CHUD.com Community › Forums › CULTURE, HUMOR, & FREE FORM › Misc. Culture › 74-Year-Old Man Kills Would Be Robber
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

74-Year-Old Man Kills Would Be Robber - Page 2

post #51 of 93
Actually, I've heard(now, this may be complete horseshit)that "Thou shalt not kill" has been mistranslated. It's actually supposed to read "Thou shalt not murder". Either way, listen, being a good Christian or whatever doesn't mean letting yourself get killed, man. If, God forbid, I find myself in a self defense situation where I have to kill someone, then he's going down and I'm taking my chances in Heaven. I'm pretty sure God makes allowances for self preservation.
post #52 of 93
Exodus 20:13
King James version: "Thou shalt not kill."
New American Standard: "You shall not murder."
NIV: "You shall not murder."
post #53 of 93
Quote:
Alvy Singer:
Killing people is cool.
yes, kill them all, let God sort them out.
post #54 of 93
updated...

***********************************

Storekeeper, 74, hailed as hero Man who killed robber won't face charges
BYLINE: BILL MONTGOMERY, SAEED AHMED, STAFF
DATE: 01-11-2003
PUBLICATION: The Atlanta Journal and Constitution
EDITION: Home
SECTION: News
PAGE: A.1

Two-and-a-half years ago, J.C. Adams made an ominous prediction after killing an armed robber in his convenience store with a shotgun blast.

"There's always some fool who's going to come back," the 74-year- old Adams said.

Late Thursday night, Adams, leaning on a walker, shuffled from the back office of his DeKalb County store with his 12-gauge shotgun and killed another gunman. A second robbery suspect was wounded, and Adams held a third suspect outside until police arrived.

By Friday morning, Adams, the owner of the Pac A Sac store at 2615 Lawrenceville Highway for 26 years, was being hailed as sort of a John Wayne in a walker. One customer delivered a box of Winchester shotgun shells with a note: "Thank you Mr. Adams --- You are a hero."

Said customer Tom Apsey, who works nearby: "I'm glad he got 'em."

Adams, who said he has been robbed 12 times during his 26 years at the store and burglarized three times in the past three months, will not face criminal charges, police said.

The store owner has no regrets about the slaying.

"If that's the way they want to live, they have to take their chances," said Adams, who was back at the store early Friday. "All I want to do is run my little store and serve my customers. If you leave me alone, you'll be OK."

His advice for anyone else considering robbing his store: "Go to work and make your own money. Quit trying to take mine."

Adams was in a tiny rear office about 10:45 p.m. Thursday when he looked up at a security monitor to see an armed, masked gunman jump the counter, force the clerk to the floor and stuff cash from the register into a bag.

Adams grabbed his shotgun with one hand, his walker with the other and headed for the front. He said the bandits spotted him as he approached the potato chip display and they started to run.

According to the police report: "The subjects bunched up at the door, one of them then turned toward the inside of the store."

Adams fired a single blast.

"I don't think he was going to take a shot at me, but I don't know," he said. "But if you hesitate, you're dead."

Police identified the slain man as Cameron Lemont Glover, 17, of Clarkston. His brother, Leonard Glover, 19, also of Clarkston, was wounded and hospitalized in stable condition. The woman was identified as Tammy Crystal Jones, 17, also of Clarkston.

DeKalb police Sgt. T.E. Stewart said Adams would not be charged. He did not need a gun license because the business is considered an extension of the home. "You've got a right to defend your property," Stewart said. "He's crippled, he's obviously on a walker, you know, he's in fear of his life."

Adams' cool-headedness may stem from a May 30, 2000, robbery when Leroy Holt, 32, of Decatur shot Adams through the buttocks before Holt was killed by a blast to the chest.

Holt, who had served a three-year prison stretch for armed robbery, was on probation for a drug conviction.

In that robbery, Holt and an accomplice forced the clerk to the floor at gunpoint. Adams watched the crime on the security monitor in the back room, then came out. He was using a cane at the time.

Because Adams runs his own store, the Pac A Sac is more likely to be a target than stores run by large companies, according to a study by a San Diego State University professor.

Sociologist Rosemary Erickson surveyed nearly 1,000 armed robbers in prison and learned they target the mom and pop stores because they typically have more money in the cash register than the chain stores.

