74-Year-Old Man Kills Would Be Robber

Now there's a movie waiting to be made...

Creepy.

You can say that again. CT! wink

Even thought it's really fucked up, you gotta hand it to the guy- he doesn't take any shit.

Notice it doesn't say what those kids were armed with though....

That was my point as well from my non-commentary quotes above. Anybody who's just browsing through the article would imagine a much older would-be robber carrying some serious armaments. That's why CT would say "Awesome" without realizing that they're kids.

It's too bad the guy died, but they were all aged 17 to 19, old enough to know better. Only in America are people that age considered 'kids'. It doesn't even particularly matter what they were armed with. Guns, knives, baseball bats- in the wrong hands they're all dangerous. They threatened his employee and were a potential threat to him. Good for him for not taking any shit.

I'm not defending the would-be robbers, it's just the way the young adults ("kids") were portrayed as just a faceless evil. What if they were stealing a medication for their ailing kid brother? My point? This article had no backstory on them (of course we do learn that the reporter wasn't able to get comments from the criminals and their family) but it still painted a very one-sided tale to the whole incident. And the man is portrayed as a rightful hero to kill another human being.

I highly doubt they needed the money for any righteous purpose. Most of the time it's drugs. You know, the recreational sort.

Life is incredibly precious. I'll agree to that. But when one threatens another's life, he gives up his own right to live. And by that I don't mean that armed robbers should be given the death penalty or anything as silly as that.

The article states that the owner made his way to the front of the store and confronted the suspects. This put himself in danger, but he had every right to defend his store and employee. If they then threatened him he was justified in defending himself. Whether or not he meant to kill the one guy may never be known, but, from what the article states, it's not as if he wounded them an then put a bullet in each of their heads for good measure. Most likely, the idea was to disable would-be attackers. Good for him.

It's sad that a person died, but better the robber than one of the people in the store. He made his bed, and he'll be lying in it until he rots.

It is awesome in the sense this guy didn't take crap and he gave them exactly what they chose to face.


"Exactly what they chose to face?"

Were the youths even armed? The oldest one was what, 19? Hardly what would consider a hardened criminal. Did the owner even give the shotgun a chance to scare the kids into leaving or did he just go in firing?

This is precisely what is wrong with most Americans. You view it to be perfectly acceptable to kill first, ask questions later, over the stupidest things. So some kids robbed your store...is that a death penalty? No where in the article did it say the kids were threatening lives, just robbing. I hope they arrest the old man.

<a href="http://us.imdb.com/Title?0109578" target="_blank">http://us.imdb.com/Title?0109578</a>

Sounded like something out of Robocop.

I applaud this elderly gentleman, taking a stand.

Killing people is cool.

Does taking a stand mean killing someone? And the youths were armed, but how and what were they doing with those arms? Did they drop the arms when the old man came out with the shotgun? I am not supporting crime, but this is insane to applaud a guy for killing off a kid and wounding another. Without seeing the actual surveilence tape, it is impossible to know whether or not the employee was in any real danger, at least enough danger to warrant lethal force.

As far as punishment being a deterent, you have the death penalty in Texas (which is the most extreme punishment there is), yet there are still many murders in that state. The threat of punishment will never be a deterent.

it's weird how I can justify and agree with a cop blowing the shit out of a dog...and the next day feel that Ludwig's on the right track on his thoughts about the slaying of a robber.

That the act was too extreme given the circumstances...again, we'd need to see the security footage to fully know what happened...but why couldn't the old man just say hold it there buddy, put that weapon down while we wait for the police...even do his pathetic own Clint Eastwood impression while doing so.

It's quickly becoming obvious that America is a nation of fear. And we all know from Yoda where fear leads to...People have fear while driving on the freeways, at work (from potential pissed off former or existing co-workers), at school, and at home. This nation is self-destructing as we speak as more and more people, out of fear, turn to extreme measures to protect themselves from other people who have similar fears of their own. Maybe america does need government issued Prozium after all.

Damn, thinking about all of this craziness makes me want to relocate back to canada.

My comments are based on people's observations on such an incident.

