Karma, "Only in America" Style.

Manic Moran

http://www.grandhaventribune.com/paid/296544199183364.bsp

This was a bit different, caught it in my local paper.

A miscreant in Michigan decides to rob a chap at 1:30am in the parking lot of a bar. The intended victim, however, having a concealed firearms permit, was having none of it, and shot the would-be-mugger, wounding him.

As the wounded man ran in a bid to make his escape, he was struck and killed by an underaged drunk driver.

Kindof a happy result for everyone, really. Drunk driver is identified and taken off the road, criminal removed from the streets (with a scraper), law-abiding citizen alive and well.

Story kindof made my day.

NTM

old_aussie

It's a win win situation, should be more of it.

uglyjohn

was his name earl by any chance?

theg81der

Respect for human life???

jd007

Yup made my day too. There's a person (albeit a criminal) dead and his family is probably going through hell atm.

Defo a cheery start to the day.:rolleyes:

Odysseus

theg81der wrote: »

Respect for human life???

In that situation no clear and simple. Had the mugger respect for his victim?

theg81der

Had the, probably 16 year old, mugger the capacity to respect anyone or themselves? Had life afforded them that luxury?

Give you a different upbringing, a lack of education, abusive parents (if any at all), crushing poverty, no hope for the future etc etc I`d like to see what you have left. No, you probably think he chose that life, doesn`t everyone aspire to be a mugger :rolleyes:.

AnonoBoy

theg81der wrote: »

Had the, probably 16 year old, mugger the capacity to respect anyone or themselves? Had life afforded them that luxury?

Give you a different upbringing, a lack of education, abusive parents (if any at all), crushing poverty, no hope for the future etc etc I`d like to see what you have left. No, you probably think he chose that life, doesn`t everyone aspire to be a mugger :rolleyes:.

Exactly. What the hell was the guy doing outside at 1.30am anyway? Doesn't he know disadvantaged people are roaming the streets mugging people at that time through absolutely no fault of their own?

Delirium

theg81der wrote: »

Had the, probably 16 year old, mugger the capacity to respect anyone or themselves? Had life afforded them that luxury?

Give you a different upbringing, a lack of education, abusive parents (if any at all), crushing poverty, no hope for the future etc etc I`d like to see what you have left. No, you probably think he chose that life, doesn`t everyone aspire to be a mugger :rolleyes:.

The article says nothing about the muggers age, education or family history.

And he did to a degree chose to mug the person. It's not like you can accidentally mug someone.

theg81der

AnonoBoy wrote: »

Exactly. What the hell was the guy doing outside at 1.30am anyway? Doesn't he know disadvantaged people are roaming the streets mugging people at that time through absolutely no fault of their own?

Ok, Ok I take your point but you understand mine. He`s a symptom of a problem, the causes needs to be tackled all we have here is probably a dead kid who never had any hope anyway, lifes not fair.

old_aussie

uglyjohn wrote: »

was his name earl by any chance?

Hahahahahahah, now that is funny. just like on My Name Is Earl

AnonoBoy

theg81der wrote: »

lifes not fair.

But it can be hilarious.

DrumSteve

theg81der wrote: »

Had the, probably 16 year old, mugger the capacity to respect anyone or themselves? Had life afforded them that luxury?

Give you a different upbringing, a lack of education, abusive parents (if any at all), crushing poverty, no hope for the future etc etc I`d like to see what you have left. No, you probably think he chose that life, doesn`t everyone aspire to be a mugger :rolleyes:.

Bollocks.

as soon as he chose to rob the guy he gave up his rights. not everyone who comes from that background robs people. they have to make a conscious choice to do it. fair play to the guy for shooting him.

theg81der

AnonoBoy wrote: »

But it can be hilarious.

And there it goes...your credibility out the window, as far as I`m concerned.

old_aussie

theg81der wrote: »

Respect for human life???

Yeah, the mugger had no respect for his own life, as he must have know many Americans pack heat. So if the mugger had no respect for his own life, how much respect would he have for the life of his victim?