At the same time, she found that robbers expect the single-store owners to be armed.

Many national store chains prohibit employees from having weapons and advise them against resisting robbery attempts. Margaret Chabris, public relations director for Dallas-based 7-Eleven, said research over many years "points to a nonresistance policy as the best policy to protect people's lives and their safety."

Gary Kleck, a Florida State University criminology professor, says national surveys show that people who use guns for self- defense in a robbery are less likely to be injured. His research has not looked specifically at store robberies, but he said a store may be "a more victim-friendly environment" because the storekeeper is more familiar with the surroundings.

Rob Wilcox, spokesman for the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence in Washington, said statistics on the use of guns to defend stores are vague. He said the center supports the safe use of firearms for self-defense but argued the presence of a gun increases the risk of injury.

After Thursday's shooting, Adams called his wife, Mary. "I'm OK; I didn't get hurt," he told her. "I got him."

Mary Adams said she collapsed in a chair.

"He's not cavalier about [the slain robbers] or their lives," said Adams' wife of more than 45 years. "He just hates it that they put him in this position where he has to defend himself, the people who work for him, and his business from people with guns who threaten their lives and what he's worked so hard for."

She said her husband strives to open the grocery store every day, including Christmas and New Year's.

Except for two years in the Army during the Korean War, Adams has never worked at anything else.

"I've been in the grocery store business for more than 40 years," he said.

Asked if he had any thought of retiring, he said: "I'm going to retire when I get old enough." And how old is that? "I'm in it for life."

Staff writers Bill Torpy and David Simpson contributed to this article.
post #55 of 93
Well....that's more like it.
post #56 of 93
yes, thanks for that. good to see a more detailed account.

it sounds like he had enough reason to fear for his own safety. yes, they ran, but the guy was holding a gun and turning back towards the store. the store owner had no way to know he wouldn't be shot.
post #57 of 93
Thread Starter 
Again, good for him.

Awesome even. One less headline with a possible murder of a store clerk.

And 'd like to ask those that would like to point out one line or another from the Bible to look a little deeper next time. Too often people forget context when quoting one line or another from the Bible.
post #58 of 93
Quote:
Connigit Will Be Heard:
and yes, 17 is still just a kid, jennifer.
I'd just like to point out that if he had killed somebody with that gun he was waving around, he would almost definitely have been tried as an adult.
post #59 of 93
According to the police report: "The subjects bunched up at the door, one of them then turned toward the inside of the store."

Adams fired a single blast.

"I don't think he was going to take a shot at me, but I don't know," he said. "But if you hesitate, you're dead."

Police identified the slain man as Cameron Lemont Glover, 17, of Clarkston. His brother, Leonard Glover, 19, also of Clarkston, was wounded and hospitalized in stable condition. The woman was identified as Tammy Crystal Jones, 17, also of Clarkston.


When the kid turned around, was he holding a gun and/or pointing it at the store owner? I guess we will never know. [sarcasm]But hey, good for him for firing into a group of people with an area-effect weapon![/sarcasm]

The fact that one or several of the kids were aremd does change the initial artcile very much, I will have to admit, but the circumstances leading to the one kid's death are still a bit suspicious. Even the old man said he didn't know if the kid was going to open fire...would it have killed him to aim for the legs or the floor to further scare the kid off? I guess because of the previous shit that happened to the old man, and I mean this sincerely, it was too much to ask. There are only so many times your life can be threatened before you get conditioned to act a certain way.

That first article was shoddy journalism at it's best, but it didn't stop some of you from forming a very negative opinion about the kids, despite not having any real facts. Even this newer article is a bit vague. Was the kid who turned the armed one or was he armed? The fact that we have confirmation on firearms though does change things, but I will not feel 100% comfortable with the old man's response until I know.

And Delude, I am still waiting for the bibical justification for self-preservation or not turning the other cheek under certain circumstances. If you feel compelled to start a new thread in the religion forum, I encourage this and will engage you there.
post #60 of 93
Thread Starter 
Not to avoid you but it might be a couple days before I dive into that because, to be honest, I have dived into so many different arguments over the past few days I am almost totally worn out (perhaps a sign of re-thinking my method of argument?).

