So far we appear to be hearing the elderly gentleman's side of this story. While I emphatically agree that it is a terrible thing for this man to have been knocked down while enjoying his trail ride, I have to wonder if a fatality was really necessary in this situation.
Cops: Man, 65, kills teen who knocks him off bicycle
Cyclist is released by police, who say two teenagers assaulted him
msnbc.com
updated 1/26/2012 3:19:04 AM ET
A 65-year-old man who was knocked off his bicycle by three teenagers on a Pennsylvania trail shot two of them, killing one, police said according to reports.
The Reading Eagle newspaper said the wounded teen, 16, was taken to hospital and the third, aged 15, was taken in for questioning and was later committed to a youth center.
The paper said the mother of the slain boy, 16, asked officials not to release his name until she had been able to tell other members of the family what happened.
The incident happened on the Thun Trail near a bridge over the Schuylkill River, between Reading and West Reading just after noon Wednesday.
"There was one juvenile who was shot and is deceased [and] another juvenile who was shot and is in surgery," Police Chief Jed Habecker said, according to a report by the WFMZ-TV station.
According to police, the 65-year-old was riding his bicycle when the teens knocked him to the ground, the station said.
Police said two teens then assaulted the man, who drew his gun and shot them.
The man was released by police after they consulted with District Attorney John Adams late Wednesday, WFMZ reported.
You're right dog gone, a 65 year old man being beaten by three teenagers should wait to see if they stop short of killing him before he acts. Or even better- he should be powerless to stop them to begin with, right?
ReplyDeleteFace it, its not death you have a problem with.
I think you're seriously stretching the limits of the definition for mass shooting. Is it your intent to deceive others with this headline?
ReplyDeletemass shooting victims? The guy defended himself. I know you really would just like to see criminals be criminals, and live, while their victims are beat to death. I wonder if you'd be singing the same tune if those kids attacked you...
ReplyDeleteHorse'sassnonymous:
ReplyDelete"You're right dog gone, a 65 year old man being beaten by three teenagers should wait to see if they stop short of killing him before he acts."
Umm, no. Since nobody but the shooter and the living kids know what happened, it's hard to say what his response actually was. He shot TWO people. I keep hearing from you gunzloonz assclownz that "brandishing" is sufficient for most criminal threats to be defused.
Did the kids have weapons? Did they deliberatley knock him off of his bike? Was he in the middle of the trail and not about to give way to snotnosed punks? None of these things matter to idiotz like you. I'm pretty sure you're in the same school of thoughtlessness as that Jim Mason dude who made the comment about the LI Liyer who pulled her Pink9 on the doorbellhomeinvaderrapistkiller.
LOL namecalling really helps with your credibility when making your arguments. No really.
ReplyDeleteYou guys make it way too easy. Im not gonna club baby seals, so don't worry, ill go away now. Back to your regularly-scheduled "discussion"
ReplyDeleteHere we have an older man who gets knocked off a bicycle by three teenagers. There's a clear disparity of force and a clear intent to cause harm. The man was released after questioning, while one of the teens was locked up. This story looks like a righteous shoot. Dog Gone, why can't you count this one in favor of those who defend themselves with handguns?
ReplyDeleteAssholeonymous @ 7;21:
ReplyDeleteFolks that won't even use an identifiable label (hint: democommie is not the name on my long form birth certificate) so that one never knows who to address--when those people are spouting bullshit--can expect to be called names. For your information, dumbfuck, namecalling has NOTHING to do with anyone's credibility. It does have to do with polite discourse, something which I find pointless to engage in with fucking morons.
Actually, name-calling does alter your credibility, especially when it's tied to rage. You might try a polite discussion, just for the sake of variety, once in a while. But what we see from you and Laci is that when your assertions aren't accepted without question, you sink into cursing and ranting. If that's all you have to support your cause, it's no wonder that we're winning.
