Egg a car, get shot dead

[Policenaut]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,414545,00.html

I think the moral is pretty clear. If you're a kid in Columbus, Ohio don't throw eggs at cars unless you want to die. Seriously. I think one can also extrapolate that they should also stay away from TPing houses and ding dong ditch.

[Oliver]

Why do you hate guns and relevant amendments so much?

[I Ratant]

I'm in favor of shooting the odd tagger when caught with the spray can in hand.
On sight.
Maybe the rest of the little crappers will be less eager to mess up our world with their mental problems.

[Oliver]

I'm in favor of shooting the odd tagger when caught with the spray can in hand.
On sight.
Maybe the rest of the little crappers will be less eager to mess up our world with their mental problems.


The problem is that the liberal Nazi KKK will rather blame the gun than the little evil crappers who deserve to die. :(

[Tony]

I'm in favor of shooting the odd tagger when caught with the spray can in hand.
On sight.
Maybe the rest of the little crappers will be less eager to mess up our world with their mental problems.

Now if we could get you to stop messing up the world with yours...

[Delvo]

Well deserved... Now if only there were a way to kill those worthless scum BEFORE they did things like that and tried to excuse them as "pranks"...

[Kestrel]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,414545,00.html

I think the moral is pretty clear. If you're a kid in Columbus, Ohio don't throw eggs at cars unless you want to die. Seriously. I think one can also extrapolate that they should also stay away from TPing houses and ding dong ditch.

It sounds like Columbus has a sociopath driving around town.

[scratchy]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,414545,00.html

I think the moral is pretty clear. If you're a kid in Columbus, Ohio don't throw eggs at cars unless you want to die. Seriously. I think one can also extrapolate that they should also stay away from TPing houses and ding dong ditch.
I wouldnt establish any moral principles out of this, but rather some guidelines for caution. In a society where anyone could be expected to carry a gun, you cant do anything that annoys anyone, or your life is at risk.

[casebro]

Isn't that the point?

[GreNME]

I wouldnt establish any moral principles out of this, but rather some guidelines for caution. In a society where anyone could be expected to carry a gun, you cant do anything that annoys anyone, or your life is at risk.

I find this quite ironic considering the sentiment by someone else in the thread on Islam and freedom, about how Islam is the one who needs to get out of the Bronze Age to join the rest of us.

[Axiom_Blade]

I'm in favor of shooting the odd tagger when caught with the spray can in hand.
On sight.
Maybe the rest of the little crappers will be less eager to mess up our world with their mental problems.

Man, I was gonna do that troll, but two posters have already beat me to it!
Wow, you guys are quick.

[SezMe]

Isn't that the point?
Huh? Annoyance justifies the death penalty? Really?

[AntiTelharsic]

Edit: It certainly wasn't my intention to rant, as such, but I have it on good advice that my post might benefit from rant tags, so let's give that a try.

Obviously, I can't justify shooting in these circumstances; I think killing is only justified in self-defense or defense of another, and if the shooter gets caught, and gets what's coming to him, that's fine by me. But on the other hand, I'm not gonna shed any tears over it. Ultimately, I just can't bring myself to lament the loss of idiots like that, since I think that the fewer idiots like that we have, the better off we are. Don't be an *******, and people aren't going to shoot you for being an *******.

It's not a difficult concept: "don't mess with other people's stuff, particularly if there's a chance they're going to shoot you over it." Seriously, people, it's not rocket science. One would expect any teenager to be capable of that much reason, at least, and the loss of those who are too stupid to figure that out doesn't trouble me.

There are plenty of innocents dying and suffering every day -- I'll mourn them and leave to someone else the mourning of people who died while going out of their way to be dicks to other people. If mourning them is your thing, I sure won't criticize you for it.

Edit2: Whoa. Red.

[Kestrel]

Huh? Annoyance justifies the death penalty? Really?

This is a machismo contest.

A lot of guys feel a need to talk tough to prove they are "Real Men".

Mostly it's a sign they are insecure.

[SezMe]

It's not a difficult concept: "don't mess with other people's stuff, particularly if there's a chance they're going to shoot you over it." Seriously, people, it's not rocket science. One would expect any teenager to be capable of that much reason, at least, and the loss of those who are too stupid to figure that out doesn't trouble me.
No, one would expect teenagers to do stupid things. It is the very definition of teenagerdom. I did some really dumb things as a kid; I'd hate to think that the penalty for that is death.

Are you not yet a teenager, AntiTelharsic? If so, your stance is OK. If you are a teenager or beyond, can you seriously say that you never did a stupid act? What, you did act rashly? Then you deserve to die.

[AntiTelharsic]

Are you not yet a teenager, AntiTelharsic? If so, your stance is OK. If you are a teenager or beyond, can you seriously say that you never did a stupid act? What, you did act rashly? Then you deserve to die.

I committed offenses against others when I was a teenager, and if someone had shot me for it, then, well, that might have been fair enough.

Please note that nowhere did I say those teenagers deserved to die -- it's simply a matter of not minding that they did.

[CaptainManacles]

No, one would expect teenagers to do stupid things. It is the very definition of teenagerdom. I did some really dumb things as a kid; I'd hate to think that the penalty for that is death.

Are you not yet a teenager, AntiTelharsic? If so, your stance is OK. If you are a teenager or beyond, can you seriously say that you never did a stupid act? What, you did act rashly? Then you deserve to die.

You know, I hear that stupid argument in most threads similar to this, and you know what, no, I didn't. I didn't do anything like egging a car. I might have done a few stupid things, but that's not the same as committing crimes. No one is saying that car eggers deserve death, but my sympathy is generally very limited for people who go around making life miserable for everyone around them. I see no reason to keep treating criminals like poor victims of forces outside their control. There were times and there are places outside this country where youth are generally polite and respectful instead of pests who do as they please. They will act as we expect them to act, and as long as they know they can get away with pulling bs, they will continue to do so.

[ScroogeANDMarley]

omfg (if I believed in g), I can't believe this is even becoming an argument. A couple of trolls say, basically, "I would have shot them, too", and it turns into actual ...ummm...let's call it discourse.

Is ANYONE here actually advocating that children should be shot for egging cars or for tagging? We had a 15-year-old killed not long ago because he had tagged a building. How can ANYONE justify killing someone because they painted on their property? Or egged their property. I mean, let's use a little common sense here.

Finally...don't feed the trolls; they are hungry little buggers.

[AntiTelharsic]

Is ANYONE here actually advocating that children should be shot for egging cars or for tagging?

Just in case anyone thinks I am, I'll say "not me".

[Ysidro]

Is ANYONE here actually advocating that children should be shot for egging cars or for tagging?



I don't need a gun to kill those punks! If I see a teenager on a plane with an egg, I'll kill them! And then eat the egg!

[Mobyseven]

Hot damn. That's ********** up.

[Twiler]

The problem is that the liberal Nazi KKK will rather blame the gun than the little evil crappers who deserve to die. :(

'liberal Nazi KKK'?

Surely you're not serious?

[RadioactiveMan]

Has no one else noticed that the story says nowhere that the shooting was in retaliation for the egg-throwing? It only says that the shooting was after the vandalism.

Looks like a nice set of examples of post hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning in this here thread.

[sphenisc]

Does anyone know where I can get a 'splurge gun', like in "Bugsy Malone"?

[Delvo]

No, one would expect teenagers to do stupid things... I did some really dumb things as a kid can you seriously say that you never did a stupid act?"Stupidity" is not an accurate description of what we're talking about here. It's a deliberate choice, not a mistake or accident. It's a crime, a violation of someone else's rights. And when you violate someone else's rights, you forfeit your own.

[Megalodon]

"Stupidity" is not an accurate description of what we're talking about here. It's a deliberate choice, not a mistake or accident. It's a crime, a violation of someone else's rights. And when you violate someone else's rights, you forfeit your own.

But it's a great description of your post...

[Beerina]

Huh? Annoyance justifies the death penalty? Really?

Well, it might slow or halt "creeping blight", which would leave more of society better off, leading to less death and disease. So, yeah, quite possibly.



The story reminds me of the old warning from parents to look both ways. "But don't you have the right of way over the car?" "Yes, you're dead, but with the right of way."

[Bikewer]

This morning, the local news reported on two homicides overnight wherein the young men involved were arguing over a Rally's hamburger.... Evidently, several people in the respective groups pulled guns and started shooting.

