MrRant Posted January 13, 2004 Report Posted January 13, 2004 Jan. 12, 2004, 6:46AM Carjacking victim shoots fleeing suspect Copyright 2004 Houston Chronicle A carjacking victim fatally shot his assailant early Sunday, Houston police said. Investigators said the carjacker, who has not been identified, robbed two men at gunpoint about 1 a.m. while they were sitting in their vehicle in the 11500 block of Keegans Ridge. He then tried to flee in the vehicle but was shot and killed by one of the victims, police said. No charges have been filed in the case. http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/front/2348907 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Good.
kkktookmybabyaway Posted January 13, 2004 Report Posted January 13, 2004 Gotta love Texas. If you can't trust someone not to shoot you when you steal his car, who can you trust?...
spiny norman Posted January 13, 2004 Report Posted January 13, 2004 How the hell is that justice served? The guy freaking died. Nothing justifies that. He stole a car, he didn't eradicate millions of Jews in the Holocaust. He probably would have been caught by the police and appropriately punished. To be killed is not an appropriate punishment.
Vern Gagne Posted January 13, 2004 Report Posted January 13, 2004 The carjacker threatned these people with a gun. They had every right to defend themselves.
spiny norman Posted January 13, 2004 Report Posted January 13, 2004 He was no longer threatening them though. By that stage he was driving away. That's not a threat to their lives. If they had of shot him while he was threatening them then that could be seen as being a shade of grey. But he was driving away, that's practically in cold blood. Unless armed robbery suddenly is punished by the death sentence there.
Vern Gagne Posted January 13, 2004 Report Posted January 13, 2004 Do we know that for sure? He could of threatened them if they told anyone. That in turn set off the victim, and he shot the carjacker. One other thing. Why is he only called a suspect?
2GOLD Posted January 13, 2004 Report Posted January 13, 2004 Do we know that for sure? He could of threatened them if they told anyone. That in turn set off the victim, and he shot the carjacker. One other thing. Why is he only called a suspect? Cause he didn't go to trial therefore I guess he remains a suspect. Also, the guy with the gun must be a damn good shot. He nailed someone with a death shot while they were in a moving car? Wonder if SWAT needs a sharpshooter.
Guest Agent of Oblivion Posted January 13, 2004 Report Posted January 13, 2004 Incidents like this would be a greater deterrent than jail time. That's why hardly anyone who lives around here gets robbed. They're armed to the teeth.
Lando Griffin Posted January 13, 2004 Report Posted January 13, 2004 Boo hoo, my heart bleeds for the poor, poor carjacker. What did he ever do to anyone?
Stephen Joseph Posted January 13, 2004 Report Posted January 13, 2004 comparing a carjacker to the holocaust is an insult to those who were affected by the tragedy. As far as the carjacker dying by being shot...here's a lesson...don't steal. Karma's a bitch
Guest BDC Posted January 13, 2004 Report Posted January 13, 2004 I'm not going to shed any tears. But then, the law says that as soon as the other person ceases to be aggressive towards you... ah, he was pointing a gun at them when he drove away. That's enough.
Firestarter Posted January 13, 2004 Report Posted January 13, 2004 How the hell is that justice served? He threatened a man's life. His life was taken by the man he threatened. That's not merely justice served, that's immaculate justice served on white linen under silver. The guy freaking died. Nothing justifies that. A lot of things can justify that. Like, say, an assault with a deadly weapon. Contrary to what liberals believe, execution is an appropriate punishment for many people, and we put far too few criminals to death in this country. He stole a car, he didn't eradicate millions of Jews in the Holocaust. While this is true, I don't immediately see how it's relevant. Are you trying to minimise the crime of armed robbery by comparing it to genocide? How were you planning to make that work? John Wayne Gacy didn't kill millions of Jews either, so I suppose he should have been let off with a stern warning. Kill another 5,999,968 people and we'll come down on you like a ton of bricks, buddy... He probably would have been caught by the police and appropriately punished. But a public-spirited citizen saved us the expense and the paperwork. More people should follow his excellent example. To be killed is not an appropriate punishment. He pointed a gun at someone. Y'all do that in Texas and one of you is getting killed. Personally, if I were a criminal, I'd move to California. Rob someone there and you'll probably be sentenced to ten hours of community service plus mandatory meetings of Kleptomaniacs Anonymous.
Skywarp! Posted January 13, 2004 Report Posted January 13, 2004 This is a scenerio that should be used in collegiate morals and ethics classes. Usually, a proper code of ethics suggests that you may use enough force as it takes to cease the attack, such as shoot an attacker in the knee and run away. I know that doesn't really apply to this case, but it makes me want to unearth my old textbooks.
Guest Agent of Oblivion Posted January 13, 2004 Report Posted January 13, 2004 Yeah, lets shoot him in the knee, so he can't raise his arm up and put a pill in your chest, skull, and groin.