AnonoBoy

theg81der wrote: »

And there it goes...your credibility out the window, as far as I`m concerned.

Oh no! What have I done? :eek:

4zn76tysfajdxp

Manic Moran wrote: »

The intended victim, however, having a concealed firearms permit, was having none of it, and shot the would-be-mugger, wounding him.

You know there are too many guns in a country when you can actually shoot people with the permits themselves.

old_aussie

jd007 wrote: »

Yup made my day too. There's a person (albeit a criminal) dead and his family is probably going through hell atm.

Yeah better the muggers family going through hell by themselves than also the victims family going through hell as well, wondering WHY

NothingMan

Why do some people insist on putting human life on such a pedestal. If a dog bit the guy and he shot it it would be the right thing to do. I have more respect for the dogs life than some scumbag mugger.

Besides the "victim" just wounded him, then the idiot runs in front of another idiot's car. It's not that he's dead that makes it hilarious, it's the fact that he's dead because of his own repetitive stupidity. Darwin award nominee!

bonerm

Manic Moran wrote: »

Kindof a happy result for everyone, really. Drunk driver is identified and taken off the road, criminal removed from the streets (with a scraper), law-abiding citizen alive and well.

To alcohol! The cause of and solution to all of life's problems.

dr.bollocko

Has somebody made a comment about pinko leftie bleeding heart liberals yet?

Guy died. Another guy gets some twisted justice via a gun on public streets. 1:30am? Outside a bar? Was he sober? Drunk driver murders somebody. Yeah. Go justice squad.
Christ.

Giselle

Odysseus wrote: »

In that situation no clear and simple. Had the mugger respect for his victim?

Yeah, I keep forgetting that two wrongs really do make a right.

Buford T Justice

theg81der wrote: »

Ok, Ok I take your point but you understand mine. He`s a symptom of a problem, the causes needs to be tackled all we have here is probably a dead kid who never had any hope anyway, lifes not fair.

Is he? How do you know this?

Biggins

theg81der wrote: »

Respect for human life???

Good question - the thief and the drunk driver had none. Meh!
End of story.

Ri_Nollaig

theg81der wrote: »

Had the, probably 16 year old, mugger the capacity to respect anyone or themselves? Had life afforded them that luxury?

Give you a different upbringing, a lack of education, abusive parents (if any at all), crushing poverty, no hope for the future etc etc I`d like to see what you have left. No, you probably think he chose that life, doesn`t everyone aspire to be a mugger :rolleyes:.

Would you be so quick to say this if he was mugging you?

Guy holding a knife/gun/plank with a nail sticking out of it: "give me all your money or ill kill you!"
theg81der: "no problem; kind sir, you are part of a larger social problem and I'll do my bit to let you continue and go on to rob the next person"

There is a simple solution, had the mugger not got himself into this position he wouldn't need to worry about his life(he didn't die?) and no matter how bad his upbringing was, I would hope he knows the difference between right and wrong.

biko

Instant karma.

bonerm

Magnus wrote: »

Instant karma.

's gonna get you.

Minstrel27

One less scumbag in the world.

Odysseus

theg81der wrote: »

Had the, probably 16 year old, mugger the capacity to respect anyone or themselves? Had life afforded them that luxury?

Give you a different upbringing, a lack of education, abusive parents (if any at all), crushing poverty, no hope for the future etc etc I`d like to see what you have left. No, you probably think he chose that life, doesn`t everyone aspire to be a mugger :rolleyes:.

I work therapeutically with people who carry out these type of crimes, I had the the different upbringing, and most of the above, half of the people I grew up with are dead. Did I go down that road no. I managed to turn my life around, whilst those I grew up with didn't and either faced the above or m/joy.

I work with people who have the worst type of historical background you can think of, however, it doesn not justify a life of crime. Another side my work is working with staff who have been physically assualted in the course of carrying out their duties, so I also know the effects that a physically assualt can have on a person.