But since I don't exactly know specific references off hand I figure it is high time for a refresher course on such a topic. That's one thing I learne from all this. wink
post #61 of 93
I don't jump in here much, but here are some thoughts:

If the clerk HAD just shot off the kid's legs instead of killing him, who would have had the last laugh? I'm not sure how it is in Georgia, but here in Utah, you have 2 choices: shoot to kill, or don't shoot at all. If you maim, you didn't need to use deadly force, and thus, you can be sued for everything you have.
I know what I would have done. If the kid turned around as though he were going to pop me, there would be no hesitation.
The kid got what he deserved. He knew the risks, and he was willing to take them. If you don't want to run into somebody with a shotgun, don't rob a store.

As far as What Would Jesus Do, allow me to quote from the book of Revelation (KJV) Chapter 16:

2 And the first went, and poured out his vial upon the earth; and there fell a anoisome and grievous sore upon the men which had the mark of the beast, and upon them which worshipped his image.
3 And the second angel poured out his vial upon the sea; and it became as the blood of a dead man: and every living soul died in the sea.
4 And the third angel poured out his vial upon the rivers and fountains of waters; and they became blood.
5 And I heard the angel of the waters say, Thou art righteous, O Lord, which art, and wast, and shalt be, because thou hast judged thus.
6 For they have shed the blood of saints and prophets, and thou hast given them blood to drink; for they are cworthy.
7 And I heard another out of the altar say, Even so, Lord God Almighty, true and righteous are thy judgments.
8 And the fourth angel poured out his vial upon the sun; and power was given unto him to scorch men with fire.
9 And men were scorched with great heat, and blasphemed the name of God, which hath power over these plagues: and they repented not to give him glory.
10 And the fifth angel poured out his vial upon the seat of the beast; and his kingdom was full of darkness; and they gnawed their tongues for pain,
11 And blasphemed the God of heaven because of their pains and their sores, and repented not of their deeds.
post #62 of 93
Did Frodo stab Gollum when he attempted to rob the One Ring ("would-be robber") and bite and choke to death Sam ("would-be cannibal & killer") in The Two Towers?
post #63 of 93
He should have, because Gollum is ugly. Aragorn would have cut his head off.

As for shooting to kill vs shooting to wound...the way I look at it is, don't point a gun at anyone unless you're willing to kill them. I think Ludwig is trying very hard to come up with a way to blame the old guy for killing the robber, but in the heat of the moment, when everyone is pointing guns around, one quick move is all it takes for someone to get shot, regardless of the intent. Do I feel sorry for the armed robber? Not really.

From the first article, I had guessed that at least one of the robbers was armed, most likely with a gun, because even if they were armed with knives, I think the old guy would have been brought up on some kind of charges. Maybe not though. I guess it depends on the circumstances.
post #64 of 93
I'm probably going to make an idiot of myself,

One fact that is not a mistake is that one of those involved in the robbery was ARMED with a deadly weapon.

Two, was that he was seen on the monitor by the man in question using that weapon to force someone to do something against thier will.

And three, was when he came to the front to confront them, they made an escape and in that matter of a few moments, became turned around and faced the elder man armed with a gun TO DEFEND himself from a possible attack.

As a police officer, it is often the case when a gun is pointed at you, you are given the explicit right to fire to prevent your death. It is a simple case of self defense and in situations when a gun is pointed at you in such a case, you are more than allowed to defend yourself against a situation.

I just have this huge thing about self defense against someone with a gun, that's all.

A GUN. A DEADLY WEAPON. SOMETHING THAT CAN AND WILL KILL YOU. The person who is waving this thing at you gave up any chance of life when he/she took the gun in the hand and decided to threaten you and possibly shoot you.

I'm not making any sense. I just get riled about this stuff.
post #65 of 93
I think Ludwig is trying very hard to come up with a way to blame the old guy for killing the robber

Nice to see people actually know how to read around here...maybe go back and read what I wrote again.
post #66 of 93
Mike mentioned something about aiming at the legs, or the floor?? That's bullshit. If you're going to fire a gun at someone, aim center-mass. In other words, shoot to kill. It also doesn't matter that if the guy was pointing the gun AT the old man or not, it takes less that half a second to actually aim a weapon and fire from nearly any position, so you fire when you have the chance. I only blame the old guy for not taking the standard three shot burst to make sure the kid's actually down.