I'll put it this way. I will recount this news to you:

----------
A 105 year old woman shot a well-armed would-be assassin in her store.
----------

Then the reaction would be: "Wow! Hooray! Good for her and good for the killer!

Then I tell you the whole story:

----------
The would-be assassin is a 5 year old kid with a toy gun and the old woman has very poor vision and she wasn't wearing her glasses.
----------

I've used an extreme example to prove one thing: People are quick to "congratulate" a person's right to kill another human being. Furthermore, there's this mentality:

Do you honestly think that I would prefer the 74 year old man harmed RATHER than the would-be robbers? Did you come to that conclusion because I was commenting on how people would "happily react" to his shooting a 17 year old?

Here's the thing, if I was that 74 year old man and I carried a shotgun and my store was threatened, I would probably have used it. Or not. The fact is, there are many hypothetical circumstances we can throw about, but that's only interesting in discussion.

But on this particular news article -- and just this one, and not other similar crimes -- the 74 year old man specifically stated:

"No need to let something like that live," said Adams, who had been wounded in a May 2000 robbery attempt in which he killed another intruder

Don't you even wonder if this man would be an actual threat in the future? What if an 8 year old boy stole a candy and starts to run away and the old man begins to see red and eyes his shotgun?

And I agree with Ludwig: Taking a stand doesn't mean killing someone. Again, this is based on people's ease in defending the 74 year old man's RIGHT to kill another human being. It's like you guys don't even consider that there are options for the old man to defend his store. Maybe fire a warning shot, shoot the boy on the leg -- and for pity's sakes, this confuses me:

We have a visual picture of a weak old man with weak knees but he seemed capable of holding a shotgun with two hands rather than a .38 that would normally require one hand. And if you're going to get technical about it, you're better off with a .38 as it's easier to handle and can hold more bullets than a shotgun.

But here's the question: do you agree with him when he said:

No need to let something like that live.

From my perspective, people who commend him completely agree with his statement (and again, I'm discussing solely based on this article and incident only).

CT, you missed my whole point. I was only commenting that people tend to just completely side with that man without showing any form of sympathy for the 17 year old. The old man had no remorse, and apparently you too as well with your:

- he got what he deserved
- you pull a gun out, expect another gun pulled out (a perfect argument to ban guns!)
- his family doesn't need him anymore (huh?)
- the old man has decided not to live in a state of fear

You have said nothing that remotely resembled any type of compassion for the criminal. That is all I'm commenting on. Apparently this criminal has paid dearly for his "choice," and I guess I was hoping people wouldn't be too quick to harshly judge him. He's already dead, what else do you want?

CT, you call yourself a Christian, right? How can you support anyone killing anyone?

This nation has gotten out of hand and while many of you will point to the 74 year old with a shotgun as proof of this I point to the dead 17 year old who decided that his family didn't need him anymore. You pull a gun well you better realize someone is a lot likely to pull a gun on you. Let's just say he got what he deserved.


It never mentions in the article how the youths were armed or what they were doing with those arms, nor does it mention if the youths were actively going to harm anyone or were even really threatening the people involved. All it says is that they were robbing the place. This whole "well he took his life in his hands when he made that choice" bullshit is just that, bullshit. For all you know, the youths could have froze when the man brought out the shotgun and he opened fire because he wanted to, not because he needed to. And so what if the police didn't press charges? Cops aren't the barometer of morality, and if a crime can be written off as justifiable, why would they make any effort to investigate the store owner. After all "those kids were just asking for it", right? ANY time a life is taken you MUST guard against being flippant or self-righteous, or you are a bigger contributor to the climate of fear than the old man or the kids.

A criminal doesn't deserve it when taking such actions as threatening to kill someone. It is a simple matter of what is right and what is wrong. The criminal choose severly wrong.


What the fuck are you basing this on man? Quit pulling shit out of your ass...nowhere in the article does it say that the youths were threatening to kill anyone at the store! You keep on making assumptions about what happened there, but without more real information about the situation how can you? And enough with the whole "Well if you choose a life of crime you deserve whatever happens to you" crap! The youths in question, do you KNOW why they tried to rob the store? Well, gee, no you don't...

CT, if Jesus owned a 7th-Hell-Heaven Quickie Mart and was threatened by a would-be robber, would he shoot Kamehameha fireballs from his palms -- even though it was a Palm Sunday?