Are people who carry out this type of crime entitled to help, yes of course. Are they entitled to justify their actions on a traumatic past No.

Odysseus

Giselle wrote: »

Yeah, I keep forgetting that two wrongs really do make a right.

How is protecting yourself a wrong! It does not say in the article why the person had to use his weapon, but the use of lethal force is justified is you are in fear for your life, it is then considered reasonable force.

brianthebard

DrumSteve wrote: »

Bollocks.

as soon as he chose to rob the guy he gave up his rights.

That, good sir, is bollocks. You don't give up your rights because you are stupid enough to rob someone, you certainly don't abdicate your right to life. Tbh some of the comments on this thread make reactionary christian ultra-right wing Texans look soft on crime....

actuallylike

DrumSteve wrote: »

fair play to the guy for shooting him.

Are you serious?!?
Fair play?
Fair?!?
I think you need to learn the definition of fair.

old_aussie wrote: »

Yeah better the muggers family going through hell by themselves than also the victims family going through hell as well, wondering WHY

Yeah, I understand. The muggers family going through hell because he's dead and the other family going through hell because of a few lost credit cards, a bit of money and and old johnny, thanks for clearing that up for me.

prinz

brianthebard wrote: »

That, good sir, is bollocks. You don't give up your rights because you are stupid enough to rob someone, you certainly don't abdicate your right to life.

He didn't do it by robbing someone. He did that by getting himself run over by a drink driver. Rather unfortunate set of circumstances really for all involved, but he put himself in that position. The muggee was within his rights as far as I can see, all he did was wound someone who was trying to mug him.

Odysseus

brianthebard wrote: »

That, good sir, is bollocks. You don't give up your rights because you are stupid enough to rob someone, you certainly don't abdicate your right to life. Tbh some of the comments on this thread make reactionary christian ultra-right wing Texans look soft on crime....

So if you put someone in fear of their own life, which is more that likely the case if you are mugging someone, you have saying that the person has not got the right to protect themself by using lethal force? A reasonable man will kill another to protect his own life or that of a loved one, therefore is had to be considered with the realms of reasonable force.

Sanjuro

actuallylike wrote: »

Yeah, I understand. The muggers family going through hell because he's dead and the other family going through hell because of a few lost credit cards, a bit of money and and old johnny, thanks for clearing that up for me.

Hell, let's ALL start mugging people for their wallets. Sure if it's not that big a deal, then why bother with a justice system at all? Maybe one or two muggers will take it a step too far and actually murder people for a small bit of cash and an old condom, but hey, there's too many people in the world as it is!

No sympathy for the mugger, nor the drunk-driver. They both made choices, and they suffer the consequences for them. While I disagree with people being allowed possession of any fire-arms at all, had the victim of the mugger physically fought off the mugger and the same thing happened, I still would say karma's gonna get ya. We all had difficult upbringings to some degree, but you can change your life if you so wish. People who make excuses for the criminals are only enabling them.

brianthebard

prinz wrote: »

He didn't do it by robbing someone. He did that by getting himself run over by a drink driver. Rather unfortunate set of circumstances really for all involved, but he put himself in that position. The muggee was within his rights as far as I can see, all he did was wound someone who was trying to mug him.

Did not say the armed man hadn't a right to protect himself, only that the gloating and glee at the death of the mugger is disproportionate to the situation.

Odysseus wrote: »

So if you put someone in fear of their own life, which is more that likely the case if you are mugging someone, you have saying that the person has not got the right to protect themself by using lethal force? A reasonable man will kill another to protect his own life or that of a loved one, therefore is had to be considered with the realms of reasonable force.

As above. Additionally, the mugger should have gone to prison for his crimes of course, but he obviously would not have been given a death sentence for it, so why should so many here be happy that he was executed, even if it was by 'karma'? That's the ridiculous reactionary opinion that I object to.

