Angry tourists break mugger's neck

[Osborn F Enready]

Nono said: If you look at the rest of the dictionary definition, you'll see that it doesn't have to be funny. Just a strawman exaggeration.

How is it a strawman, when it clearly exposed your reasoning behind your STATED position?

Why is my statement in retort to yours a "less appropriate" caricature of socialism, then you saying capitalism, the american dream are "just about stuff" or saying that our interpretation of rights is somehow "jungle justice" ?

I smell a big hypocritical realization sneaking up on you.

Nono said: This seems rather likely when you think about it.

Why does it seem LIKELY?!? It is certainly possible, but why do you alledge LIKELY?

Nono said: He was holding them at gun- and knife-point? And what was he going to take the loot with, his dick?

Speaking of strawmen?

[bishop]

Quote by: nono Think about the possible credibility of that for a sec. He was holding them at gun- and knife-point? And what was he going to take the loot with, his dick?

did you miss the part where i typed "THEY"? i.e. more than one person, i.e. not the same guy who was holding the gun....

moreover, the 70 year old who killed the robber wasn't even the person being held up at gunpoint. he wasn't protecting his "stuff" at all, but i wouldn't expect you to get the full story before tossing your usual anti-american comments.

ContraCostaTimes.com | 02/24/2007 | U.S. veteran saves tourists in Costa Rican attack

An American tourist who watched as a U.S. military veteran in his 70s used his bare hands to kill an armed assailant in Costa Rica said she thought the attempted robbery was a joke -- until the masked attacker held a gun to her head. "I thought it was a skit. But then he pointed the gun at my head and grabbed me by the throat and I thought I was going to die," Clova Adams, 54, said by telephone Friday from the Carnival Liberty cruise ship. The assault occurred during a ship stopover Wednesday in Limon, 80 miles east of San Jose, Costa Rica's capital. Adams was with 12 American tourists who hired a driver to explore Costa Rica for a few hours. They were climbing out of the van to visit a Caribbean beach when three masked men ran toward them, she said. One held a gun to her head, and the other two pulled out knives. Suddenly, one of the tourists, a U.S. military veteran trained in self defense, jumped out of the van and put the gunman in a headlock, according to Limon police chief Luis Hernandez. Hernandez said the American, whom he refused to identify, struggled with the robber, breaking his collarbone and eventually killing him. Police identified the dead man as Warner Segura, 20. The other two assailants fled.

[Gods_Mercenary]

I'd have done the same thing, you point a gun at me in the intention threatening me to do something, and let your guard down, it'll probably be the last thing you do. When you violate me that way, the rules go out the window like that, the rules go out the window.

I seriously doubt that you wouldn't think I'd gotten what I deserved if I held you at gunpoint, nono.

[Chaossaber314]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready He obviously intended to threaten death, since he used a gun. Assume the worst, and be safe to have second thoughts. Assume the best, and you might not have any more thoughts. I would always rather be judged by 12, than carried by 6.

I know, I'm just being difficult.

Though I believe there's a clear distinction between beating the crap out of someone and disarming them as opposed to killing them. Sure it could be argued that it was in the heat of the moment but that doesn't excuse "crimes of passion" for instance. Mob mentality, perhaps?

The other thing that stands out to me is that with a crowd of people it would have been significantly easier to restrain him than with just one. I really think his death was unnecessary given the fact that appears like they got the upper hand and took it too far.

I know it's a little hypocritical of me but if this was an instance where the old woman had a gun, the guy tried to rob her, and she shot him killing him, I would be alright with it because she was defending herself against an immediate threat.

The difference to this appears to be that there are stages.

-Man points gun at crowd. Man is armed. Crowd is not.
-Crowd takes down man. Gun is presumably removed or at least restricted.

At this point he's no longer a direct threat to them.

-Crowd kills man.

Note: I'm using crowd as a pronoun not necessarily to indicate more than one person

At least if he had been killed outright by another gun it would have been equal potential force. At the point they had this man on the ground, he was no longer a real threat.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Breaking the guy's neck is a hell of a lot safer than attempting to pin him while he still supposedly could gain access to the gun again.

