Kentucky's Mall St. Matthews Shuts Down After Brawls Involving Up to 2,000

That's the east end of town...

... buncha spoiled rich kids...

... east end boys lookin' for west end girls.

 

You're right.....some - most likely, many of those future astronauts would have that mindset and eventually off to the prisons they go.

 

Um, no. Your post basically said that although you don't want the children killed, you believe that them getting a shooting injury would be beneficial and educational. If that is not what you MEANT, then you should say what you mean.

IMO, the children should be prosecuted to the full extent of law. However, unless they are actually in the process of hurting or killing someone, I think the use of a gun is wrong.

Your property is not usually worth more than a human life, IMO.

 

First of all, these are not CHILDREN - they're TEENAGERS.....ya know - childhood.... teen yrs.....adulthood. There IS a difference in the aging process.

I know what I said in my post and I stand by it. And where did I say anything about my 'property'? I didn't......quit making stuff up.

 

So, this is your post Verbatim. If I have been wrong in interpreting what you meant when you posted, then would you care to clarify? Because you seem to imply that you would not mind if they got injured by gunshot as long as they did not die.

My response to this was to point out that a gunshot in the arm or leg could STILL lead to death. And trying to teach these minors through injury and death is wrong, especially if innocent lives are not in danger.

 

It's happened b/f and home invaders is an example where the thug took a shot to the leg to stop him, EMT's fixed him up, hospitalized and off to jail he went. Would I cry b/c the thug was injured? NO.....

Sometimes injury to a criminal can be a good thing b/c it can make some of them wake up and realize it's not the life they want......"especially if innocent lives are not in danger...." Well, what about the next time and the next time b/c they're not caught? Why do the innocent people have to be at risk b/c some people believe that thugs should never be injured while committing a crime? BULL(*)(*)(*)(*)!

"When you choose the behavior, you choose the consequences" is very true......and if an injury happens, like a shot to a limb b/c Elroy is committing a crime........well, he did it to himself. Learn a lesson.

Is that clear enuf?

 

Maybe our forefathers weren't as dumb as many Liberals now think they were. They knew how to handle these situations and to make sure they didn't happen again.

 

No but 30 days in jail and restitution seems pretty appropriate.

 

What is clear to me is that you are advocating vigilantism and having people take the law into their own hands, which, IMO, I think is morally WRONG.

After all, there have been plenty of people, just on these very boards, that have either directly stated, or implied, they would be okay with killing someone breaking into their homes to steal their possessions, even if the person is posing little or no physically violent threat. This leads me to believe that they place the value of their jewelry, televisions, etc. as being more valuable that the life of the thief.

What do you think would happen if most people actually thought like this? IMO, it would result in a LOT more people dying and being killed for things that should NOT be punishable by death.

If you don't agree with my interpretation, than maybe you can tell me what you think would happen if we relaxed the laws to allow people to defend more than just their lives with their guns? Do you want vigilantism to be legal?

- - - Updated - - -

Sure, I don't think anyone is implying that those that breaks laws shouldn't be punished. Just that the punishment should not be exceptionally harsher than the crime.

 

Correct, these were not children. People in their early teens have been certified as adults for felonies. Since they acted together, it was a collective conspiracy. The collected property damage exceeded the felony threshold. Therefore, they all are guilt of a felony offense and the additional charge of conspiracy to commit the felony. If any fled the police after told to stop then add another criminal charge. Find them. Prosecute. Make them pay probation fees, take random drug tests, stay away from other felons, report, and all the other felony probation requirements, plus of course advise them they are permanently banned from the mall and going there is both criminal trespass and a parole violation that would land the person in prison.

Instead, the lesson learned will be that criminal laws are not enforced and breaking the law is a lot of fun and exciting. The mall and shop owners learned there is no rule of law without such prosecutions.

 

Why would I place a criminal's life over my freedom? It takes labor to earn my possessions. Stealing my possessions then forces me to labor to replace it - making me the criminal's slave.

I gather you favor slavery - or at least claim no one has any right to use force to prevent being forced to be the slave of someone else. How is allowing a theft to steal my property any different than you allowing someone to force me to work for them for free so they can use my labor to get what they want for themselves?

Why do you so trivialize slavery?

 

But it is not vigilanteeism if to PREVENT the crime in the first place. Being a vigilante is citizens hunting down a criminal after-the-face AND then acting outside of the law in a punitive sense. Using force, even deadly force, to stop imminent violent danger and to protect your property is not vigilanteeism whatsoever. That isn't what the word means.

It's all the difference in the world shooting someone who is in the act of breaking into or criminally invading your house, versus shooting someone in the back running away from your house with something stolen.

 

So, you value your television more than the life of the person trying to steal it? Okay.

Then I won't cry when someone tries to rob you, presents no real threat, you kill them while they are fleeing, and then the law finds you guilty of murder and throws you into the slammer for the rest of your life.