This was, we presume, a "gang-related" shooting; the individuals involved in these gangs increasingly have little regard for life, either others or their own.

Chuck Shepherd's News Of The Weird frequently lists news stories of a similar sort; "Wife shoots husband when he complains eggs are cold." That sort of thing.
Of course, these are always the tip of the iceberg; there will have been a long history of marital strife, violence, abuse, and possibly mental illness leading up to the event.

[quixotecoyote]

the individuals involved in these gangs increasingly have little regard for life, either others or their own.


I protest! I do not think this thread can possibly be considered a 'gang'!




Oh,wait. Did you mean something else?

[Drudgewire]

Wow, second kid to die doing it there in less than a year. The next kid who goes out car egging in Columbus has balls of freakin' steel.

[Gagglegnash]

... clip ...

Looks like a nice set of examples of post hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning in this here thread.


Well - it was an egg, so maybe post ham hock ergo propter ham hock?

Anyhow...

I think that, in News-Speak, "He was shot after egging a car," is shorthand for, "the current working theory is that he was shot by the car owner for throwing one or more eggs at the car."

It's not so much post hoc as New York Post.

[Oliver]

'liberal Nazi KKK'?


I watched O'Reilly the other night. ;)

[volatile]

Hot damn. That's ********** up.

Yay! Second Amendment! A well-regulated militia being necessary for the cleanliness of people's walls, the rights of the People to bear arms shall not be infringed.

You people make me sick.

[JimBenArm]

Yay! Second Amendment! A well-regulated militia being necessary for the cleanliness of people's walls, the rights of the People to bear arms shall not be infringed.

You people make me sick.
You say that like it's a bad thing...

[volatile]

There were times and there are places outside this country where youth are generally polite and respectful instead of pests who do as they please.

If you like Iran so much, why don't you go live there? They cut the hands off thieves there - that sounds like a penal system to your liking.

[RadioactiveMan]

Yay! Second Amendment! A well-regulated militia being necessary for the cleanliness of people's walls, the rights of the People to bear arms shall not be infringed.

You people make me sick.
You and your broad brush make me sicker.

[Drudgewire]

Yay! Second Amendment! A well-regulated militia being necessary for the cleanliness of people's walls, the rights of the People to bear arms shall not be infringed.

You people make me sick.


I'm pretty sure the guy who did it will be arrested if and when he's caught... you know, for murder.

But good going on suggesting the 2nd Amendment has anything to do with this. You never let me down, my good man.

[volatile]

But good going on suggesting the 2nd Amendment has anything to do with this. You never let me down, my good man.

The fact that this guy had a gun had nothing to do with the Second Amendment? That amendment that means your country is awash with deadly weapons? Seriously?

I said it before, Drudge - reap what you sow. The policies of the pro-gun lobby help increase the likelihood of these types of incidents. If you're cool with that, then fine - just don't try and pretend that a constitutional provision that ensures guns are readily and easily available (and which has been used to obstruct any and all legislation intended to limit who owns gun) has no role to play in the frequency of these types of crimes.

[Drudgewire]

I said it before, Drudge - reap what you sow.


Couldn't that exact same overreaching, black-and-white with no grey area policy apply to the dumbass who threw the eggs?

[JimBenArm]

>snip< (and which has been used to obstruct any and all legislation intended to limit who owns gun)
Cool! This means I can finally go buy that .50 cal machine gun I've been wanting!

Woo Hoo!

[I Ratant]

I find this quite ironic considering the sentiment by someone else in the thread on Islam and freedom, about how Islam is the one who needs to get out of the Bronze Age to join the rest of us.
.
Islam is perfectly free to leave the Late Stone Age and join the world. All it need do is remove the explosive vests and discard them as a means of social equity.
When that happens, then normal people might see what, if anything, Islam could provide to the 21st Century world.
Right now, it's 4000 years behind normal people.

[volatile]

Cool! This means I can finally go buy that .50 cal machine gun I've been wanting!

Woo Hoo!

You're saying no-one has ever voiced or mounted a Second Amendment defence of that law? It might not have been successful, but that's why I used the word "obstruct" and not "prevent".

The fact is that America has tonnes of guns because of the Second Amendment. We can agree to disagree as to whether the Amendment itself (and the proliferation it facilitates) is good or bad, but it seems churlish to suggest that there is no link between the "right to bear arms" and, well, the fact that many people bear arms.

[I Ratant]

This is a machismo contest.

A lot of guys feel a need to talk tough to prove they are "Real Men".

Mostly it's a sign they are insecure.
.
I like to read road signs. They have guidance information travelers can find beneficial, unless the signs are scribbled over and illegible.
It's for the greater good after all.
Shoot a few taggers, improve the neighborhood's appearance and value.
Consider it taking out the trash.
Every Wednesday.

[volatile]

Couldn't that exact same overreaching, black-and-white with no grey area policy apply to the dumbass who threw the eggs?

More guns means more people shooting people who don't deserve to be shot. Don't you agree?

[JimBenArm]

You're saying no-one has ever voiced or mounted a Second Amendment defence of that law? It might not have been successful, but that's why I used the word "obstruct" and not "prevent".

The fact is that America has tonnes of guns because of the Second Amendment. We can agree to disagree as to whether the Amendment itself (and the proliferation it facilitates) is good or bad, but it seems churlish to suggest that there is no link between the "right to bear arms" and, well, the fact that many people bear arms.
Is that what I said? Thanks! Glad you could interpret it for me. I never seem to be able to figure out what it is I said, unless I have my superiors around to point it out.

I'm so glad you're here!

[I Ratant]

More guns means more people shooting people who don't deserve to be shot. Don't you agree?
.
There's enough guns to go around right now. No need for more.
The old saw about outlawing guns will always apply..
The attitudes of the drive-bys, whyncha work on changing that?
There's some hope there, but until such behavior vanishes from the culture, guns, baseball bats, knives, whatever comes in handy, will be used.

[Drudgewire]

More guns means more people shooting people who don't deserve to be shot. Don't you agree?


Since they also mean more people who don't deserve to be shot defending themselves, it's all a wash.

Speaking of washing, ever tried to clean egg that's sat overnight off your car? I'm not saying it should be a capital crime, but I will save my tears for an "innocent" who didn't put himself in the line of fire by being a horse's ass.

[volatile]

.
Islam is perfectly free to leave the Late Stone Age and join the world. All it need do is remove the explosive vests and discard them as a means of social equity.
When that happens, then normal people might see what, if anything, Islam could provide to the 21st Century world.
Right now, it's 4000 years behind normal people.

Way to miss the point of his post.

[noch1Narr]

Does egg throwing warrant the death penalty?
Would those of you who are so fervently 'anti-scum' react the same way had the egg thrower been your son, brother, other relative, or merely a friend/acquaintance? Does shooting necessarily have to mean killing?

[JimBenArm]

Have you ever met any of my family?

'nuff said.

[Drudgewire]

Does egg throwing warrant the death penalty?


Again the person who was "fervently anti-scum" enough to shoot the kid, IF THAT'S WHAT THIS WAS ABOUT, committed murder. If they catch the guy, he or she will be charged as such. That's where the social relevence of this crime begins and ends.


Would those of you who are so fervently 'anti-scum' react the same way had the egg thrower been your son, brother, other relative, or merely a friend/acquaintance? Does shooting necessarily have to mean killing?


Two different points there. Yes, I'd be horrified if it happened to a family member and would want the assailant to face the full brunt of the law. At the same time, part of me would have to admit if the kid hadn't been out trying to wreck other people's weekends because he was a delinquent jerk he'd still be alive today.

And shooting at someone isn't like the movies. Unless it was point blank range or the guy was a marksman, he most likely just fired at the guy. Aiming for the hand doesn't work in real life.

[Skeptic Guy]

"Stupidity" is not an accurate description of what we're talking about here. It's a deliberate choice, not a mistake or accident. It's a crime, a violation of someone else's rights. And when you violate someone else's rights, you forfeit your own.

Bolding mine.

And in what part of the Constitution would I find that bit of wisdom?

You know, I hear that stupid argument in most threads similar to this, and you know what, no, I didn't. I didn't do anything like egging a car. I might have done a few stupid things, but that's not the same as committing crimes. No one is saying that car eggers deserve death, but my sympathy is generally very limited for people who go around making life miserable for everyone around them. I see no reason to keep treating criminals like poor victims of forces outside their control. There were times and there are places outside this country where youth are generally polite and respectful instead of pests who do as they please. They will act as we expect them to act, and as long as they know they can get away with pulling bs, they will continue to do so.