Even if the kids had knives, standard police procedure is to shoot if the suspect is within 15 feet of the officer...and that's with a KNIFE. It's all to easy to get killed when a criminal has a weapon, that's why the self-defense laws were drawn the way they are.

Good for the old man. He should have shot two more times.
post #67 of 93
Quote:
Mike Arsenault (Ludwig):
I think Ludwig is trying very hard to come up with a way to blame the old guy for killing the robber

Nice to see people actually know how to read around here...maybe go back and read what I wrote again.
I read what you had to say. In your last post, you said the circumstances are suspicious, and why didn't he shoot for the legs? Before, you were berating people for making judgement calls based on the vagueness of the article, yet were calling for the old man to be arrested. You've been more or less defending the robbers throughout the thread. Not for robbing of course, but for being killed. You still don't seem to think the old man was justified.
post #68 of 93
Whether the old man was justified in his shooting a would-be robber is not the whole issue.

The whole issue is about people's immediate reaction to commend the old man WITHOUT having complete facts. Y'all (plural?) are too quick to judge that he is a hero.

And that term as well, "hero." Apparently Heroes only kill, not attempt to injure or negotiate with criminals. At least, based on people saying that shooting the robber on the leg is "ridiculous."

[MAINPOINT-MAINPOINT-MAINPOINT]
Again, the whole point here is that people are too quick to commend a person killing someone -- whether it be because of defense or not -- even though they've read a VERY VAGUE ONE-SIDED NEWS ARTICLE.
[/MAINPOINT-MAINPOINT-MAINPOINT]

Despite that point being repeatedly explained, I still see people saying things like the "robber got what he deserved." Let sleeping corpses lie.
post #69 of 93
I guess it's the "glee" that I'm sensing from the robber's death. I guess I would like to see some type of compassion for his death. Yes, he deserved it, but why extrapolate the facts that he came from a broken home, and other issues that made him a "bad man"?

Perhaps, I'm looking for, "The boy got what he deserved and I'm sorry that he paid dearly for his wrong choice."
post #70 of 93
I'd agree that that I found it out of sorts to say something like "awesome" to go along with the article.

And people are saying that it's pretty dumb to shoot an armed robber in the leg is ridiculous not because that's a heroic thing to do, but if you shoot a guy in the leg and leave him alive, he might very well shoot you in the head with the gun he's holding.
post #71 of 93
Quote:
piranhapictures:
And people are saying that it's pretty dumb to shoot an armed robber in the leg is ridiculous not because that's a heroic thing to do, but if you shoot a guy in the leg and leave him alive, he might very well shoot you in the head with the gun he's holding.
If movies have taught me one thing, shooting a bad guy in the leg makes them cry like a girl (unless "he" is a girl, so that's redundant) and then he'll beg for forgiveness. If you turned around then they will try to shoot you. So, with that logic, do not turn around!
post #72 of 93
Voltes, I understand what you're saying.

And I'm gonna take a stand here...I think.

When someone uses a gun (pulling it on someone and using it to rob, harass, molest or possibly do more harm, etc) you as a victim have NO CLEAR IDEA what they intend to do with you.

When you take a gun and rob a store, you have forfit mercy. It sounds cruel (and I admite it does), but the entire point is that if you have a gun and use it against someone in the wrong way, you are responsible for what happens to you because of your actions.

This kid took his life in his hands by robbing this store with a gun (or a knife, or a large object that can and will be used for immediate harm).

Now, as to your statement about us reacting to the story of congratulating the older man for killing, that's a deeper issue. It's something of a human condition. We root for the good guys. When someone commits an illegal and obviously wrong act, we want them to pay for thier actions and not get away, make excuses or otherwise make a clean getaway. We want justice served.

And in some cases, this is how justice is dealt. I don't think it should be something we do everyday (kill the robber, become a hero!), but it's very normal to see something like this and give the man a pat on the back. He defended his life and others against predators.

Now, whether or not those predators were armed is the center of the issue. And you can get on me all you want with what I say next, because it is all circumstancial.

In the original story, it never really cleared up the fact of who was armed. But because the story did not say the man was under further review or further charges or anything like that, one can point to that and say, "Well, something must of gone on that activated the need to shot these robbing thieves."

And that's about all I have to stand on. Admittly, it's not much. But I cannot bring myself to say, "Well, he shouldn't have shot them." I cannot say that. Because no matter what weapon, stated or not, this man had a right to defend himself and those within his store.