Possessions CAN be replaced, people CANNOT. And no, I don't advocate slavery. I am perfectly okay with the thief being caught by the police (LEGALLY), and then sued and imprisoned until they have paid off their debt to society.

Why do you so trivialize life?

 

Different name, similar concept. I don't think it is morally right for people to take the law into their own hands like that, except in cases where their life is in IMMEDIATE danger. And I don't consider protecting your property a valid exception UNLESS your life is in immediate physical danger (IE: They are armed or they are trying to kill/injure you).

If you wake up and hear a noise, then go downstairs to find someone trying to steal your possessions, and that persons sees you and decides to flee rather than attack you, you DON'T have the right to engage them and try to kill them, IMO. If you do, YOU are escalating the situation, and I can only hope that YOU are punished for that action, just as I hope the THIEF is punished for theirs.

 

Well, you're WRONG. I am not an advocate for vigilantism, but I CAN understand why it happens........there is a difference.

"....even if the person (home invader) is posing little or no physically violent threat..." Are you SERIOUS? And if the thief doesn't value his own damn worthless life, why should the victims value it?

Look, Rex - I'll try to make this short and sweet. When I was a single, 19 yr old woman living alone, one night I was woken up in the middle of the night by someone's hand over my mouth - heard a male voice say 'don't scream or I'll stick this ice pick thru your neck", and felt something poking me in my neck. It was dark in BR, couldn't see him, just heard him and felt his hands on me....

He was caught the following night, robbing a store and the only way I could identify him in the line-up was thru his voice b/c I never saw his face...... this stuff doesn't happen just in made-up tv shows. Millions of women and men have had this type of experience. If I had had a gun near me, I would have blown him away and never felt bad about it.

The police told me later the SOB was stalking me.

Now YOU live thru an experience like that, then come back and tell me again how their lives are so precious and should be valued by the victims and blah, blah, blah.

People have every right to own weapons to protect themselves, family and property from these unconscionable night stalkers and if you can't understand that, that's your problem - not mine or anyone else's......

 

As true as that is, there is a reason for it.

Corporate media of all kinds effecting parents, kids and communities.

Your point needs to be made all through prime time TV instead of millions of $ by corporations.

The only way to see this happen is through our lawful and peaceful revolution.

 

Perhaps, but that still doesn't make it legal, or morally right. Do you think we, as individuals, should have the right to mete out punishment for criminals that are committing crimes against us?

A few things to think of here. First, how do you know they don't value their lives? If I was starving, homeless, and couldn't get money in a legal way, I might consider robbing material possessions until I was back on my feet, but that doesn't mean I don't value my life. It means I would rather take a chance at a dangerous situation to live rather than slowly die.

Second, those criminals are still human beings. They still have family, friends, etc. Don't you think the criminals life matters to THEM?

I am truly sorry to hear that happened to you. In that situation, you would have been right to kill the person if you could have, and I wouldn't lose sleep over him either.

But not all criminal situations are like that, nor are all criminals. And I don't think it's right to treat all criminals like that.

So you have a hierarchy of importance of people's lives. That's fair and I agree with that. I consider my life more important to me than yours, for example.

However, I don't believe it's right to value a life less than property. Just the way I feel. You may not feel that way, and that's okay. But I'd be interested in what you feel the world would be like in a couple hundred years if everyone felt the way you did, and I'd be interested to see how you reach that future without wiping out the human race.

 

In reference to your first statement/question........let me put it this way. If I caught a pedophile sexually abusing my child, I wouldn't give a rat's ass that I 'didn't have any right to punish him'....I'd do it anyway. Just call it the Mama Grizzly in me....then I'd call the cops to cart away the remains. How about you if you're a parent?

As far as you or anyone being homeless and desperate, that still doesn't give you any right to steal anyone's property to turn it into cash for your benefit. The owner of the property didn't make you homeless. There's charities/homeless shelters out there for those who are down on their luck. Leave the hard working schmucks and their stuff alone.......

And if the criminal valued his family/friends so much, he wouldn't have become a criminal in the first place, doncha think?

Personally, I think there's some lives out there that are absolutely worthless and dangerous to others, such as pedophiles, serial killers, sociopaths and when someone kills them off.......makes life easier and safer for the children and other innocent people. But that's just my humble opinion.....

No, I'm not cold-blooded or a hard-ass. I love my family & friends, do what I can to help the unfortunate and that type of thing and do believe that the children born to bad parents need a helping hand. When they find themselves going down the wrong road, due to bad parenting, someone should step in, like CPS, remove them and give them a chance at living a good life......

But when these teenagers/young adults choose to deliberately hurt others for their own gain or just for the thrill of it and they stop a bullet... well, it happens. They CHOSE the life of crime, they KNEW the hard consequences and did it anyway.....

They have no one to blame but themselves......

 

Nobody is supporting handing out punishment, just self defense.