Again, bolding mine.

So the US is the only place in which teenagers do stupid things, things that are against the law? Were teenagers really that much better behaved "back in the day"? Color me skeptical on that one.

But I'm with you on your reasoning that by shooting errant teenager, we'll teach 'em a lesson! We can't let 'em get away with sh...stuff. After all, we know that capital punishment is effective in dissuading adults from doing crime.

[Drudgewire]

But I'm with you on your reasoning that by shooting errant teenager, we'll teach 'em a lesson! We can't let 'em get away with sh...stuff. After all, we know that capital punishment is effective in dissuading adults from doing crime.


Way to completely ignore the "no one is saying that car eggers deserve death" part of his comment. Heaven forbid you be denied a sarcastic response by taking his statement in context. :rolleyes:

[ponderingturtle]

This morning, the local news reported on two homicides overnight wherein the young men involved were arguing over a Rally's hamburger.... Evidently, several people in the respective groups pulled guns and started shooting.

But did they stand their ground?

I do see interesting parralells to the honor demanded for duels as well.

[Axiom_Blade]

'liberal Nazi KKK'?

That's the worst kind. Those America-haters should get sent back to Canada.

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

Cool! This means I can finally go buy that .50 cal machine gun I've been wanting!

Woo Hoo!


Ummm...

Actually...

In most states: Yes.

BROWNING M2 HB .50 BELT FED MACHINE GUN.... A NEW GROUP INDUSTRIES M2 .50 MACHINE GUN, NEW INSIDE AND OUT..... THE BROWNING M2 IS A POWER HOUSE!! THIS GUN WAS PURCHASED FROM A COLLECTOR WHO PURCHASED IT NEW MANY YEARS AGO AND NEVER FIRED IT -- COMES COMPLETE WITH BARREL, BARREL CARRY HANDLE, GI M3 TRIPOD, T&E AND PINTLE. IF YOU ARE LOOKING FOR A NEW M2 .50 THIS IS IT!! NEW,NEW,NEW. $31,900 (3-1378)

....

U.S.G.I. W.W.II ANM2 .30 BELT FEED "C&R" RATED MACHINE GUN..... THIS IS A BROWN AND LIPPE DIVISION OF GENERAL MOTORS MADE FIREARM..... THE ANM2 ARE VERY FAST FIRING BELT FEED MACHINE GUNS ORIGINALY DESIGNED FOR AIRCRAFT USE AND THEN USED FOR GROUND FIRE... THE ANM2 .30 ARE VERY LIGHT WEIGHT GUNS.... THIS GUN IS FROM A COLLECTOR OUT WEST AND IS IN CHOICE ORIGINAL CONDITION.... HAS THE RARE FRONT POST SITE INSTALLED.... MINT INSIDE AND OUT AND ALL PARTS ARE LIKE NEW... IF YOU ARE LOOKING FOR A VINTAGE C&R RATED MILITARY WEAPON THEN THIS IS IT. COMPLETE WITH U.S.G.I. TRIPOD WITH PINTLE. EMAIL FOR PRICE (3-1344)

You have to comply with the law, get the collector's license, and pay the transfer fee, but yes.

...and, yes, Volatile, isn't it a shame that the U.S. isn't like England, where there are no guns just laying about, so that no jackasses shoot people for just about nothing.

Oh...

Wait...

Ex-boxer killed in 'smoking row' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/7593932.stm)
Man admits murder of 'love rival' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/tyne/7588195.stm)

Yeah. Controlling guns as a method of controlling jackasses. Brilliant.

[ponderingturtle]

I'm pretty sure the guy who did it will be arrested if and when he's caught... you know, for murder.

But good going on suggesting the 2nd Amendment has anything to do with this. You never let me down, my good man.

Murder is so subjective. He did not back down from insults. He stood his ground, and kill those insulting him. He fits the very essence that many gun supporters support.

[fuelair]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,414545,00.html

I think the moral is pretty clear. If you're a kid in Columbus, Ohio don't throw eggs at cars unless you want to die. Seriously. I think one can also extrapolate that they should also stay away from TPing houses and ding dong ditch.

You do understand that egging a car can cause the driver to crash (automatic responce to a hit is pull away from it - and if you are ex-military, just back from certain locations and armed, it is to fire BACK at the grenade thrower) UNLESS the car is sitting in a driveway/parked. If something (not another car) hits mine, I am most likely stopping and pulling unless I know immediately what hit it. If something unidentifiable hits during the time I am out, I would fire towards the assault source. If I see it is kids egging, I will do my best to get good pictures of them for the police but would not likely shoot.

[Elaedith]

Since they also mean more people who don't deserve to be shot defending themselves, it's all a wash.



I guess that means that the people who don't deserve to be shot should go armed so they can defend themselves against irate car drivers when they throw eggs.

[fuelair]

Bolding mine.

And in what part of the Constitution would I find that bit of wisdom?



. After all, we know that capital punishment is effective in dissuading adults from doing crime.
The ones punished that way certainly don't commit any more.

[Drudgewire]

Murder is so subjective. He did not back down from insults. He stood his ground, and kill those insulting him. He fits the very essence that many gun supporters support.

What "some gun supporters support" is moot. The law says he committed murder (assuming there isn't more information forthcoming), and the vast majority of gun supporters wouldn't argue it... if for no other reason than you could set your clock to the anti-gunners and their broad-stroke paintbrushes coming out of the woodwork, which is annoying.

Some environmentalists support burning down buildings or car dealerships. Does that mean it's the prevailing opinion among anyone who "goes green?" Of course not. Same principle applies. It's a criminal committing a criminal act, end of story.

[Drudgewire]

I guess that means that the people who don't deserve to be shot should go armed so they can defend themselves against irate car drivers when they throw eggs.


Or just maybe not throw eggs. But that'd be silly. :rolleyes:

[JimBenArm]

Hi




Ummm...

Actually...

In most states: Yes.



You have to comply with the law, get the collector's license, and pay the transfer fee, but yes.

...and, yes, Volatile, isn't it a shame that the U.S. isn't like England, where there are no guns just laying about, so that no jackasses shoot people for just about nothing.

Oh...

Wait...

Ex-boxer killed in 'smoking row' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/7593932.stm)
Man admits murder of 'love rival' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/tyne/7588195.stm)

Yeah. Controlling guns as a method of controlling jackasses. Brilliant.
Yeah, I knew that you could. But my point, which was lost on my endearing friend, is that not just anyone, at any time, can walk in off the street and buy any weapon they want. There are laws. Too strict? Not strict enough? Not going to get drawn into that debate, but there are laws on the books.

[Cainkane1]

I did crap like this when i was a kid. I deserved a whipping but not being shot.

[Oliver]

I did crap like this when i was a kid. I deserved a whipping but not being shot.


But where is the fun owning a weapon, if you cannot use it from time to time out of frustration? :(

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

Yeah, I knew that you could. But my point, which was lost on my endearing friend, is that not just anyone, at any time, can walk in off the street and buy any weapon they want. There are laws. Too strict? Not strict enough? Not going to get drawn into that debate, but there are laws on the books.


True D'at.

[volatile]

...and, yes, Volatile, isn't it a shame that the U.S. isn't like England, where there are no guns just laying about, so that no jackasses shoot people for just about nothing.


Except, of course, the British government are taking steps to remove such guns from people's hands. At least they tried. They do not have blood on their hands.

You, on the other hand, do. You want to make guns available. You want to put guns into the hands of anyone who wants one, if such person has previously not committed a crime. You support laws, and actions, which make the events in the OP more common. Shame on you.

[JimBenArm]

Except, of course, the British government are taking steps to remove such guns from people's hands. At least they tried. They do not have blood on their hands.

You, on the other hand, do. You want to make guns available. You want to put guns into the hands of anyone who wants one, if such person has previously not committed a crime. You support laws, and actions, which make the events in the OP more common. Shame on you.
Wow, with that mind-reading ability, you could clean up! I've never seen anyone who could, from a single forum post, tell so much about another person they've never met!
It's incredible!

And I'll be sure to shun him from now on. The very nerve of him not agreeing with you whole-heartedly!

[Drudgewire]

You support laws, and actions, which make the events in the OP more common. Shame on you.