[Epistemologist]

No, we have to behave like in the movies where we nobly pin him down, giving him a chance to live, and punish him with death when he opportunistically grasps for his gun again, proving the purely evil nature of his pitiable soul.

[Chaossaber314]

So it's not like the movies when the man grabs his neck and somehow CIA-CHOKE-HOLD-OF-DEATH-SOLID-SNAKE breaks it?

Should all citizens be trained in such realistic techniques then?

Also, what's easier?
-Holding a man down and holding onto his arms with both hands so that he can't use his gun.
or
-Using both of your arms around his neck (since it said the guy was in a chokehold) and leaving his hands open to shoot you, or any of the other tourists. Hell, even if he was in too much pain to pick out realistic targets he could have still started shooting randomly endangering the lives of everyone in the area.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Quote by: Epistemologist No, we have to behave like in the movies where we nobly pin him down, giving him a chance to live, and punish him with death when he opportunistically grasps for his gun again, proving the purely evil nature of his pitiable soul.

I'm not gonna be a hero, I'm gonna be the normal guy who kills someone instead of allowing them the chance to carry out the threat they've already made.

[Chaossaber314]

I'm curious how your neck breaking classes have been going because that's not something your "normal" person can do.

[shawmutt]

The circumstances of the story make it easy to praise the breakers and condemn the breakee...

If it was, say, a former U.S. Marine mugging a group of Islamic tourists in the U.S. and they killed him we'd be more inclined to wonder about the U.S. Marine and condemn the Muslims.

I'm not saying robbing someone at gunpoint is the best thing to do, and I'm not saying this particular instance wasn't an accident--I'm just addressing those that say he got what he deserved. Does someone who robs someone else at gunpoint deserve death?

[bishop]

Quote by: Chaossaber314 I'm curious how your neck breaking classes have been going because that's not something your "normal" person can do.

the guy was a trained marine...

[Chaossaber314]

Quote by: bishop the guy was a trained marine...

I understand that. Is God's Mercenary?

People in this thread seem to be suggesting this is a reasonable tactic for your average citizen to use.

[shawmutt]

Quote by: bishop the guy was a trained marine...

So, in your opinion, was this an accident or did he purposely snap his neck?

[Gods_Mercenary]

Quote by: Chaossaber314 I understand that. Is God's Mercenary? People in this thread seem to be suggesting this is a reasonable tactic for your average citizen to use.

I said killing a person is "reasonable", not necessarily breaking the neck. If I had another means of killing it would be just as feasable an option. I would far prefer a method of restraining the person that presented less or as much risk to myself or bystanders.

[bishop]

Quote by: shawmutt So, in your opinion, was this an accident or did he purposely snap his neck?

my hunch is that it was an accident, or one of those "in the heat of the moment" sorts of things... i don't believe this 70 year old guy saw the robber holding the gun and instantly thought, "now's my chance to kill someone with my bare hands!"..

[Osborn F Enready]

Chaossaber said: Though I believe there's a clear distinction between beating the crap out of someone and disarming them as opposed to killing them.

As do I, but when forced in an emergency to react, you react. Instinct plays that role unless training is pounded in to over-ride it. I can fault no man for using force to protect the rights of others, when the threat is imminent, and brandishing a gun while barking orders to surrender property, is an imminent threat.

When you use force to remove rights, you have no right to expect quarter and observance of your rights when being stopped from completing that action. The price of the negotiation was contracted by the use of force, and force ALWAYS has the ability to be lethal, intended or not when speaking of a firearm.

They drew the gun, they put their life on the line.
The response cost a life, but with lots of reason to believe it was un-intentional.

Chaossaber said: Sure it could be argued that it was in the heat of the moment but that doesn't excuse "crimes of passion" for instance. Mob mentality, perhaps?

I don't see the connection. Can you elaborate at what your referring to here?