CTDelude- listen here. I agree with you completely that they got what they deserved, but on the other hand- how can you not feel anything for that kid? (and yes, 17 is still just a kid, jennifer.) Maybe he was just on the wrong track...have you never been in that situation before? I can admit I hung around with the wrong crowd at one time, but thankfully quickly got out of it. If someone had shot me doing some stupid shit like this, would I have deserved it? That's not your call, and I can understand what voltes is saying here. If the old man had shot them after being held up at gunpoint that'd be self-defense, and he would be completely in the right for that, because he killed some piece of shit that would threaten another person's life. You can't know what went on in that store, or anyone's real motivations, and because of that you can't really take sides, no matter which way the paper swings it.

Just my 2 cents...

Connigit, youse a good man, ya f@%*#n' mook!

(CT too, but not on Wednesdays.)

From the Georgia state statutes:

Statute on Deadly Force.

Armed Robbery is a forcible felony as stated here:

In other words, they got what they deserved.

a person
is justified in using force which is intended or likely to cause
death or great bodily harm only if he or she reasonably believes
that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily injury
to himself or herself or a third person or to prevent the commission
of a forcible felony.


Kid, please show me in the article above where the kids were about to kill the guy's employee. Just because the law backs this guy up a bit doesn't mean what he did wasn't bad. Again, without more information on the robbery itself this is all just assumption. The scary thing is that you all ar ready and willing to jump on the "kids got what they deserve" bandwagon without really knowing any specific details of this situation. CT goes from "bravo the old guy stuck up for himself" to "kids were getting what they deserve" to "kids were threatening lives!" without knowing any facts of the case. Kid, you are now trying to use the law to back up the old man's actions without knowing what the kids actually did. Look at the article again. Specifically, look at the quote they pulled from the old man. What kind of person says that a kid deserves to die? What kind of person gives themselves that right, to kill with impunity ? If it comes out that yes, the kids were armed to the teeth and about to open fire on the store, then yes, the shotgun blast would be justified. But again, IF YOU READ THE ARTICLE, don't you find it odd that the kids, if they were in fact packing heat, didn't fire a single shot in retaliation? Perhaps they didn't even have a single gun between them?

Perhaps people here like CT and you are rushing to conclusions without sufficient evidence to back up those conclusions?

All life is sacred, and until I find evidence that the kids were in fact going to kill anyone during this robbery, I will not hail the old man as anything more but a cold-blooded killer.

The statutes don't say the suspects have to be in the act. As long as he {shotgun-man} believed his co-worker/third-party was in grave danger, he is justified. Lawfully, he is protected. Whether or not you believe he is right, is another story altogether.

I have serious doubts that anyone in the same situation would react a lot differently.

It's a sad state that America is in, but if a person (or group of people!) is threatening you with weapons you have to assume they intend to kill you, because a lot of the time that is what happens. My mother's friend's son (I think that's a close enough acquaintance- she knew the kid) was working at Burger King when it got held up. The kid co-operated, handing over all the money, and then the robber shot and killed him. And that kind of thing happens all the time. It hardly even makes the news anymore because it's so damn common.

So we don't know for certain that the robbers didn't throw down their weapons, but maybe they thought the 3 of them could take an old guy. I don't agree with his statement "No need to let something like that live" based on what I know of the case so far. But that doesn't necessarily mean his action was wrong.

Unless and until we know exactly how things happened (did he intend, and was it necessary, to kill the guy? etc) we're all going to have different opinions on this because we are all putting the pieces together a bit differently.

And I'm sorry if I'm totally misinterpreting, but some of the statements people have made in here sound as if we should just let people threaten our lives and take our property and pray to God they don't kill us.

My mother's friend's son (I think that's a close enough acquaintance- she knew the kid) was working at Burger King when it got held up. The kid co-operated, handing over all the money, and then the robber shot and killed him. And that kind of thing happens all the time. It hardly even makes the news anymore because it's so damn common.


That is dangerous. When you start to believe your life is at risk all of the time you will be living as a slave to the fear culture. Tell me Jen, have you ever been the victim of a crime?

