose to wait until it IS a capital offence before he can defend himself?

If someone violently breaks into my home to rob me, I should just try to retreat from them the best I can until they actually try to kill me or are in the act of killing my family?

You, sir, have an idiotic attitude towards self-defence that really belongs in places like where your fictional hero lives: England.

 

[Kman]

short form:

Leave people alone.

 

[pwoolford]

I don't carry a gun and I have never had a desire to. I worry about people who think that carrying is so important.

I am really curious what you would have done (or think the 65 year old should have done). If they just stole his bike and left that would be one thing but they continued to assault him. Would you just take a beating and hope they didn't kill you?

 

[Klunatic]

Quote:
Originally Posted by BondJamesBond
I don't carry a gun and I have never had a desire to. I worry about people who think that carrying is so important.

I am really curious what you would have done (or think the 65 year old should have done). If they just stole his bike and left that would be one thing but they continued to assault him. Would you just take a beating and hope they didn't kill you?

Interestingly, if you read past threads from the "Man with a license to kill", he talks about owning a .380. One does not use a .380 for plinking at the range....

 

[ThawMyTongue]

@bondjamesbond

I'm not going to call names or criticize, but I do have a question for you. Due to your participation on this forum, I have been led to assume you own and know how to use firearms. What scenario(s) would you find yourself in where you would be comfortable bringing a firearm to bear for self defense?

The difference between assault and a capital offense is ONE well placed blow. Who is to say which blow would be the game changer?

 

[Norton]

Even in Maryland that would have been a good shoot.

In your dreams

Sorry....you're wrong. The standard for an act of self-defense is as follows:

6
Self-defense, as I’ve just told you, is a
complete defense and you would be required to
find the Defendant not guilty if all of the
following five factors are present. First,
the Defendant was not the aggressor or,
although the Defendant was the initial
aggressor, he did not raise the fight to the
deadly force level; second, that the Defendant
actually believed that he was in immediate and
imminent danger of death or serious bodily
harm; third, that the Defendant’s belief was
reasonable; fourth, that the Defendant used no
more force than was reasonably necessary to
defend himself in light of the threatened or
actual force and, fifth, that the Defendant
had a duty, when defending himself outside of
his home, to retreat or avoid danger if the
means to do so were within his power and
consistent with his safety. However, where
peril is so imminent that he cannot retreat
safely, he has a right to stand his ground and
defend himself.

 

[Rednekrebel]

Sorry....you're wrong. The standard for an act of self-defense is as follows:

It all makes sense now. Self defense. It's what you do when you feel life has been taken for granted and in a second the decision of life or death is all that matters. Fight or flight. Humans natural predatorial instinct is to fight and defend. Once defense is out powered strong forms of defense are needed.

Only way I could see this act of defense not being justifiable and reasonable would be if the punks pushed him off and flee. As if they were just being stupid jerks and trying to act like they are tough. But this is not the case.

The case here is self defense. If we as humans do not self defend. We have no humans. Self defense in greater forms is what has brought this world as far as it has gotten. You think war isn't self defense? One has the aggression and determination to either inflict bodlily harm or dismantle his opponent as a means of using force. An equal action is taken to insure harm is stopped or lessened.

Next time you think self defense isn't justifiable. Just think if the US were invaded. You have guns. Do you intend to lay them over to the intruder or do you intend to protect you and your country. Cause if you intend to take action, What is the difference if it's 3 thugs trying to take your possessions away or afghans trying to take your possessions away?

 

[BigSteve57]

The article is silent on whether or not the man who was pushed off the bicycle was injured or not.

I recall vividly being knocked off my 10 speed when I was a teenager riding on a street near my house. It wasn't by teenage thugs but by a dog. Yes, a DOG, off it's leash running at will. Afterward I required a trip to the E-ward to get stitches on my leg & arm. I additionally sprained my wrist & knee. The point is I was barely able to get up and move.
Had I been assaulted by thugs I wouldn't have been able to flee anywhere. Perhaps this man was in a similar predicament.

Being pushed/pulled off a bicycle is no joke and is a potentially life threatening situation all by itself, IMHO.

 

[Threeband]

Three young thugs viciously attacking and continuing to attack a single elderly man constitutes a significant disparity of force.

Because of this disparity of force, the victim is justified in responding with deadly force.

http://www.angelsfeartotread.com/2011/06/disparity-of-force/

 

[gmhowell]

Sorry....you're wrong. The standard for an act of self-defense is as follows:

The antis, whose knowledge of firearms is based almost solely on Hollywood would take issue with your point four:

fourth, that the Defendant used no
more force than was reasonably necessary to
defend himself in light of the threatened or
actual force

They would argue that a well placed shot (or arrow) to the knee would suffice. Given the remarkable marksmanship of every action hero, there's no reason to think that a scared, hurt 65 year old could pull off such precision marksmanship.