I don't see where he supported the legalization of underage car-egging one single time. ;)

[JimBenArm]

I don't see where he supported the legalization of underage car-egging one single time. ;)
It's just that the poor egg is being harmed. Will no one think of the avian children?
When eggs are outlawed, only outlaws will have eggs.

[volatile]

Wow, with that mind-reading ability, you could clean up! I've never seen anyone who could, from a single forum post, tell so much about another person they've never met!
It's incredible!

And I'll be sure to shun him from now on. The very nerve of him not agreeing with you whole-heartedly!

Gagglenash's views on gun control are easily discernable, given his posts on the subject. If he does not support gun ownership rights, then he's gone a funny way about showing it, what with all those posts he's made arguing the exact opposite.

Sorry, Jim, it's an ugly truth - if you want a society that allows civilian gun onwnership, you must be prepared to accept that incidents such as the one at issue here will occur with more frequency than they would do otherwise. As I said, if you think that this is an acceptable price to pay for the right to bear arms, then fine (and we can argue about that elsewhere) - but it's churlish and dishonest to suggest that in a society with more guns, the number of innocent people being shot does not increase.

[JimBenArm]

Gagglenash's views on gun control are easily discernable, given his posts on the subject. If he does not support gun ownership rights, then he's gone a funny way about showing it, what with all those posts he's made arguing the exact opposite.

Sorry, Jim, it's an ugly truth - if you want a society that allows civilian gun onwnership, you must be prepared to accept that incidents such as the one at issue here will occur with more frequency than they would do otherwise. As I said, if you think that this is an acceptable price to pay for the right to bear arms, then fine (and we can argue about that elsewhere) - but it's churlish and dishonest to suggest that in a society with more guns, the number of innocent people being shot does not increase.
Gee, I must have misunderstood him, then. See, I thought it was more in line with skewering a self-important boob who took it upon himself to talk down to everyone else that would dare to not plant their lips firmly on his posterior. But then, what do I know? I'm just a poor, unenlightened soul who drools on himself, and needs superiors to remind me of my lowly position.

Thank goodness you're here for me!

[volatile]

Gee, I must have misunderstood him, then. See, I thought it was more in line with skewering a self-important boob who took it upon himself to talk down to everyone else that would dare to not plant their lips firmly on his posterior. But then, what do I know? I'm just a poor, unenlightened soul who drools on himself, and needs superiors to remind me of my lowly position.

Thank goodness you're here for me!

Do you have anything of substance to add or are you content to make snide remarks all day long? I note you're content to avoid the logical progression of the conversation in order to argue against positions I haven't expressed (such as "anyone, at any time, can walk in off the street and buy any weapon they want", which I obviously do not believe, nor have even indicated that I believe).

The right to bear arms means an increased incidence of tragedies such as occurred in the OP. Do you disagree?

[Drudgewire]

The right to bear arms means an increased incidence of tragedies such as occurred in the OP. Do you disagree?


So does frustration over undisciplined children whose acts go unpunished because we blame society, unfair laws, and everything else under the sun except the lawbreakers themselves for their indiscretions.

But let's not focus on that or anything else. It's all guns, guns, guns.

Clearly the real solution is to ban pregnancy.

[JimBenArm]

Do you have anything of substance to add or are you content to make snide remarks all day long? I note you're content to avoid the logical progression of the conversation in order to argue against positions I haven't expressed (such as "anyone, at any time, can walk in off the street and buy any weapon they want", which I obviously do not believe, nor have even indicated that I believe).

The right to bear arms means an increased incidence of tragedies such as occurred in the OP. Do you disagree?
I'm pretty much content to make snide remarks. That's what I do, and I do it well. I take pride in my ability to deflate pomposity where I find it, regardless of who it is. The self-important are so full of themselves, so certain of their moral superiority to everyone else, and so humorless. That's why I love you all so. You're easy pickings.
Now, let's see. I believe in the right to arm bears. How about you?

[Zarathustra]

I'm going to go for the tried and true, shoe-worn argument that better parenting would have perhaps prevented this.

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

Except, of course, the British government are taking steps to remove such guns from people's hands. At least they tried. They do not have blood on their hands.


Yes - they have done a wonderful job of keeping law-abiding Brits from committing gun crimes.

Now, if they could just do something about these pesky criminals who don't give a packrat's rumpsteak about the, "no handguns," or the, "no killing people," laws....

You, on the other hand, do. You want to make guns available. You want to put guns into the hands of anyone who wants one, if such person has previously not committed a crime. You support laws, and actions, which make the events in the OP more common. Shame on you.


Yes. I believe that persons who have not committed any crimes as yet should be allowed to do things allowed to persons who are not yet criminals.

Apparently, that's an old-fashioned concept.

Why is any law-abiding person responsible for the actions of someone with whom they they have no contact who commits a homicide?

[fuelair]

More guns means more people shooting people who don't deserve to be shot. Don't you agree?
No - I agree it is possibly correct but not that it is proven correct.

[fuelair]

Also, while I am thinking about the topic - it depends on who, in your opinion, does not deserve to be shot in what circumstance(s).

[Skeptic Guy]

Way to completely ignore the "no one is saying that car eggers deserve death" part of his comment. Heaven forbid you be denied a sarcastic response by taking his statement in context. :rolleyes:

Ok, I'll take that hit, and gladly admit that is not what CaptainManacles saying, but I guess I wonder what kind of "lesson" one can teach the young other than shooting them? I would have gone with calling the police on them. That's allowed in this country, even if it has gone to the dogs, but I guess that was never considered. It just seems to be that CM was equating the shooting with teaching the kid a lesson, even though he didn't support the shooting.

The ones punished that way certainly don't commit any more.

That's true, but the same could be said if they were locked up for ever, but that's another thread.

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

... clip ...

The right to bear arms means an increased incidence of tragedies such as occurred in the OP. Do you disagree?


I don't know.

How many of these kinds of tragic incidents (which I assume to mean people being murdered for essentially nothing) happen in Switzerland (where military-grade modern firearm ownership is common) and Nigeria (where the weapon of choice is the machete)?

Anyone have any sources? All the stuff I get about Nigeria is about group violence, not individuals.

[CaptainManacles]

So the US is the only place in which teenagers do stupid things, things that are against the law?

No, if that's what I meant then that's what I would have said.

[Skeptic Guy]

No, if that's what I meant then that's what I would have said.

You seem to limit the areas in which youth are "generally polite and respectful" to outside of this country or to a by-gone era...


There were times and there are places outside this country where youth are generally polite and respectful instead of pests who do as they please.


I would argue that the majority of today's teenagers are just as polite and respectful as they were back in the good ol' days and certainly as much as they are in any other country.

[Kestrel]

I would argue that the majority of today's teenagers are just as polite and respectful as they were back in the good ol' days and certainly as much as they are in any other country.

We still lump all teenagers in a group and use the characteristics of the worst of them to describe all of them. In the old days, it was socially acceptable to do the same to blacks, hispanics, native Americans, jews, gays and a slew of other minority groups. Perhaps some day we will start treating individual young people based on how they behave as individuals.

[volatile]

I'm pretty much content to make snide remarks. That's what I do, and I do it well. I take pride in my ability to deflate pomposity where I find it, regardless of who it is. The self-important are so full of themselves, so certain of their moral superiority to everyone else, and so humorless.

When it comes to kids being shot dead for trivial reasons, you're damn right I'm humourless.

Senseless murder just ain't funny where I come from.

[JimBenArm]

When it comes to kids being shot dead for trivial reasons, you're damn right I'm humourless.

Senseless murder just ain't funny where I come from.

Perhaps when you cool down a bit, and can climb down off the high horse you're on, you could take a moment and post a screen shot of your certificate? You know, the one that appointed you sole arbiter of all that is good and righteous in the world? I can't seem to find it on record anywhere.
While you're looking for it, I've got to see if I can find that old .45 from my Navy days. Seems there's some kids playing on my lawn again...

[I Ratant]

When it comes to kids being shot dead for trivial reasons, you're damn right I'm humourless.

Senseless murder just ain't funny where I come from.
.
The parents of these kids can drop another in 9 months.

[Mycroft]

When it comes to kids being shot dead for trivial reasons, you're damn right I'm humourless.

Senseless murder just ain't funny where I come from.

I don't think anyone here disagrees that it was murder.


When I was young, I did some stupid things, took some risks, and was lucky. Many people who are young and take stupid risks are not so lucky.