DeleteHave you ever asked yourself why you feel the need to speak so abusively to people who disagree with you? Honestly sir, you truly do yourself, and those that might agree with you a disservice.
ReplyDeleteDC - you argue that anon should not take the word of the old man that he was being attacked and defend his actions, yet dog gone has assumed that the man had no reason to shoot two of the kids based on what? The police and District Attorney, who are charged with investigating and deciding if this man committed a crime, released him. They also detained one of the kids. That to me suggests that he was rightfully defending himself from an attack. Does it matter if the kids had guns or other weapons on them while they were assaulting this man? The dude is 65 years old and had just been knocked to the ground from his bicycle. Do you think he was in a position to defend himself with his bare hands? If you don't want to jump to conclusions without more information, then that is fine. But you also need to berate DG for posting this as a "mass shooting" and wondering if the guy needed to shoot without having all of the information as well.
ReplyDeleteNO, Jim, I don't assume that this old man had no reason to shoot the kids, I question whether something less lethal would not have sufficed and been a better alternative.
DeleteDo we really want people shooting kids in self defense?
I saw a recent news video about a law enforcement officer who turned in his own son for being involved with a group of other kids who violently beat a single teenager, videotaped it, and posted it to youtube. The man's son told him he did the right thing for turning him in, and admitted he should be responsible for the consequences.
That is a better outcome than the young man being shot by the kid who was being ganged up on by the group.\
I'm arguing for less use of lethal violence, instead of accepting the justifications made for it here. Yes, it was wrong for three kids to push an old guy off his bicycle. It would be wrong for them to rob him..........but is it really preferable for them to be shot, injured or killed, or is that an excessive negative consequence?
I'm arguing that this amounts to two wrongs, not a wrong and a right.
This qualifies as a mass shooting, using the statistical figure of two or more people being shot. We don't know if there were more shots fired, but at least two out of three people were hit.
As we have seen in numerous other instances, including a video I just posted where an unarmed 70 year old man assisted in subduing a much younger gunman attempting a robbery, less lethal violence can be successful, and is preferable.
What are the two wrongs here? Oh, yes, first the wrong of knocking the man off his bicycle and then the wrong of attacking the man while he was down. O.K., that's two wrongs. When the man shot these punks, that was a right.
DeleteYou really make yourself look stupid or crazy when you attack people like this bicyclist. As I pointed out above, there was a clear disparity of force, both in age and in numbers. I doubt that there was much time to act. He was likely stunned, if not injured, from falling, and he was surrounded by three violent youths. Show us that you have some good sense, and declare this a correct use of a handgun for self defense.
DG - you know what would have prevented this shooting - 3 kids not knocking the man off his bicycle and then assaulting him. There are plenty of shootings to complain about as being unecessary. I think you picked a bad one to highlight with this example.
Delete"but is it really preferable for them to be shot, injured or killed, or is that an excessive negative consequence?" It is preferable that a criminal be killed over a victim being killed. We don't know what might have happened to the old man if he did not have his gun to protect himself. It is possible that he would have ended up dead through no fault of his own. When people decide to commit violent crimes, they should understand that their victims may retaliate with force and even lethal force. It is part of the victim's right to life to protect themselves even if that means killing the attacker. If the attacker wants to protect their right to life, then all they have to do is not threaten the life of someone else through committing a violent crime.
I agree with Dog Gone. Killing someone in self defense should be reserved for the most extreme cases. This wasn't one, as far as I can see. Getting physical and aggressive with another is not enough for the other to presume the worst. I agree it may be impossible to tell if there's really lethal threat until it's too late if we wait, but that's exactly what we need to do.
ReplyDeleteYou defenders of this kind of thing are just too quick to blow people away.
Mikeb302000,
DeleteDo try to be serious here. What you are saying is that the life of these thugs is more valuable than the life of the old man.
Think about it. These three youths knocked him off his bicycle. That's a violent act. They then attacked him again. That's another violent act. How many are needed before a person can rightfully conclude that the thugs have lethal intent? Did the man have to have broken ribs or a punctured lung? Did he have to suffer a skull fracture first?