I hope I made sense.
post #73 of 93
Quote:
voltes5
If movies have taught me one thing, shooting a bad guy in the leg makes them cry like a girl (unless "he" is a girl, so that's redundant) and then he'll beg for forgiveness. If you turned around then they will try to shoot you. So, with that logic, do not turn around! [/QB][/QUOTE]

voltes, you'll be okay as long as he's standing next to either a large cliff with spikes at the bottom or a gas tank, because when you hear him cock his gun you know you have eight seconds as he laughs and says something witty at you. Then you either knock him off the cliff and impale him, or kick him into the gas tank and he'll explode.
post #74 of 93
Yes, Seahawk, I completely understand your stance and I thank you.

If anything, I'm riling on CT. CT just refuses to feel 0.00000000000001% compassion for the armed robber and I'm just astounded by that because I personally think that Jesus would NOT think it's Awesome! that the robber has died.

Didn't Jesus die on the cross with 2 criminals? One mocked him while the other said this:

----------
41 We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve. But this man has done nothing wrong."
42 Then he said, "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom."
43 Jesus answered him, "I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise."
----------

The criminal goes to heaven, yet he's a bad guy. How does that work? Could it be because of "compassion"?
post #75 of 93
Quote:
piranhapictures:
voltes, you'll be okay as long as he's standing next to either a large cliff with spikes at the bottom or a gas tank, because when you hear him cock his gun you know you have eight seconds as he laughs and says something witty at you. Then you either knock him off the cliff and impale him, or kick him into the gas tank and he'll explode.
Okay, now that's freaking funny!
post #76 of 93
Quote:
voltes5:
Yes, Seahawk, I completely understand your stance and I thank you.

If anything, I'm riling on CT. CT just refuses to feel 0.00000000000001% compassion for the armed robber and I'm just astounded by that because I personally think that Jesus would NOT think it's Awesome! that the robber has died.

Didn't Jesus die on the cross with 2 criminals? One mocked him while the other said this:

----------
41 We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve. But this man has done nothing wrong."
42 Then he said, "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom."
43 Jesus answered him, "I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise."
----------

The criminal goes to heaven, yet he's a bad guy. How does that work? Could it be because of "compassion"?
Because one criminal realized how horrible he was and who Jesus was, while the other one disbelieved and refused to turn his heart toward Jesus.

And Jesus would be sad for the life lost and the choices the young man had made, but the young man made the choices he did by having a gun/weapon and threatening someone. Jesus (and God) would accept the Justice that had occured. You could trace it all back to Adam and Eve and thier mistake of eating the forbidden fruit. They were told not to, just as this young man knew the rules of the game. But they made the choice to do so.

You could also get into the debate of choice vs environment and how that affects our future's and how we grow up to be and what we're predisposed to do from what we've grown up doing and living.

But when you take a gun into a store and threaten, you've given up the right to live by threatening another.

Did I clear that up? It's late and I may have missed something.
post #77 of 93
Jesus fucking Christ...when did this turn into a religious thing?

Anyways....knowing the info we do from the second article, I think it's safe to say that most of us would have done the same thing in that situation. I know I would have bucked him. But I would be feeling like shit afterwards, and not spouting some bull like "No need to let something like that live" while being paraded around by admirers. That completely puts him in the right...and his use of "that" is just disturbing. Seems like he's incapable of admitting that he just ended someone's LIFE.

That's where I agree with Voltes I guess.

CTDelude....think of it this way. If you had been friends with that kid a while ago, and he went on a different path, started doing bad shit, and you found out later he got shot trying to rob someone....what would you feel?

And don't tell me nothing. Please don't.
post #78 of 93
Thread Starter 
I would shake my head. Simple as that.

Literally, "Oh well."

You gotta understand something about me, I am all about letting people make their own choices. But I am all for them taking that responsibility. It is not mine. It is no one else's. It's that person who made that choice responsbility.

I am a compassionate man. You can ask any of those around me if I am or not and they will tell you I am. But there is a point where my compassion will not be wasted on the wrong choices of those who do foolish things. I admit there are degrees. But I feel less for those who do stupid stupid dangerous things like this. I admit there are times when my compassion fails at the wrong time. But I cannot look at this as one of them.