I think that if you get your kicks by going around vandalizing peoples property, that inherent in this is the risk that you will run into that one person who will go crazy on you and respond disproportionately. That's not the same as saying he deserves what he gets, only an acknowledgment that he played a fundamental role in creating the situation where he got killed.

[CaptainManacles]

You seem to limit the areas in which youth are "generally polite and respectful" to outside of this country or to a by-gone era...

I didn't do that either. Is logic not your friend?

[Ranb]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,414545,00.html

I think the moral is pretty clear. If you're a kid in Columbus, Ohio don't throw eggs at cars unless you want to die.

That article was short on details. So maybe the kids were doing other things besides throwing eggs?

Ranb

[volatile]

That article was short on details. So maybe the kids were doing other things besides throwing eggs?

Ranb

What 'other things' would justify killing teenagers, exactly?

[Drudgewire]

What 'other things' would justify killing teenagers, exactly?


Judging by the reality show, "being the offspring of Hulk Hogan" is pretty high on the list. :p

[GreNME]

When I was a teenager I used to shoot the hub caps of cop cars with an air rifle. I finally got caught one night and luckily dropped the rifle right away. It wouldn't have been justifiable for the officer to kill me for shooting his hub caps-- though he was driving down the road at the time, so there was significant risk-- but if I hadn't divested myself of that rifle as soon as he caught me I'm sure he could have made a justifiable case for putting at least one round in my hide.

There are cases where a response involving weaponry is warranted, even if it's overkill. The case in the OP, however, wasn't one of them.

[Ragnarok]

Sorry about the derail here, but I'm curious; are there many robberies of gun stores in the States? Or are the owners that heavily armed, no-one would dare?

[Foolmewunz]

I'm going to go for the tried and true, shoe-worn argument that better parenting would have perhaps prevented this.

I have to agree. His mom or dad should've pulled pulled him aside, and just explained moral responsibility a little better, and then maybe with some positive enforcement, this might never have occurred.

"Chuck, you just don't shoot kids for doing dumb pranks. It's just wrong."

[Travis]

Sorry about the derail here, but I'm curious; are there many robberies of gun stores in the States? Or are the owners that heavily armed, no-one would dare?

I can remember one local gun store where there was an attempted robbery years ago. The robbers hacked through the roof at night and jumped down. Thing is they couldn't get back out as they had assumed they could just unlock the doors from the inside, but couldn't, and the windows were all barred. They were still in there when the owners showed up in the morning to open the store.



As for this egging kid, can't say I condone killing him but kneecaping a no good parasite like that might send a message.........nah........just beating the crap out of him should suffice.

[Furi]

What 'other things' would justify killing teenagers, exactly?

Playing music through mobile phone loud speakers.
conform to a sterotypical image of individuality.
Drink 5 pints of "old rosie" and vomit all over the place
...
...
just being twunts
[/GrumpyThirtyMumble]

[fuelair]

I don't think anyone here disagrees that it was murder.


.I do not have enough information to know that - and I do not think anyone else does unless I have overlooked a real thorough update post. I posited a scenerio in which case it would not be murder. I do not yet know if the real occurrence was like that or another "defense in unknown situation"
case.

[Kestrel]

Sorry about the derail here, but I'm curious; are there many robberies of gun stores in the States? Or are the owners that heavily armed, no-one would dare?

They do get robbed on occasion.

A few years ago, I was in a park when a bunch of cops came racing in. They were looking for a guy that had robbed a nearby gun shop. It wasn't an armed robbery, he just posed as a customer then grabbed a couple of handguns from the counter and ran out the door.

[I Ratant]

What 'other things' would justify killing teenagers, exactly?
.
It's in the BOOK!
Deut 21:18 and...
If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;
And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.
And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear."
.
Sometimes the old ways are still the best ways.
Now to get the city fathers to erect some city gates ...

[Rat]

.
It's in the BOOK!
Deut 21:18 and...
If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;
And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.
And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear."
.
Sometimes the old ways are still the best ways.
Now to get the city fathers to erect some city gates ...
Now hang on. I think this is a bit of a calumny. He was being stubborn and rebellious, but his parents represented him as a glutton and a drunk. I have to say, from the evidence, there is nothing rebellious about being a glutton and a drunk around here. I feel he may have been done a disservice.

[Ranb]

What 'other things' would justify killing teenagers, exactly?

Don't look at me for a reason on why they were shot. As I said the article was short on details; that is the only conclusion I can reach so far. Why do you think they were shot? Are you going to go out on a limb and claim it was only for throwing eggs?

Ranb

[volatile]

Don't look at me for a reason on why they were shot. As I said the article was short on details; that is the only conclusion I can reach so far. Why do you think they were shot? Are you going to go out on a limb and claim it was only for throwing eggs?

Ranb

It's hard to believe, but I've heard crazier. In the absence of further evidence, I'd say the story as is is "plausible", but will add the proviso that no matter what these kids were doing, they did not deserve to be shot dead by a civilian judge, jury and executioner.

If it was just about eggs, I take it that bothers you? What steps can you suggest to prevent such tragedies happening in future?

[Drudgewire]

...but will add the proviso that no matter what these kids were doing, they did not deserve to be shot dead by a civilian judge, jury and executioner.


Or he may have been a crime victim. Could be gang-related, could be a robbery, could be all kinds of situations which are the exact reasons I carry a gun in the first place.

[volatile]

Or he may have been a crime victim. Could be gang-related, could be a robbery, could be all kinds of situations which are the exact reasons I carry a gun in the first place.

Well, we've had this conversation before so you know my response to that, I guess.

I'm interested in your thoughts to the bit you omitted: If it was just about eggs, I take it that bothers you? What steps can you suggest should be taken to prevent such tragedies happening in future?

[Drudgewire]

I'm interested in your thoughts to the bit you omitted: If it was just about eggs, I take it that bothers you? What steps can you suggest should be taken to prevent such tragedies happening in future?

Ummm... maybe not egg cars?

And I know that sounds like a smart-ass answer, but honestly you HAVE to know going into committing acts like this (I was never into destroying people's property like eggs do to cars, so "jelly doughnutting" cars was my thing) you run the risk of coming across the wrong ornery curmudgeon who is going to up the ante.

If you aren't willing to take that chance, you're a pretty poor excuse for a juvenile delinquent. :p

[volatile]

Ummm... maybe not egg cars?

And I know that sounds like a smart-ass answer, but honestly you HAVE to know going into committing acts like this (I was never into destroying people's property like eggs do to cars, so "jelly doughnutting" cars was my thing) you run the risk of coming across the wrong ornery curmudgeon who is going to up the ante.

If you aren't willing to take that chance, you're a pretty poor excuse for a juvenile delinquent. :p

That smacks of "he deserved it", really. It's sad to see you take that position. And if you think that it is possible to get teenagers to stop acting stupidly, then you're living in fantasy land. It isn't going to happen.

Would you have deserved to be shot dead for "doughnutting" cars? What steps should society take to stop teenagers being killed for their inevitable reckless actions? Serious question.

[Drudgewire]

That smacks of "he deserved it", really. It's sad to see you take that position.


You know, I get the cutest little evil grin every time you say something like that. :)


And if you think that it is possible to get teenagers to stop acting stupidly, then you're living in fantasy land. It isn't going to happen.


Overreactive responses to them aren't going to stop either. If you think taking away everyone's guns will change that, well I've been to fantasy land a few times and can show you a few shortcuts.


Would you have deserved to be shot dead for "doughnutting" cars? What steps should society take to stop teenagers being killed for their inevitable reckless actions? Serious question.


"Deserve" isn't the right word. "Acceptable risk" is much better. Sometimes people push back. Welcome to life.

And though I am in no way condoning anyone taking that extreme a step and think prosecution should be in order for anyone who crosses that line, the steps that should be taken start with not making excuses for criminal behavior under the guise of being harmless kid's fun.

This isn't some terrible societal ill. This (IF it was simply a case of car-egging gone bad) was a dumb kid who just might qualify for a Darwin award, and pretending it's got some greater significance so you can judge our evil, violent society is just silly.

[Foolmewunz]

I find it hard not to get a little self-righteous myself on this. So if you need someone other than Volatile to rail at, I'll be back later (I have to go to Shenzhen early and won't be around for about 12 hours.)

In what sort of demented wild wild west libertarian world does the protection of slight damage to one's property merit shooting someone?