The youths committed violence. What their original intent was, who knows? But how long would it have taken them to realize that they had started something that they would have to finish? One of them surely would have figured out that they'd be reported to the police if they left a living victim.
Please, do explain to us your standard here. How much do innocent citizens have to suffer before using lethal force is justified? Why don't you just admit that you're a pacifist who sees no justification in any lethal force? That's your position, based on your comments and articles. I think that such a position is unrealistic, but at least it is morally and intellectually defensible.
Our side is as well, by the way.
GC dishonestly states:
DeleteDo try to be serious here. What you are saying is that the life of these thugs is more valuable than the life of the old man.
Not even close. Rather I'm asserting that all life is valuable, that it is not up to you or any other civilian to execute someone else, and that there are other, better alternatives to lethal force.
The only legitimate use of force is by law enforcement which is held accountable, insured, supervised, trained and subject to performance review and ongoing education, and who carry non-lethal force in addition to lethal force.
Get real, Dog Gone. The old man would have been killed if he hadn't responded with force. How can you possibly think otherwise? That's why I say that you value the lives of the thugs over the life of the good citizen.
DeleteBut thank you for acknowledging that you oppose private armed self defense. You've refused to admit that in the past.
"You defenders of this kind of thing are just too quick to blow people away."
ReplyDeleteMikeb, You defenders of this kind of thing are just too quick to defend crimes and criminals.
the other anonymous
Nope. We're just asserting the obvious position that deadly force is not necessarily justified and that there are other equally effective and less deadly alternatives.
DeleteSee the other video, of the old guy disarming the would be robber.
Your lot would love to see any and every justification for shooting people; that makes you too willing to blow people away, and therefore untrustworthy with lethal force. Deadly force has to be the last alternative, not the first.
In more and more states, that's no longer the case. Stand your ground laws are the trend. Good people don't want to have to fall back and fall back from bullies and thugs.
Delete"We're just asserting the obvious position that deadly force is not necessarily justified and that there are other equally effective and less deadly alternatives."
ReplyDeleteEvidently, those who decide what is necessary force to protect oneself disagree with your obviously wrong and foolish position.
My guess is that this old fart didn't go out looking for trouble, but we know who was looking for it - and found it.
the other anonymous
"Excessive negative consequence"...ha! I love it, yet another spinning bromide from somebody who wasn't there but is willing to believe that the cyclist had all the time in the world (and the physical ability) to consider alternate means of defense.
ReplyDeleteReminds me of "overseas contingency operation" or "man-caused disaster".
There is nothing here which indicates deadly force was justified. They may give the old guy the benefit of the doubt, but that doesn't make it right.
ReplyDeleteUm, the old man was knocked off his bicycle and then attacked further. If that isn't justification for deadly force on his part, what, pray tell, would be, in your opinion? Answer that question. What does have to happen to justify the use of lethal force?
DeleteDog gone, so am I to understand that this use of a gun is not justified to you, but shooting someone who is annoying you on your front lawn is?
ReplyDeleteDog gone (Aug 5, 2011 11:12 AM): “No one who knew either of us doubted that if she were to show up on my front lawn again at 3 a.m. to attempt to harrass and intimidate me, that I would shoot her long before she could get any closer, taking advantage of the ranged aspect of the firearm.”
One more point on this. I have read from your previous works that you feel someone should only use a gun when there are in complete control of their faculties. Is that a correct assessment of your position? Examples would include, no influence from alcohol or other mind altering substances/medication, physically fit and capable of precise control of a firearm, fully awake and alert (being startled out of bed and grabbing a gun is a no-no), having the vision and lighting conditions to properly identify targets, etc… Am I pretty spot on with your viewpoint? Ok, my question- is there ever a situation where it is acceptable for a person to defend themselves with a firearm from a physical beating? You may believe that anyone in this situation should just let the boys have their fun and take a few kicks in the ribs and punches to the face, but I bet you also believe they can take it too far. Once ribs start cracking, fingers breaking, things are getting blurry/tunnel vision, how is someone supposed to safely use their firearm? Would you make an exception to your rules? What about your worry of them shooting an innocent bystander or having the gun taken away from them which are both far more likely at that point? It seems there is a catch-22 in your thinking: you are not justified in defending yourself until you are no longer capable of defending yourself.