This was not just some choice that affected the young adult alone but a choice that would affect quite a few people. When you do that the stakes go up. And my compassion goes down. That is why I have compassion for those left alive and not those who are dead. I am not God that my compassion can change anything for a dead person. But my compassion for those alive, whether apart of the young adults family or those threatened by the young adult, is strong.

Again I say awesome because too many times I read about clerks dying in cold blood over some idiot pulling a gun and shooting them while robbing them. This was different. I literally don't care a wit for that kid. I don't pretend to be Jesus. I can only show the compassion of Jesus to those alive. Would I say awesome in front of his family? No. But personally it would remain the same. Because again, what can my compassion for that kid possibly do? Nothing. For the family? Many things but nothing for the dead.

And even with dealing with the criminals and the Cross, you have a man who saw his actions and took proper responsibility for it by confessing to His Lord to remember him in heaven. He was still alive. This kids last choice was to rob a store and threaten lives. He got what he deserved.
post #79 of 93
Awesome post, Chris.

Seriously awesome.
post #80 of 93
CT, at least I now understand why you found "awesomeness" in that news article.....

Quote:
Seahawk:
But when you take a gun into a store and threaten, you've given up the right to live by threatening another.
I agree with that. I believe Ludwig and Connigit would agree with that too. None of us here actually want the storeowner harmed nor do we feel that what he did was wrong.

But as a question directly to you, Seahawk. Do you share CT's powerful convictions about "literally... [not] car[ing] a wit for that kid"? And just because he's dead, do you feel that you don't have to respect nor show compassion for his death? This one terrible choice he made, does that negate the other good things he has done in the past?

To me, what happened was a terrible thing because someone died. It's terrible that a young adult has chosen a wrongful, immoral, and dangerous choice. For that he had paid dearly. What's wonderful is that innocent people haven't been hurt. It's wonderful that the old man has survived.

But what I won't agree on is people celebrating a hero who refers to people as "things." I also won't agree with people who can't even show a simple sign of remorse and compassion for a person's death. Even if you can't show that, how about not celebrating his death nor imagining the reasons why the dead robber has gone bad in life.

If compassion is not feasible, then how about simple common human decency?
post #81 of 93
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Mike Arsenault (Ludwig):
I think Ludwig is trying very hard to come up with a way to blame the old guy for killing the robber

Nice to see people actually know how to read around here...maybe go back and read what I wrote again.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I read what you had to say. In your last post, you said the circumstances are suspicious, and why didn't he shoot for the legs? Before, you were berating people for making judgement calls based on the vagueness of the article, yet were calling for the old man to be arrested. You've been more or less defending the robbers throughout the thread. Not for robbing of course, but for being killed. You still don't seem to think the old man was justified.


Honestly, I am not 100% convinced that he was. Without having been there or seeing the surveilence tape of the crime, no one should be. My main complaint with people here is that they were so quick to condemn the kids, especially after reading that terribly vague first article.

This whole attitude of "he got what was coming to him" is cold-blooded to me. You are suppossed to take responsibility for your fellow man in my opinion. If people around me are suffering or need help, I give it. I don't hide behind, "Well, they are responsible for their own actions and they will get whatever's coming to them." A lot of these kids could be turned around. Now one who might have been turned around doesn't have that chance. And people are applauding his death no less! Yes, the old man may have been defending the life of his employee, and I get that things worked out this way because of the actions taken by the kids, but damn!

Compassion and consideration are on their way out in America today because of the fear culture you have created around you. If you are incapable of seeing the sadness in this situation, I fucking pity you. Someone died, and you rejoice because they were a "criminal".
post #82 of 93
Thread Starter 
Oh and I consider there a difference between Remorse and Compassion.

I do have remorse for the young man's death, remorse that such a young life would choose such a path and end in such a way. But it ended up being his choice. I don't necessarily consider the store clerk a hero, but he was a man who defended himself and came out alive unlike many store clerks around this country.

So remorse yes, but compassion no. My compassion would do nothing for that young man, but to his family, perhaps much. But my remorse on the other hand can see to it that those around me that are in bad times, in bad situations, and have made some bad choices have a way out. Some way to avoid making such horrid choices. But if they refuse that way out then I can no longer do a thing. If someone chooses a path to death then they have chosen it. I cannot take compassion for that unless the cause is just and the action justifiable. So even if there was a cause just that the young man was taking up but his actions were not justifiable.