Unless and until we know exactly how things happened (did he intend, and was it necessary, to kill the guy? etc) we're all going to have different opinions on this because we are all putting the pieces together a bit differently.

The point is people shouldn't be forming an opinion without all of the facts. Like I said above, if the kid came in packing and were directly threatening the life of the store employee, then the old man was justified in using force to defend the employee. But we aren't given that information. Therefore, it is impossible to judge this situation 100% either way.

And I'm sorry if I'm totally misinterpreting, but some of the statements people have made in here sound as if we should just let people threaten our lives and take our property and pray to God they don't kill us.

We don't know that the employee or store owner's lives were EVER in danger! The fact that you and others are able to jump to this conclusion makes me afraid for you, because if you are armed near a potential crime situation someone will die by your hands from your fear.

As far as the whole property thing goes, if someone wants to take my stuff I won't stop them, because it's just stuff. You can't bring any of it with you when we die, and we are here such a short time, who cares about it? I certainly wouldn't kill someone who took anything from me. If someone was threatening my life or anyone's life around me, I would act, becuase I value life. If someone breaks into my house and steals my porn collection, who gives a shit, really? It's just stuff. The sad thing in this case is it's someone at the end of his life robbing someone who may have been able to have been turned around (and contribute) of their life.

I have been scouring the internet for more details of this case just so I can see the facts but I haven't found anything yet. Anyone else been able to find out more about this case?

When your property is worth more than someone else's life you've sort of lost the whole thread of civilization.

Anone here talking abut how the robbers weren't necessarily threatening anyone's life...what do you imagine they were robbing a store with? Breadsticks?

And it doesn't mean a damn thing in why they were trying to rob the store. You're trying to make assumptions yourself for these youths so don't bother. If you kill in cold blood someone am I supposed to seek compassion for you? Am I supposed to find a way to justify your actions?

No. And this is what is wrong with the world today. A failing concept of right and wrong. I am tired of people trying to defend what shouldn't be defended while leaving those who were justified in their actions as some kinda bad guy. Doesn't fly with me.

The guy protected his life and others and was thus justified in taking the life of those who threatened those lives. Simple as that.


Again, HOW DO YOU KNOW ANYONE'S LIFE WAS THREATENED? Breadstick? No, more than likely not. Baseball bat? Maybe. Knife? Given the age, likely. Guns? No clue.

And again I'll ask CT, because you seem very good at dodging this: if you are a Christian, how is murder ever justifiable?

For the record, I am not trying to defend what the kids did, what I am trying to point out is that you are making assumptions and are more that eager to condemn someone on the basis of too little information.

Since they were robbing a store, I think the safe inference is that they were armed. Even if it was only knives or bats, if you have three robbers brandishing weapons at someone, their life is being threatened. It almost sounds like you specifically want to know they had guns aimed right at the cashier's head and one of them says "Now you die!"

I must admit though, the quote from the old guy is creepy as all hell.

I think that news article is maddeningly vague. For one thing, we don't know exactly what they were armed with. But here's one thing-they were armed, and there were three of them. Even if they weren't carrying guns. Anyone ever been beat up with a baseball bat? I have. Put me in the hospital for a week. If I'd had a gun, would I have shot the guys? Maybe. Maybe not. I was 14, and killing someone, even in self-defense is a lot to ask from a 14 year old.
Would I have been justified in killing them? Maybe. I didn't die(obviously), but would I have known that they wouldn't kill me, just beat the hell out of me? Am I supposed to lay there, compliantly, and take a potentially life threatening beating?
My point is, you brandish a weapon at someone, any weapon, don't be surprised if they react in an aggressive way. Getting their lives threatened tends to suck the logic out of most people. I'm not doing cartwheels that someone died, but the way you guys are practically nominating these three for sainthood astonishes me.

How does saying there isn't enough evidence in the article to suggest that the youth had to die supporting them? I do not support crime, nor do I think the kids are without blame. They were caught robbing a store for heaven's sake! Of course they were up to no good. But did that mean that one of them had to die and another had to be wounded? Like you, I find the article horribly vauge, which is why I can't understand why others aren't also finding it too vague to judge.