Get out of the car, scream and rant at him, go grab him and shake him 'til his ears ring, follow him home, tell his parents, call the cops, even wave a dangerous weapon in his face.... But you don't shoot him; not for egging a car, or throwing a water baloon, or papering a house, or leaving a burning bag of dogs*** on your doorstep.

What suitable torutures would you think up for the ring and run doorbell pushing seven year olds? How about phone pranksters?

"Well, it's his telephone and his time and they should've thought about that before they played the "Is your refrigerator running?" gag. So, yeah, a couple of eight-year-olds are dead, but it'll at least teach the others to be seen and not heard."

Let the punishment suit the crime.

[Drudgewire]

I must have forgotten to add "this doesn't mean I'm saying shooting someone was justified and whoever does it should be prosecuted for murder."

Oh wait, I didn't. In fact, I've said it twice in this thread. :rolleyes:

[Ranb]

.....In the absence of further evidence, I'd say the story as is is "plausible", but will add the proviso that no matter what these kids were doing, they did not deserve to be shot dead by a civilian judge, jury and executioner......

If further developments show that the kids were actually trying to kill someone AND throwing eggs, then they certainly reaped what they sowed. But if someone murdered the kids just because they were throwing eggs then that is completely insane and it would bother me.

Ranb

[quixotecoyote]

I must have forgotten to add "this doesn't mean I'm saying shooting someone was justified and whoever does it should be prosecuted for murder."

Wink, wink, nudge, nudge, but it sure taught him a lesson, say no more, eh? Wink, wink, nudge, nudge, guess he shouldn't have been throwing eggs, eh?

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

Well, we've had this conversation before so you know my response to that, I guess.

I'm interested in your thoughts to the bit you omitted: If it was just about eggs, I take it that bothers you? What steps can you suggest should be taken to prevent such tragedies happening in future?


Pass a law that requires all persons of the age of accountability (around 1st grade) to stop being jackasses.

That'd solve the car-egging problem and the shooting people for nothing in particular problem.

Only problem with that is that it never works.

People will continue to egg-jackassulate other folks' cars (which, by the way, if allowed to work for a bit, will peel the paint - it's vandalism) and other people will continue to jackassulate in retaliation for egg-jackassulation.

The best any human beings can do is pass laws punishing jackassulation with sufficient resolution that people with an egg or a pistol in their hands may think, "oooh - do I really want to do this, as I may be punished with considerable resolution?!?!"

You'll still get the jackasses who don't think before they act, though, which is quite a large percentage of those who jackassulate in the first place. (Lots of folks think, "I just CAN'T go to prison," only AFTER they've robbed the liquor store.)


IC 35-43-1-2
Criminal mischief; penalties

Sec. 2. (a) A person who:
(1) recklessly, knowingly, or intentionally damages or defaces property of another person without the other person's consent; or
(2) knowingly or intentionally causes another to suffer pecuniary loss by deception or by an expression of intention to injure another person or to damage the property or to impair the rights of another person;
commits criminal mischief, a Class B misdemeanor. However, the offense is:
(A) a Class A misdemeanor if:
(i) the pecuniary loss is at least two hundred fifty dollars ($250) but less than two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500);
(ii) the property damaged was a moving motor vehicle;
... clip ...
and
(B) a Class D felony if:
(i) the pecuniary loss is at least two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500);
... clip ... (http://www.in.gov/legislative/ic/code/title35/ar43/ch1.html)
So: Egg my Renault LeCar, it's a Class A misdemeanor. Egg my neighbor's new Corvette, it's a Class D felony.

[I Ratant]

[QUOTE=Foolmewunz;4004012....
In what sort of demented wild wild west libertarian world does the protection of slight damage to one's property merit shooting someone?

Get out of the car, scream and rant at him, go grab him and shake him 'til his ears ring, follow him home, tell his parents, call the cops, even wave a dangerous weapon in his face.... But you don't shoot him; not for egging a car, or throwing a water baloon, or papering a house, or leaving a burning bag of dogs*** on your doorstep.
....
[/QUOTE]
.
An off-duty cop just took that method of approaching some taggers out here. He's dead now.

[fuelair]

That smacks of "he deserved it", really. It's sad to see you take that position. And if you think that it is possible to get teenagers to stop acting stupidly, then you're living in fantasy land. It isn't going to happen.

Would you have deserved to be shot dead for "doughnutting" cars? What steps should society take to stop teenagers being killed for their inevitable reckless actions? Serious question.None they can take that will have any effect. Take away guns and bows, crossbows, spears, knives, baseball bats and things I won't clue you into will be substituted if the one's attacked plan to respond. Trained people and, even better, people who are trained but there are no records of it who with to damage assailants of self, others or property will be able to handle things (fortunately, even Britain has a number of those around). And, less/un trained people have options also. Hopefully this isn't troubling your ulcer!!:)

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

From an Indiana point of view:

... clip ...

Get out of the car, scream and rant at him,


So far, so good...

go grab him and shake him 'til his ears ring,


Class B Misdemeanor battery. Class A misdemeanor if his ears DO ring. Class D Felony if he's less than 14 and you're 18 or over.

follow him home, tell his parents, call the cops,


That's better.

even wave a dangerous weapon in his face....


Depending on the, "dangerous weapon..."
A firearm: Class D Felony, but a Class A Misdemeanor if it's shown, later, that the firearms wasn't loaded.
Generic Deadly Weapon: Class C Felony (C is more serious, so depending on what you say and do with the deadly weapon, you might get a C Felony instead of the D Felony, above)

... clip ...

Let the punishment suit the crime.


So: You have no problem advocating D and C Felonies as a response to a probably-misdemeanor activity?

Let the punishment suit the crime.

[fuelair]

.
An off-duty cop just took that method of approaching some taggers out here. He's dead now.
Sorry it's him and not the taggers.:mad::mad:

[Foolmewunz]

Hi

From an Indiana point of view:




So far, so good...




Class B Misdemeanor battery. Class A misdemeanor if his ears DO ring. Class D Felony if he's less than 14 and you're 18 or over.




That's better.




Depending on the, "dangerous weapon..."
A firearm: Class D Felony, but a Class A Misdemeanor if it's shown, later, that the firearms wasn't loaded.
Generic Deadly Weapon: Class C Felony (C is more serious, so depending on what you say and do with the deadly weapon, you might get a C Felony instead of the D Felony, above)




So: You have no problem advocating D and C Felonies as a response to a probably-misdemeanor activity?

Let the punishment suit the crime.


My position is that if you have to do something extremely stupid, yourself, to show your dissatisfaction and/or assert your property rights, then, yes... commit a felony if you want.... just stop short of killing. I think that would,
A) be a more serious violation of the law (even in Indiana)
B) be kinda permanent... like it kills people. Like dead. Like forever.


I Ratant.... post all the anecdotal tales you want. The old "two wrongs don't make a right" applies.

Still..... You do not kill people for tagging, papering, egging, pantsing, giving wet willies, giving noogies, etc.... Yes, I know people get angry and cross the line. Something snaps and they get violent and do what will probably turn out to be very regrettable acts.

And that person - the one who wigs out and goes postal? Him I can understand. It's the otherwise sentient human beings with the barcalounger machismo that concern me. This isn't a TV episode. It's the loss of one life and the ruination of another(the "perp").

[Cuddles]

We still lump all teenagers in a group and use the characteristics of the worst of them to describe all of them. In the old days, it was socially acceptable to do the same to blacks, hispanics, native Americans, jews, gays and a slew of other minority groups. Perhaps some day we will start treating individual young people based on how they behave as individuals.

This is a fair request, and I promise I will not judge any person only as a teenager. But you will constantly remind yourselves that some of my generation judges people by their race, their beliefs or the colour of their skin, and that this is no more right than saying all teenagers are drunken dope adicts or glue sniffers.
- Less Than Jake.

Seems somehow appropriate here.

[Drudgewire]

Wink, wink, nudge, nudge, but it sure taught him a lesson, say no more, eh? Wink, wink, nudge, nudge, guess he shouldn't have been throwing eggs, eh?


http://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/rollbarf.gif

[Skeptic Guy]

We still lump all teenagers in a group and use the characteristics of the worst of them to describe all of them. In the old days, it was socially acceptable to do the same to blacks, hispanics, native Americans, jews, gays and a slew of other minority groups. Perhaps some day we will start treating individual young people based on how they behave as individuals.