I don't want to see 17 year olds killed due to choices like that. I would rather have the kid alive then dead but unfortunately that is not the case and there is not a lick a can do about it. Whatever care I possessesed or compassion died with the kid. Unfortunate but as simple as that.
post #83 of 93
As a former convenience store clerk, I can vouch that it is a tough, nerve racking job. When you're not reading porn or stealing cigarettes, you have to sell beer to your minor friends or actually deal with paying customers.

That being said, I know the feeling of dread when a group of teens or young adults come in acting menacingly, and knowing that you're out numbered. I was never robbed, thank heavens, but if I was and I had a gun, you bet your ass I'd use it.

As for compassion, a good friend of mine's mother was a clerk at a convenience store and she was robbed. She cooperated fully, and was killed anyway.

As for the man's flippant comments by the clerk, he's in his 70's for fuck's sake. He's been robbed numerous times and been injured by robbers. I think we can give him a little leeway as to his feelings regarding those who tried to injure him and his clerk, take what did not belong to them, and rob him of income he needed to support his family.

The robbers had at least 3 chances not to get killed.

1. don't think of robbing anyone
2. If you do decide to rob someone, and things go south, just cut your losses and get the fuck out.
3. If you're getting the fuck out, don't stop or turn around. Chances are you're gonna get shot, especially if you know tou're being chased by a man with a gun.

Fuckem. I just hope the owner doesn't get sued by the guy he just injured.
post #84 of 93
Quote:
Hubris del Fuego:
Fuckem. I just hope the owner doesn't get sued by the guy he just injured.
it's just a matter of time...
post #85 of 93
Voltes, I would more or less agree with CT, now that he's slightly more explained himself.

Compassion? No. Not when you take someone else's life in your own hands. For the family, yes. Now they must deal with the acts of thier son.

Sadness? Yes. For a life lost when it could have been avoidable.

And Connigit, it became a religious argument when Voltes asked me a simple question and I ansewered.
post #86 of 93
Quote:
Seahawk:
And Connigit, it became a religious argument when Voltes asked me a simple question and I ansewered.
I know dude, that was a joke.

So what has this thread taught us?

Don't hold up stores, kids.
post #87 of 93
My apologies then to you kind sir.
post #88 of 93
When Tommy Vercetti tries to steal the tank from the military base, you know he is gonna get shot at by soldiers.

Point is, these kids should have either:

(A) Stolen a cop's uniform first
(B) Made sure their armor was at 100%
(C) Entered a cheat code to prevent all damage
post #89 of 93
I've learned something today: Don't fuck with gun-toting geezers.
post #90 of 93
This is one of the most depressing threads I've ever read here at CHUD, and it's changed my mind about some of the chewers who've participated in it.
post #91 of 93
Been avoiding this but I'll put my $.02 in. If someone is pointing a gun at a coworker or at me or anyone else and I have reason to believe theat they will ue it (why else would you point a gun) and I can shoot first, damn straight I will. Will I feel good about it or think it is a good thing afterwords? God, I hope not. This thing that happened is not good, great, awesome, or anything else positive. It is a horrible waste of life. But that is what the boys should have thought of before they tried an armed robbery.
post #92 of 93
I find it intriguing that a number of Chewers seem to think a seventy-four year old crippled man, having been previously robbed and physically wounded, who needs a walker to get around, wielding a weapon with no precision, in the heat of the moment, with three masked intruders (one with a gun pointed at him), should somehow have been able to shoot the perpetrators a fleshy wound in their legs, which would then remove all danger despite the fact that the intruders would still be armed, and would have no reason not to shoot...that this man should be able to consider all of that in about 6 seconds, and still be able to fire accurately to hit any part of his targets.

Seems like an awful lot to ask of the guy.
post #93 of 93
People should do whatever they can to avoid killing each other Burke. Yeah, maybe it was impossible in this situation for the old guy to do anything else, and I mentioned that above, but still...you should NEVER feel justified or good about killing someone, let alone heap praise on someone that does. This whole situation was tragic.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Misc. Culture
CHUD.com Community › Forums › CULTURE, HUMOR, & FREE FORM › Misc. Culture › 74-Year-Old Man Kills Would Be Robber