My name is URL

Odysseus wrote: »

So if you put someone in fear of their own life, which is more that likely the case if you are mugging someone, you have saying that the person has not got the right to protect themself by using lethal force? A reasonable man will kill another to protect his own life or that of a loved one, therefore is had to be considered with the realms of reasonable force.

People do have the right to protect themselves, I don't think anyone has said otherwise

There's a difference between protecting yourself and rejoicing in the fact that somebody was killed in a case completely detached from their own life

Really all this is is an attempt to make people think that the lax gun laws in the US solve more problems than they cause, which is bullshit

Odysseus

actuallylike wrote: »

Are you serious?!?
Fair play?
Fair?!?
I think you need to learn the definition of fair.

Yeah, I understand. The muggers family going through hell because he's dead and the other family going through hell because of a few lost credit cards, a bit of money and and old johnny, thanks for clearing that up for me.

I have to agree I would say fair play too. As I noted above above I work with varying degrees of criminality and I think we should fully support people who are prepared to move on from that lifestyle choice, however, law abiding citizens should not have to live in fear of people like that. If you engage in violent criminal acts their is a good chance that you will encounter a violent end to your life.

Odysseus

brianthebard wrote: »

Did not say the armed man hadn't a right to protect himself, only that the gloating and glee at the death of the mugger is disproportionate to the situation.



As above. Additionally, the mugger should have gone to prison for his crimes of course, but he obviously would not have been given a death sentence for it, so why should so many here be happy that he was executed, even if it was by 'karma'? That's the ridiculous reactionary opinion that I object to.

I wouldn't be rejoicing the fact that the guy is dead, however, I would voice my support for the person who used his weapon to protect himself.

brianthebard

Odysseus wrote: »

I wouldn't be rejoicing the fact that the guy is dead, however, I would voice my support for the person who used his weapon to protect himself.

That's fine, I wasn't talking about your post in particular. However you must agree that the whole tone of this thread is off. For a start, the 'karma' allocated to the mugger is disproportionate to his actions; a more realistic karmic payback would be if he was mugged afterwards. And you must see that many people here have the attitude of 'good riddance to bad rubbish' without any insight or empathy for the fact that someone was senselessly killed. I don't expect people to care about every single death or what (before the anti-PC brigade get on my case) I just think its a bit much to rejoice is all.

actuallylike

Sanjuro wrote: »

Hell, let's ALL start mugging people for their wallets. Sure if it's not that big a deal, then why bother with a justice system at all?

What happened here wasn't justice. I know that it was just an accident, he fell on the road and got killed. What I'm amazed at though is the shear lack of respect for any human life that's been shown in this thread.
Not a constant poster in AH so maybe this is how it works?

actuallylike

Odysseus wrote: »

I have to agree I would say fair play too. As I noted above above I work with varying degrees of criminality and I think we should fully support people who are prepared to move on from that lifestyle choice, however, law abiding citizens should not have to live in fear of people like that. If you engage in violent criminal acts their is a good chance that you will encounter a violent end to your life.

The problem as I see it though is, if you give the population the right to defend themselves by any means neccessary, you run the risk of having anarchy! The normal Joe Soap isn't trained like policemen are so you'd have people killing each other over the simplest things, running their own form of justice as they see fit. The fact that America has one of the highest number of gun crimes only backs this up.

Odysseus

brianthebard wrote: »

That's fine, I wasn't talking about your post in particular. However you must agree that the whole tone of this thread is off. For a start, the 'karma' allocated to the mugger is disproportionate to his actions; a more realistic karmic payback would be if he was mugged afterwards. And you must see that many people here have the attitude of 'good riddance to bad rubbish' without any insight or empathy for the fact that someone was senselessly killed. I don't expect people to care about every single death or what (before the anti-PC brigade get on my case) I just think its a bit much to rejoice is all.

Fair enough I see your point Brian.