The catch is that they threaten to take our lives when they rob us. Don't tell me that I can't respond to that threat with violence. I'm not the one making threats and stealing peoples' belongings.

Then they should help their criminal relative out and keep him from risking death to steal from people.

I agree, but I have no problem if someone wants to defend their hard earned money or stuff. If the criminal is protected by the law, somebody innocent will eventually be hurt. I'd rather harm the guy threatening to kill people. I doubt I would shoot somebody fleeing with my cash or stuff, but if they have my ID and can steal my identity or threaten my family, then I might consider pulling the trigger if legal. (Which it is in Texas) My son was robbed a few years ago and they were calling and threatening a home invasion. I had the police call their trac phone and the calls stopped. I didn't tell them that I carried a gun. I didn't want to be the guy who escalated the confrontation and made the threats. If somebody breaks into my house or car, I assume they intend to do me or my family harm and they are fair game.

 

Again, you are treating ALL criminals as if they were rapists/murderers, and not all of them are. We don't need blanket solutions here. Sure, I won't lose sleep if a person is raping or murdering and is killed in the process of it. But shoplifters and looters ARE NOT THE SAME THING!

For your second point. In my point of view, my right/ability to live is more important to me than your material possessions. And many homeless shelters/soup kitchens, etc. are being overrun and having a lot of difficulty meeting demand. Or do you think I wouldn't have tried that option first before stealing? I would only resort to illegal acts as a last resort, but I WOULD rather steal than die of starvation or the elements.

As to your third point, there are bound to be criminals that are doing what they do because they feel they have to. The poor person situation I described above? Now imagine it wasn't just me, but I also had a wife and kids. I would consider them eating and having shelter even MORE important than my own safety and well being. And that is just one example.

No, I don't think a life of crime SHOULD be an automatic death sentence. Especially for teens and children. I believe, IMO, that MANY, if not most people have committed some form of crime in their childhood (even if it was something minor like jay-walking or bullying). And if everyone believed as you did, we might not have a country today, because of all the people killed just for making a mistake.

 

Sorry, it's not self-defense if your life or health is not in danger.

So, if I am poor and hungry and decide to run into a grocery store and grab some food and eat, I deserve to die for it?

Um, No.

Maybe they want to, but they can't. If they are poor as well, they might not be able to do much of anything to help the potential criminal other than warning them of the dangers they would face.

You don't know that. And the act of you passing judgement on weather or not someone is a threat, based of YOUR opinions of what constitutes a threat, is the problem.

How can a criminal that has your ID threaten your family without actual physical violence? They might be able to make your life harder financially, but there ARE ways to protect yourself from that problem that do not involve killing another human being in cold blood.

If someone breaks into your house or car, and assuming you or other people are In the house or car at the time, And you can determine they are armed, then I likely wouldn't have a problem with you shooting at them. After all, there is a reasonable assumption that they are a direct physical threat at that moment.

However, if they break into a run and try to flee away, or if they are trying to rob your car and you are in your house, for example, then there is no direct imminent physical threat to your well being. If you pull a gun in this case and shoot, you are passing judgement on the criminal.

You are not the Judge, Jury, or Executioner. Am I right?

 

You can place as little value on your labor and time as you wish to. Really, trivialize your time and labor to absolutely zero if you wish to.

Do you post signs that none of your windows and doors are ever locked to assure that no one is harmed to steal what you have, assuming you have anything?

"Debt to society" is a stupid slogan.

 

Absurd but true anti-gun and anti-self defense, don't-hurt-criminals logic is that a person has no right to defend themselves until they are already being stabbed, shot or beaten - meaning no right to self defense whatsoever.

There are millions of victims of felony crimes and hundreds of thousands of victims of violence each year, mostly because people buy into your protect-the-criminals reasoning. They, like you, actually believe you HAVE to let yourself be a victim, other than the police can protect you in the 1 in 100,000 instances where there will be any police present.

And generally every rapist, assailant, burglar and robber 100% agree with you - until it comes to themselves. They want everyone to act exactly like you say they must.

 

I'm not really rich, but I'm not dirt poor either.

Little value? Um no, I don't place a small amount of value on my time and labor. I just take sensible precautions that DO NOT involve a gun.

I lock my doors and windows. I keep an eye all around me any time I am in public, but especially after dark. I make it a point to NOT flaunt any wealth I have by wearing expensive watches and such. I walk away from large groups of loud, talkative and obnoxious people. I stay away from reportedly bad neighborhoods. Etc.

It's worked really well. I've never been robbed. I was threatened with injury once, from a stoner that was high or something that was unarmed, but his cooler-headed friend talked him out of it. Which was good, because the rest of my family was coming up from behind them. And I'm 36 years old, I'm not that young.

So why can't other people do this as well? Why do we need guns, and need to be vigilantes to protect our stuff?

You use your guns to protect stuff, and when you kill someone that ended up not being armed and was running away from you, and you get thrown in jail for what you did, I won't shed a tear for your fate.