Yeah, if they are carrying arms, logic may indeed fly out the window, but listen to the quote pulled from the old man. This is just a thought, not really sustainable from the little bit of information we get from the article but plausible none-the-less: he sounds like the type who was just waiting for something like this to happen so he could feel powerful. He obviously has power issues to say "No need to let something like that live".

And what they are armed with, unless the kids had negative IQs, is very important. If they had knives and the old man arrives with the shotgun, wouldn't you think they would have froze? Is the crime rate so high in this town that 18 year olds are hardened criminals and thought they could fight their way out of it? NO ONE WAS HURT EXCEPT THE KIDS. Given that the owner was in a walker, he obviously didn't surprise them. So what happened, do you think? If the kids were serious about hurting the employee, he would have been wounded or killed. If the kids were defiant against the old man, who really didn't have a wayu to surprise them being in a walker and all, don't you think at least one of the kids could have injured him? Ran away? No. More than likely, they froze like deer in the headlights.

But again, the article doesn't say. I would think it would have said if the employee or owner had been hurt though.

First of all, I participated in this thread initially because of the one single comment by CT:

Awesome!

Every point I made, every scenario I've presented, every joke (Kamehameha*) I've made pointed out to that one-word reaction of Awesome!.

* <img src="http://saiyan-home.virtualave.net/GIFs/25.gif" alt="" />

I started out by listing the vagueness of the article, especially about the culprits and their actions, and the "creepy" (as piranhapictures have said) statement (No need to let something like that live) the old man had said.

Ludwig has said it as well OVER AND OVER again, and Tony said it in just one word!:

We are not claiming "sainthood" for the 3 criminals. We are just a bit (__fill in synonyms for disappointed & shocked & scared_) that people would quickly commend a man for killing another human being without being presented at least a NON-VAGUE notion of what had really happened.

Yes. At least we know a NON-VAGUE notion of what has happened. In a way, CT saying, Awesome!, wouldn't probably bug me the way it had bugged me here. Because at least I have some factual and hard evidence as to what they are doing. (But it doesn't imply that I would be compelled to say Awesome!, nevertheless.)

Am I implying that they're harmless if they said the same thing using their "fists" as weapons? Of course not. The point is, there's a bit MORE FACT for us to say and feel things like, AWESOME!

I hope I've cleared that up. No one is arguing about the socio-psychology makeup of 17 year old criminals and weak-kneed vigilantes.

It's like that episode in Twilight Zone: "The Monster Are Due On Maple Street" (everybody started to suspect everyone as a potential alien without any factual evidence). People are just too quick to judge someone as a HARDENED CRIMINAL without EVEN having full concrete facts in front of them. This is like an online version of that Maple Street.

Make sure that Monster doesn't grow too big.

&lt;cue Twilight-Zone end credits theme song&gt;

I just wanted to add in my two cents, because as far as I can tell, no one touched upon a major part of the article (in my opinion):

He had been robbed before, and wounded in that robbery.

Think about this, vague descriptions notwithstanding: if someone had held up your store and managed to wound you (one way or another), wouldn't your tolerance for such people go down considerably? I know I'd be fucking PISSED OFF if someone else came into my fucking store armed and looking to rob the place. As far as I can tell, he gave them a chance (I think...I'm studying journalism, and yes this article is horribly skewed to one opinion and very vague), before firing.

I think the man was justified. I know for damn sure that if somebody broke into my house and was armed and meaning to take my shit, I would shoot them after a brief negotiation phase.

But again, nobody knows because the person who wrote this article is very opinionated to the view that the old guy is a hero, and they don't provide enough facts to fill in the huge gaps in the story. I hope somebody tracks down a clarified story before this argument gets any uglier.

I stand by what I said though. The kid got what he was asking for. Simple as that to me. By awesome is for the man defending him and his own, simple as that.


CT, do you often form such stong opinions on what technically amounts to here-say?

And you made me laugh with your religious justification. I will have to remember to look up the "Thou shalt not kill, except for when..." commandment or the part where Jesus says "Turn the other cheek...except when someone is robbing your store, then fucking waste his lily-white ass!" in my King James when I get home.

*BLAM BLAM BLAM*

"Drop your gun!"