Stop playing gotcha, will ya, TS?
DeleteWill you stop trying to control guns?
DeleteI have to agree that this is case is questionable, and agree with Dog Gone. Yes, the man was defending himself. But the boys did not have any weapons, apparently. All they did was knock him off a bike and assault him (which I assume means punching or kicking). If the man had just handed over his wallet, likely no one had to die, and they probably would have left him alone. The money in his wallet isn't worth a life (even that of a juvenile delinquent's).
ReplyDeleteThere's a very good reason why police suggest that you give in to a robber's demands. If you give in, you aren't likely to be hurt or killed. Since police were there within minutes, and apprehended the unharmed boy, likely if the guy had just given over his wallet the police still would have caught the kids.
Yes, all they did was assault him. That's all.
DeleteWhere do you get the idea that this was a robbery? This looks like a trio of punks who wanted to beat up an old man. They chose to cross the line themselves, and they got what they deserve. Only a pacifist has any reason to object to what the old man did here.
DeleteRevised Dog gone Catch-22: you are not justified in defending yourself with a gun until you are no longer capable of defending yourself with a gun.
ReplyDeleteThis is similar to another gun control axiom: It is ok to kill another person to save your own life, but you have to be sure that you are dead first.
Dog gone (Aug 5, 2011 11:12 AM): “No one who knew either of us doubted that if she were to show up on my front lawn again at 3 a.m. to attempt to harrass and intimidate me, that I would shoot her long before she could get any closer, taking advantage of the ranged aspect of the firearm.”
ReplyDeleteThis was way past the annoy stage, including threats of bodily harm, hearing voices supposedly from God directing the crazy woman to kill me, etc., as proven in court. This was a case where a judge made the observation that any further violation of a criminal restraining order was understood to be an actual attack. None of the cases like someone getting knocked down but without a weapon and where the man does not appear to have been hurt justifies deadly force. There is no indication they intended to harm him, much less kill him, nor that they had the means to do so, nor is there any indication of threatening statements being made either. That makes this at least potentially an over reaction.
Did you lose a bet with someone over this, and now you have to make it sound doubtful? The old man was knocked off his bicycle, and the assault continued after that. How can you claim, without puking from embarassment, that there was no intent to cause harm?
DeleteAnswer our questions: Under what extraordinary circumstances would you believe that someone else was justified in using deadly force in self defense? We already know that you're justified in your own mind. As a matter of fact, I agree that you would have been justified. What I want to know is if you'd ever think that any of us could possibly be justified.
Dog gone, I clearly remember you saying once that you never felt threatened by her, but rather “annoyed”. You were tying to make a point that people who carry guns are afraid- but you were never afraid. You also said it was friends who convinced you to get a gun. Am I right on this- can you find the post where you were saying something along those lines? Besides, you would shoot her without her laying hands on you or having a weapon, is that right (you keep saying the boys not having a weapon is a factor)? What about all your ideas of less-than-lethal alternatives, or eye irritants? If that man had a restraining order against those three, then you would be ok with him blowing them all away on sight? How do you juxtapose that with this statement?
ReplyDeleteDog gone: “Deadly force has to be the last alternative, not the first.”
Baldr, sometimes they are not after money. This sounds like it could have been the flash mob mentality of beating for sport. Besides, you are advocating giving them what they want- are you ok with the man handing over his gun? I bet it was the most valuable item on him. Give them the gun and they’ll walk away and no one gets hurt, right?