Skywarp! Posted January 13, 2004 Report Posted January 13, 2004 Yeah, lets shoot him in the knee, so he can't raise his arm up and put a pill in your chest, skull, and groin. Posted by KANE "I know that doesn't really apply to this case"
Guest Agent of Oblivion Posted January 13, 2004 Report Posted January 13, 2004 How could that apply to ANY case of being threatened by a firearm?
Downhome Posted January 13, 2004 Report Posted January 13, 2004 I LOVE when people try to take up for the criminal in cases like this, I really do. I'm always up for a good laugh.
Skywarp! Posted January 13, 2004 Report Posted January 13, 2004 How could that apply to ANY case of being threatened by a firearm? It really doesn't. That's my fault for invoking THAT particular example without fleshing it out. A non-lethal shot to allow a retreat is only good if the attacker has is unarmed/has a hand-held weapon that isn't a projectile/firearm. Remember, I was talking about the idea of ethics in a threatening situation is to use the level of force necessary to end the attack and ensure your safety. Killing the guy in a scenerio where you are armed and he isn't is overboard. Obviously, in this case, when the attacker also has a firearm, a critically injuring shot or kill shot is justified. Of course, this is all ethical theory. Obviously, you won't be running over options in your mind should you find yourself in this situation. I was just steering the thread into this path for some deep discussion. And I'm not defending the carjacker's actions. To jump on that assumption is rash.
Guest Agent of Oblivion Posted January 13, 2004 Report Posted January 13, 2004 Eh, I'd still grease someone if they came after me with a knife. An attempt on a person's life is an attempt on a person's life, and when it comes down to either you or him, which is it really going to be? I think that's bigger than any ethical concern. Btw, I wasn't assuming you were defending the carjacker.
Skywarp! Posted January 13, 2004 Report Posted January 13, 2004 I know you weren't, that was more for Downhome.
Downhome Posted January 13, 2004 Report Posted January 13, 2004 I know you weren't, that was more for Downhome. I wasn't even talking about you. OMG, miscommunication!
kkktookmybabyaway Posted January 13, 2004 Report Posted January 13, 2004 Drat, last night after reading the "how was justice served thread?..." I was going to run a search to find Kamui's comments about American soldiers shooting that Iraqi kid and say the motorist should have shot the carjacker in the foot with a *name of that gun,* but I forgot..
Guest TheZsaszHorsemen Posted January 13, 2004 Report Posted January 13, 2004 I don't see how anyone can make a judgment on whether justice was served. You don't know the people involved. The guy tried to steal the family's car; that was a mistake, but it doesn't automatically mean he should be killed for it. The theft of a man-made object is not a forfeiture of life.
Your Paragon of Virtue Posted January 13, 2004 Report Posted January 13, 2004 I don't see how anyone can make a judgment on whether justice was served. You don't know the people involved. The guy tried to steal the family's car; that was a mistake, but it doesn't automatically mean he should be killed for it. The theft of a man-made object is not a forfeiture of life. I will tell you this much. Doing an English Project, I interviewed my philosophy teacher who is the President of the Catholic Scholars of Canada or some other such association. This was awhile back. I was interviewing him because it was just to break down a few stereotypes that people would have about a religion/philosophy teacher. If I could say that I knew a "Man of God' this guy would be it. So to eradicate that stereotype about being passive, he justified going to war in Iraq, not an opinion that many "Catholic Scholars" would have. I'm about to leave when he says something to this effect: "Hey, if someone pulls a knife on you, there's nothing wrong with taking out your Colt .45. You don't *want* to kill him, but if you have to then it's not murder." I don't know how that might apply to some, but I figure that when compared to most ethical standards and the like that this sort of thing appears to be justified, I see nothing wrong. He was robbed at gunpoint. His life was at danger. End of story.
kkktookmybabyaway Posted January 14, 2004 Report Posted January 14, 2004 I don't see how anyone can make a judgment on whether justice was served. You don't know the people involved. The guy tried to steal the family's car; that was a mistake, but it doesn't automatically mean he should be killed for it. The theft of a man-made object is not a forfeiture of life. When you rob a person at gunpoint it does. Fuck him...
The Metal Maniac Posted January 14, 2004 Report Posted January 14, 2004 We need more people like this on earth; people that will shoot anyone who tries to rob them. There'd be a HELL of a lot less robbings....
Jingus Posted January 14, 2004 Report Posted January 14, 2004 A final point on the whole "non-lethal shot" theory: It is almost impossible to shoot and hit a target as small and mobile as a human limb in any kind of real-life combat situation, unless you're at point-blank range or you're a DAMN good shot. (And the chances of one bullet to the knee area "completely immobilizing" a pumped-up human are iffy at best.) That's why 100% of firearms instructors teach their students to aim for the torso.
Guest wrestlingbs Posted January 14, 2004 Report Posted January 14, 2004 I don't LIKE the fact that he died, but I can understand why the victim shot him. Especially since the carjacker threatened the victim at gunpoint. And YPV, it's kind of hard to take you're speech about moral standards seriously with that picture underneath it.
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now