That's my point. It pushes my buttons when people paint all young people with the same brush. We see teenagers as troublemakeers only because it's the troublemakers we see on the evening news. Some of whom get shot for egging cars. That's not all teenagers, that's not even a majority of them.

I didn't do that either. Is logic not your friend?

Yes, yes he is...and so is clear communication. Perhaps we should invite him over for a cup of coffee and ask him what you do mean.

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

My position is that if you have to do something extremely stupid, yourself, to show your dissatisfaction and/or assert your property rights, then, yes... commit a felony if you want.... just stop short of killing. I think that would,
A) be a more serious violation of the law (even in Indiana)
B) be kinda permanent... like it kills people. Like dead. Like forever.

... clip ...


So you contend that people who are doing, "something extremely stupid," on the spur of the moment should consider whether they are performing a D or C Felony instead of a B or A Felony, while you, with all the time you need and the Internet close at hand, advocated D and C felonies, yourself?

People do stupid things. While engaged in doing stupid things, the bits of them that might act to prevent stupidity are chewing on other things.

There's no practical way to change this.

All we can do is punish injurious and potentially injurious stupidity stringently enough that the next guy might remember both the implement of jackassulation and the last jackass's face in the newspaper once things get rolling.

....

Oh - and - for the most part - things are felonies because they cause unusual hardship or have a chance of producing severe personal damage or death.

If you're threatening a kid with a screwdriver, and the kid drops dead because he has a heart attack or stroke from the stress of the situation, or runs out in front of a car in an attempt to escape, you've got, "proximate cause," written all over you.

(I carry... errr... used to carry... a gun. I have to be very careful and not do anything stupid.)

[I Ratant]

{quote]Originally Posted by I Ratant
An off-duty cop just took that method of approaching some taggers out here. He's dead now. [/quote]
Sorry it's him and not the taggers.:mad::mad:
.
The perps left, and came back shooting.

[Drudgewire]

(I carry... errr... used to carry... a gun. I have to be very careful and not do anything stupid.)


Yeah for all the labels of "cowboy" and the like you get for carrying concealed, it really requires more of an ability to turn the other cheek. Someone wants to start something, you just have to walk away. Because regardless of the circumstances, pulling heat instead of backing down means you elevated the situation.

Damnit. http://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/clint.gif

[GreNME]

I believe there are some arguments here that are way over-thinking the event. Some guy discovers someone throwing crap at his car, and he retaliates with force. In this case, it was overwhelming force (and obviously it was also overkill). There are situations where stopping and thinking about it, and the moral implications that go along with it, are not going to happen right away. I'd be willing to go out on a limb and say someone throwing crap at someone else is such a case. Reflex takes over. And in this case, the guy's reflex was way overboard (and it seems criminally so).

But honestly, while I think the guy's reaction was overboard, I can still understand why he had the reaction. I don't agree with grabbing a gun as a reflex like that, but I understand where it comes from. I have to worry about that sometimes myself, even though I don't carry (or own) a gun-- if I'm out somewhere and someone postures some stupid threat at me, I know my typical reactions in such a situation and I know I would get in trouble. My answer: avoid getting into such situations (and don't be an ***hole all the time)*. It keeps me out of trouble, both legal and physical. For the shooter in this story, it seems like the trouble found him. He reacted badly. So while arguing over whether it's murder is debatable, it's definitely less debatable about it having at least been manslaughter to some degree.

I hate to sound like I'm blaming the victim in this case, but I'm not exactly sure there was a victim in this case. Instead, it sounds like an unfortunate end to a series of bad decisions that started before the shooter was even involved.


* Drudgewire, I think you seem to understand the thinking, since you describe the same about your conceal carry.

[Drudgewire]

* Drudgewire, I think you seem to understand the thinking, since you describe the same about your conceal carry.


You pretty much lay out the events the way I mean them, but since I usually have to get in a few smart-alecky comments it doesn't come off as objective... hence "I say he deserved it" when that couldn't be further from the case. :)

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

Remember: "Proximate Cause," is not the same as, "He Deserved It."

[Foolmewunz]

Gagglenash,
I'm not saying that commiting any felony is a priori a good thing. My problem is not with the person who lost it and pulled the trigger. I think I said that I think his life is probably not going to be so good any longer. Even if he's not caught/tried, it's got to be a dumb moment that rots away at you for the rest of your life, IMHO.
My problem is with the posturing of those who said (and I'm not including everyone in this, just a number of the earlier posts) "Good, that'll make the little monsters think twice!"

You can't think twice if you're dead. So we're not rehabilitating a wayward teen. Then what are we doing, setting an example? Because someone egged a car? Because tagging is offensive to my set of values?

Sorry if anyone thinks I'm defending the not-so-equal-but-nevertheless stupid act of the kid. I'm not. Being a juvenille offender in my own right (many a count, believe me) I know how stupid and futile those "cool" acts are when you reflect on them later. But that's nothing compared to shooting someone.

I can quite readily see how someone can lose it and in a rage blow some kid away. I cannot see mulling it over in the comfort of my study and posting on the internet that it was probably a good thing, though.

[Drudgewire]

Let the punishment suit the crime.


That would be awesome.

"For the crime of vandalism by 'egging,' the defendant is sentenced to 5 minutes of sitting on the hood of his car while his victims pelt him with eggs.

"Furthermore, he can wash neither his car nor himself for 24 hours afterwards." :D

[fuelair]

That would be awesome.

"For the crime of vandalism by 'egging,' the defendant is sentenced to 5 minutes of sitting on the hood of his car while his victims pelt him with eggs.

"Furthermore, he can wash neither his car nor himself for 24 hours afterwards." :DMake it 10 minutes and the eggs just out of the refrigerator and I'll buy it.

[CaptainManacles]

Yes, yes he is...and so is clear communication. Perhaps we should invite him over for a cup of coffee and ask him what you do mean.

I said exactly what I meant, clear as a bell. You can't seem to make a post without putting words in someone else's mouth. That's your problem not mine.

[Delvo]

Sorry if anyone thinks I'm defending the not-so-equal-but-nevertheless stupid act of the kid. I'm not.To call it merely "stupid" is to defend/excuse it. Stupid is when someone means well and tries to do right but fails due to error/mistake. This is a case of malicious intent, knowingly and deliberately choosing to significantly damage and render unusable somebody else's property. Stupidity is different from wickedness, more common and not as bad, so yes, using that much milder and more innocent-sounding description that almost any audience can more easily identify with, instead of the real, actual one, simply IS defending/excusing the vandal, and it will continue to be every single time it's repeated, no matter whether the person who uses it admits it or not. If one really truly didn't want to defend/excuse the vandal, one wouldn't use a word like "stupid" that is inherently a defense/excuse with no other possible purposes but that.

[Foolmewunz]

That would be awesome.

"For the crime of vandalism by 'egging,' the defendant is sentenced to 5 minutes of sitting on the hood of his car while his victims pelt him with eggs.

"Furthermore, he can wash neither his car nor himself for 24 hours afterwards." :D


See, now this I could get behind. When in doubt, always go with Gilbert and Sullivan for a solution.

But we could maybe make the penalties and offenses interchangeable.
You egg someone's property. They toilet paper you.
You TP a house. You get a sack of flaming poo thrown on you.
You Tag something. The victims get to egg you.

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

To call it merely "stupid" is to defend/excuse it. Stupid is when someone means well and tries to do right but fails due to error/mistake. This is a case of malicious intent, knowingly and deliberately choosing to significantly damage and render unusable somebody else's property. Stupidity is different from wickedness, more common and not as bad, so yes, using that much milder and more innocent-sounding description that almost any audience can more easily identify with, instead of the real, actual one, simply IS defending/excusing the vandal, and it will continue to be every single time it's repeated, no matter whether the person who uses it admits it or not. If one really truly didn't want to defend/excuse the vandal, one wouldn't use a word like "stupid" that is inherently a defense/excuse with no other possible purposes but that.


Stupidity is acting without forethought or consideration of the consequences.

Wickedness is acting with forethought, in full consideration of the consequences.

(Personal definition: I have been both stupid and wicked.)

If the guy sat there, gun in hand/lap, waiting for the egger to fling away so to excuse a shooting, that'd be wickedness.

If he just grabbed and shot because he was pissed off, that's stupidity.

Stupidity or wickedness, if it's murder, it's murder. The stupidity neither defends nor excuses murder.

