Detroit is now .00067% safer.

That is just brilliant!

That carjacker got what he deserved. Sometimes (but no very often) the right to bear arms makes sense.

Hopes based on thread title that Detroit PD had secured functioning Robocop=Dashed.

Now I realize this is going to label me as a hand-wringing, bed-wetting, bleeding-heart liberal criminal-embracing bastard, but I'm just not sure that attempted auto theft warrants the death penalty. I'm not blaming the victim for defending himself at all, but saying that the asshole carjacker "deserved" to die for that crime seems a tad harsh.

Well, he was going around pointing a gun in people's faces and stealing their shit...he was sorta asking for it.

I don't think he should've died...maybe a simple bullet in the ass would've sufficed but if a guy's got a gun on you, you don't tend to pop them in the arm or leg and not expect them to try to shoot back. Dude shot him just to save his life. The thief just "happened" to get killed.

I realize that, Radb, any idiot who carjacks with a gun, loaded or not, takes a chance on getting killed. I'm not exactly shedding a tear over this guy. I was just commenting on the "got what he deserved" post...

Yeah I agree he didn't deserve to die, and that they were sorta harsh words.

Tell me about it. But the number would have had to be more like 67% in that case.

Really? A guy stick a gun in your face, wants to steal your car and shooting him is considered harsh? How much of a victim can you be?

I'm no gun nut and most people would consider me to be very much of a leftist. This is were I draw the line. You should have the right to protect your life and your property.

Not until the other 3000 car jackers get shot as well.


This goes into the win column for our "City with the largest number of violent deaths of people 18 and younger". We lost murder capitol of the U.S. several years ago (damn per-capita requirement) but we are unrivaled with regards to teenagers and kids dying violently.

Despite all the negativity surrounding Detroit, there is one distinct advantage to living here. Anytime you visit any other U.S. city, it seems really nice.

How was the kid a threat to the guy's life?

I understand the guy's reaction and that's a risk the kid took. But I don't think he deserved to die for trying to steal a car.

Did IQs just drop sharply while I was away? Read my posts. They say explicitly that I DON'T BLAME THE GUY FOR DEFENDING HIMSELF. I'd do the same in his shoes. I was decrying the notion that the criminal "deserved" to die for trying to steal a car. It's a fine distinction, but I think it's comprehendable.

By waving a gun in the guy's face.

I'm sorry.

The thing is, he wasn't hot-wiring a car. He was carjacking with a gun. That's a big difference.

Wether you should be able to shoot somebody in the street who's stealing your stuff is highly debatable. You should have the right to shoot somebody who sticks a gun in your face.

An unloaded gun. How is waving an unloaded gun a threat to the guy's life?

Agreed. And that's the chance this kid took. He gambled and lost. Fair enough.
But deserving is an entirely different concept.

I'm late for work. In my rush I decide to run across the street against the light. I get hit by a car. Do I deserve to get run over?

How the hell would you know the gun's not loaded? Why would you assume it isn't?

I don't get the view you have. The guy goes around, waving a gun in people's faces, stealing. There's a precedent. He's breaking the law. He's attacking people (to me, pointing a gun at someone is an attack). He is responsible for his actions. That's why I believe he got what he deserved.

It's a very different situation than running a red light.

I give up.

Is it really that hard to understand my point? I didn't say the victim was wrong for defending himself. Nor did I imply he should have just "wounded" the perp. The criminal was an idiot who threatened someone with a gun, and he got shot and killed for his efforts. That's fine. He took a stupid chance, and he paid the price. Again, for the cheap seats, I don't have a problem with that.

My problem is with the idea that the criminal DESERVED TO DIE for waving a gun and trying to steal a car. Had he not died in the altercation, would you then call for the death penalty when he came to trial? Are you suggesting all carjackings, armed or otherwise, deserve the death penalty?

For fuck'ssake-!
I wouldn't and neither did this guy. I understand that.
But the reality is the gun wasn't loaded. You said the kid deserved to die because he was a threat to the guy's life. But the gun was empty. So, if the gun was empty how was this kid a threat to the guy's life?

Ok, I get what you mean. No, in this case, I don't believe the death penalty would have been appropriate (for the record I'm against the death penalty for socio-economical reasons).

Ok, my fault for badly expressing myself. He got what he deserved because of the actions he took. If you run around waving a gun in people's faces, you have to assume you're also putting you're life in danger.

Cool, glad we cleared that up.

And no one ever argued on CHUD again. The end.

So, if they came up with an electric chair that used less electricity, or if they got a cheaper generic form of the lethal injunction drug, we'd be cool.

This kid "deserved" to die in the same way that some shmuck would "deserve" a billion dollars for saving the life of Bill Gate's kid. That is, not at all. Desert implies that the weight of a given reward or punishment is at least relatively proportional to the act committed.

Sometimes we use desert in the wrong context, I remember once hearing about an "extreme" skier who was killed when he triggered an avalanche, or a mountain climber who constantly put himself in precarious situations and eventually the odds caught up with him, and each of these times I thought to myself that in some sense these people got what they deserved. I certainly wasn't going to shed a tear for them. But this is a misapplication of the concept. Whatever we're getting at has some overlap with the concept of desert; we don't think these people have a right to complain about the consequences of their actions given their understanding of the risks involved, but it's a misnomer to say they deserved what they got. The fact that this kid committed a crime, as opposed to merely risking his life in a legal activity, shouldn't make a difference.

Agreed on the Dickson comment. But Overlord come on you're a lawyer, don't tell me you're unfamiliar with the concept of desert... y'know the root of the word "deserve". It's kind of a cornerstone of justice.

How can the cornerstone of justice be where all the towel-heads live?

I certainly feel a helluva lot better about being stuck out in cow country every time I go there, although to be fair trips to Flint (especially the north side, which is like a concentrated dose of every bad element of the big D) engender about the same feelings.

What happened to fair trial? It's one of the cornerstones of what civilized societies pride themselves upon. It doesn't just mean guilty vs. innocent, but what the appropriate punishment is.

Since when is it ok for someone to commit a completely unreversable crime in the name of supposedly defending themselves? They should also be put on trial and have it be determined whether or not their actions were justified.

The sentiments expressed by The Alexor - part of this desire by certain repressed individuals to jump on any of these issues and justify violence. You have no idea what really might have happened. You read a story and immediately jump to a conclusion in which you side with the most violent solution possible.

I could counter by saying that there are delusional individuals who believe violence wouldn't exist if only we could all be friends. I believe in the right to defend myself. It's got nothing with being repressed. Being a victim and relying on the authorities to protect you should not be the only option. You make me sound as if I'm justifying all violence.

Concerning jumping to conclusions, we are having a discussion on the events reported in this thread. If we were to wait for all the facts to come before discussing, the CHUD boards would be a desolate wasteland. Anyway, my opinions are not set in stone. If new information is brought about all this and changes the situation or if someone makes a convincing argument, I won't be ashamed to change my opinion.