Sanjuro

Hang on a second. There isn't a lack of respect for human life. I respect human life completely and wouldn't hurt a person nor laugh at someone else's misfortune. However, I really don't give a crap about anybody who choses to mug someone else, hurt someone else or kill someone else. Someone who gets drunk and gets behind the wheel of a car forfeits whatever respect that should be given to some law-abiding citizen. The sooner the law starts punishing criminals severely and stops treating them with kiddie-gloves, the better. We've become too soft on criminals.

stevenmu

theg81der wrote: »

Ok, Ok I take your point but you understand mine. He`s a symptom of a problem, the causes needs to be tackled all we have here is probably a dead kid who never had any hope anyway, lifes not fair.

The problem is that there are people out there who think it's ok to mug someone else. Luckily in thsi case the problem was self correcting.

actuallylike wrote: »

Are you serious?!?
Fair play?
Fair?!?
I think you need to learn the definition of fair.

I think it's pretty fair to shoot someone who was mugging him. Especially when you consider that shooting him didn't kill him and he was able to run away afterwards.

I don't think it's fair to say that the guy who shot him should not have defended himself because the mugger might run away injured into the path of a drunk driver.

actuallylike

stevenmu wrote: »

I don't think it's fair to say that the guy who shot him should not have defended himself because the mugger might run away injured into the path of a drunk driver.

I take your point, only skimmed through the OP.

DrumSteve

brianthebard wrote: »

That, good sir, is bollocks. You don't give up your rights because you are stupid enough to rob someone, you certainly don't abdicate your right to life. Tbh some of the comments on this thread make reactionary christian ultra-right wing Texans look soft on crime....

actuallylike wrote: »

Are you serious?!?
Fair play?
Fair?!?
I think you need to learn the definition of fair.

whats not fair about it?

if i go to mug someone i go into it knowing the risk... this guy i'm going to rob could have a gun or a knife. I respect the right to life once you respect other peoples right to living with out some **** trying to rob them. I mean was this guy just robbing him with his fists? was he carrying a knife? a syringe? a gun? being born into to poverty really is no excuse for trying to mug someone who you think is an easy target.

by the way the guy who shot him did not even kill him it was the drunk driver that did. Karma is a bitch eh?

uncleoswald

Biggins wrote: »

Good question - the thief and the drunk driver had none. Meh!
End of story.

I don't think you can put an exclamation mark after a "meh". Kind of goes against its point...

stevenmu

actuallylike wrote: »

The problem as I see it though is, if you give the population the right to defend themselves by any means neccessary, you run the risk of having anarchy!

Actually the exact opposite is true.

It's human nature to defend yourself from harm, people are going to do it no matter what the law says. By criminalising it, you are only removing decent honest people who are willing to protect themselves and their families.

The fact that America has one of the highest number of gun crimes only backs this up.

Gun crime is very different to people using guns for self defence. If anything, the high rate of gun crime points to the need for guns for self defence. Or do you think that only criminals should have them?

Odysseus

actuallylike wrote: »

The problem as I see it though is, if you give the population the right to defend themselves by any means neccessary, you run the risk of having anarchy! The normal Joe Soap isn't trained like policemen are so you'd have people killing each other over the simplest things, running their own form of justice as they see fit. The fact that America has one of the highest number of gun crimes only backs this up.

Well just from my viewpoint, just as I believe in a person right to use lethal force if their is no other option, I also believe that it is everybody's responsiblity to be able to defend themselves. Additionally they should also spend some thinking able their capablities to carry out the act, but more importantly their capabilities to live with themselves after it.

Once again therapeutically I have worked with people who have taken a persons life, from both sides of the fence. By this I mean the criminal, as well working with people who have had to take a life as part of their job, i.e. soliders. In my experience most people are deeply affected by taking such action at some level, so it not something to be taken lightly either.

caseyann

Although it may be sad for a life to end.No one knows how many others he mugged how many other things he did in life to people. And although the other idiot was driving the car underage and drunk,Under age is what 16 and under there.What a thing to live with killing another person:(

Friend of mine recently had a intruder who attempted to get into their house.They however got scared off but they believe he will try again.So they went to the Garda and reported it.The garda on duty told him he could use any means necessary if the intruder returns.