[Foolmewunz]

Hi




Stupidity is acting without forethought or consideration of the consequences.

Wickedness is acting with forethought, in full consideration of the consequences.

(Personal definition: I have been both stupid and wicked.)

If the guy sat there, gun in hand/lap, waiting for the egger to fling away so to excuse a shooting, that'd be wickedness.

If he just grabbed and shot because he was pissed off, that's stupidity.

Stupidity or wickedness, if it's murder, it's murder. The stupidity neither defends nor excuses murder.

I think Delvo is attributing the "wickedness" to the eggers, which IMHO makes his argument considerably worse.


Delvo,

Why are you citing the wickedness of the dead teenager and not the larger crime, the murder? Firstly, you're totally wrong and your post as to my deeper meanings is just nitpicking rhetoric. Truly. How dare you just make up a different meaning for my words from the explanation I put forth?

Secondly, what you're doing, by inference, is excusing the killer because you can attribute "wickedness" to the teen. (How's that for a more logical extrapolation of between the lines meanings in a post? See? I'm good at this crap, too.)

You're the one making up emotion-tinged definitions of words, here. You choose to use "wickedness" as though we have a Funk and Wagnall's definition stating wickedness, n. see egging, and a pre-set scale that somehow says wicked is worse than stupid. They're not related. On an IQ test that would be something like

wicked : stupid
jupiter : pumpkin
bus : squid
flatulent : tall
Correct Answer: All of the Above('cuz they all make no sense).

Wickedness? Why not "evil"?

Ya see, in my neighborhood, calling someone "stupid" is not defending them. It's a condemnation.

Stupid is as stupid does, and by my definition of stupid, having done similar things in my past, this was a stupid thing to do. Now you may want to define what sort of stupid and what it means to the average reader, but I don't think the rest of the world has that much difficulty understanding what is mean.

And again, don't tell me what I'm defending when I have already CLEARLY stated that I'm not defending him/them. There's no need to put words in a poster's mouth... they're right there in front of you.

This isn't an advertising campaign when the psychological impact of a word or statement has the effect of emotionally selling some product. These here are my words, and I quite clearly stated them, myself, and I think I'm probably old enough (if not necessarily wise enough) to know just what I meant. So much so, in fact, that I made a point of explaining EXACTLY what I meant. It's a frakking internet forum, and the author is right here, so you don't need to deconstruct the text.... I'll tell you what I meant.

(Reminds me of the scene in Annie Hall when some b.s. intellectual standing in a line in a movie queue was expostulating on the real meaning of something that Marshall MacLuhan had said, and Woody, eavesdropping, says, "Oh, really... I just happen to have Marshall MacLuhan right here, why don't we ask him?" And he walks out of frame and comes back with the actual (real life) Marshall MacLuhan.)

To call it merely "stupid" is to defend/excuse it. Stupid is when someone means well and tries to do right but fails due to error/mistake.

Really. I seem to find numerous uses for stupid, but this one's not highlighted.

This is a case of malicious intent, knowingly and deliberately choosing to significantly damage and render unusable somebody else's property.
So kill him, then. Makes sense to me.

Stupidity is different from wickedness, more common and not as bad, .....

As I said above, you're comparing apples to oranges, and this is actually quite meaningless.

(snip) .... using that much milder and more innocent-sounding description any audience can more easily identify with, instead of the real, actual one, simply IS defending/excusing the vandal, and it will continue to be every single time it's repeated, no matter whether the person who uses it admits it or not. If one really truly didn't want to defend/excuse the vandal, one wouldn't use a word like "stupid" that is inherently a defense/excuse with no other possible purposes but that.

Bolded Parts: You make a lot of assumptions and make up a lot of crap to go with those assumptions. The entire segment, above, is you telling me what I meant. Seems like a bad lit class I once had where the teacher had to explain to us (over and over and over and over) the real meaning of passages from Ethan Fromm. I know my language and I know what stupid means and I used it intentionally.

So desconstruct this, then!

It was a gddm teenager throwing eggs. He did not deserve to be shot. He was bad. He deserved to be disciplined, possibly even have a record of some sort. "Bad, Teenager! Egg-throwing not good! Grounded, two weeks!"

Wickedness, indeed. Fred Phelps meets Church Lady.

[Skeptic Guy]

I said exactly what I meant, clear as a bell. You can't seem to make a post without putting words in someone else's mouth. That's your problem not mine.

Hmmm, I had hoped for some clarification and a rational discussion, but failing that, I'll just sit here and sip my coffee.

[Delvo]

Stupidity is acting without forethought or consideration of the consequences.Which is why it's inapplicable here. If you throw eggs on a car, the car gets eggs thrown on it. It doesn't take any pondering to figure that out. It's too obvious for anyone to possibly ever not be conscious of. So doing it anyway is deliberately deciding to bring on that obvious, inevitable result. There's simply no possibility of that NOT being the vandal's intention.

Wickedness is acting with forethought, in full consideration of the consequences.Precisely my point. That is the ONLY state of mind that could be behind something as simple, obvious, and straightforward as "egging".

[GreyICE]

Was this caused by the second amendment and the fact that we allow legal gun ownership?

Yes. Almost undoubtedly. It's possible that the idiot who did this was a gangster, using an illegal firearm, but frankly, I really really doubt it.

The second amendment has downsides. Like every other policy. There are a lot of upsides to. First, self defense. That happens a lot. Frequently it never escalates to the lethal level. Second, deterrent. They definitely work at that level.

I submit that Britain and any other snooty European country that wishes to criticize us should attempt to grasp a very, very small part of the culture and people who have gone into making America - including many immigrants, and many criminals. You have never (excepting maybe Italy) experienced the problems with organized crime we have. This has a lot more to do with our immigration policy (which I support) than anything else. It has a lot to do with illegal immigration, and poverty, and the culture of our country.

Saying "oh, just ban the guns and stuff like this would never happen" is simplistic and ignores a host of real issues.

[CaptainManacles]

Hmmm, I had hoped for some clarification and a rational discussion, but failing that, I'll just sit here and sip my coffee.

I don't know what else to say. What I said originally was a clear as it can possibly be. What you tried to equate what I said to is clearly not equivalent, and if you can't see that then I don't think rational discussion is possible with you.

[Skeptic Guy]

I don't know what else to say. What I said originally was a clear as it can possibly be. What you tried to equate what I said to is clearly not equivalent, and if you can't see that then I don't think rational discussion is possible with you.

Look, I'm sorry we got off on the wrong foot, but I think what you meant to say and what you wrote are two slightly different things, but it's really not that important of a topic. I've had lots of rational discussions in the past and I will in the future...

[Molinaro]

"Guns are for protecting my home, my family, my life" -= 1;

"Guns are for killing somebody when the opportunity presents itself" += 1;

[Dr H]

Wow, second kid to die doing it there in less than a year. The next kid who goes out car egging in Columbus has balls of freakin' steel.

Or maybe he'll have a gun, and shoot back at the motorist.

[Dr H]

Yeah. Controlling guns as a method of controlling jackasses. Brilliant.

Of course controlling guns doesn't control jackasses.

But in some cases it may be sufficient to disarm them. ;)

[Dr H]

Yeah for all the labels of "cowboy" and the like you get for carrying concealed, it really requires more of an ability to turn the other cheek.

Out here in the wild west cowboys don't carry concealed.
They carry their guns right out in the open.

[Lonewulf]

Not really. Harsher gun control laws would really just mean that most of the guns that would be used would be off the books, and probably much harder to trace in gun violence really...

[casebro]

So nobdy has any additional facts? Was it the egged car's owner that shot? Was he even shot BECAUSE he egged? Or was the egging merely incidental? And who's car got egged? Some member of an opposing gang?

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

I found a bit more information (http://www.nbc4i.com/midwest/cmh/news.apx.-content-articles-CMH-2008-08-31-0018.html).

Part of the article says his Pop's a cop:

NBC 4’s Lauren Diedrich spoke to veteran Columbus police officer, George Burton, whose son, Garrett, was fatally shot in a westside yard Saturday morning. At times weeping, Officer Burton asked for help, still shocked that an incident of relatively minor vandalism could end in death.

Also - it seems to have been random vandalism and random response:
Police described what led up to the shooting, saying that Garrett and a friend were throwing eggs at cars when one of the cars stopped.

The driver came over to the boys and shot Garrett point blank in the head—then left.

<<sigh>> Some people....

[Lonewulf]

Sad...