Chaossaber said: The other thing that stands out to me is that with a crowd of people it would have been significantly easier to restrain him than with just one.

In order to restrain, the people in front of the wave to restrain him must be willing to risk their life in the action. The typical pistol has between 5 and 15 rounds. That could be 5 to 15 people dead, in an attempt to "humanely restrain" a man who already COMMITTED to the use of force, or threat of force, playing on the fear of peoples lives like a game.

He lost the game. Game over, no high score, no restart, no extra-life.

I don't shed a tear.

Chaossaber said: I really think his death was unnecessary given the fact that appears like they got the upper hand and took it too far.

If that is the case, then let the trial by jury bear that out, if the system it takes place under has that much respect for peoples rights.

I would still defend the use of force against the threat of use of force, to protect rights, any day of the week.

If they abused the man after disarmed, its tragic, but I am not going to pretend laws can change human nature. His actions brought about his demise, cause and effect.

Chaossaber said: I know it's a little hypocritical of me but if this was an instance where the old woman had a gun, the guy tried to rob her, and she shot him killing him, I would be alright with it because she was defending herself against an immediate threat.

I see no difference. Just because there is a crowd, doesn't mean they are willing to die trying to "humanely" stop a criminal who is using force to remove rights. That just isn't the way it works, and it counters natural instinct.

Chaossaber said: The difference to this appears to be that there are stages. -Man points gun at crowd. Man is armed. Crowd is not. -Crowd takes down man. Gun is presumably removed or at least restricted.

You know, in a perfect world, maybe.

More likely would be this case.....

Man points gun at crowd, makes demands, crowd panics, while others take action to rush gunman, gunman fires into crowd, wounding three, killing one, and then is captured to stand trial.

Why is this more humane, when it is at least an EQUAL if not probable option?

Chaossaber said: At this point he's no longer a direct threat to them. -Crowd kills man.

Watch this:(parental guidance suggested?)
Guy Totally flips out at Work Video - FileCabi.net

Notice how the co-workers react?

Watch this:(PG)
Suicidal guy shoots cop in the hand Video - FileCabi.net

Trained policeman, armed, trying to subdue one armed man.

Watch this:(PG)
Police shoot Unarmed white man multiple times Video - FileCabi.net

Police obviously don't observe your "humane" rule, why should a citizen?

Its not quite as easy as one would think, and you can NEVER judge a person from their appearance.

The guy holding them up could as easily have been an undercover spy trying to get local funds for a trip home, as a corner bum who found a gun to use to try to get food.

[Osborn F Enready]

Soldiers are trained to kill when threatened, its their JOB.

If the soldier reacted according to training, he did as he was trained. The man dying is the consequence for pulling out a gun to steal rights of other people.

[RickSp]

Everyone has the right to self defense. The mugger had a deadly weapon. He could have killed any of those present. It is unfortunate that he died but the response was not out of line. The tourist in his 70s might have saved lives, if not this time, perhaps during some future robbery.

You go grandpa.

[Chaossaber314]

Quote by: Osborn I don't see the connection. Can you elaborate at what your referring to here?

I was just discussing possible justifications.

In order to restrain, the people in front of the wave to restrain him must be willing to risk their life in the action. The typical pistol has between 5 and 15 rounds. That could be 5 to 15 people dead, in an attempt to "humanely restrain" a man who already COMMITTED to the use of force, or threat of force, playing on the fear of peoples lives like a game.

Just as one old marine could have gotten shot or stabbed by the guys compatriots and in turn scared the criminals enough to have them attack the crowd after becoming frantic. Look, I'm not knocking the guys heroism. It just wasn't a smart move. Just because someone does something stupid that turns out to have a lucky outcome doesn't mean we should support doing the same thing.

If that is the case, then let the trial by jury bear that out, if the system it takes place under has that much respect for peoples rights.

I agree. Though this man was not apprehended or given the opportunity of a trial.

I would still defend the use of force against the threat of use of force, to protect rights, any day of the week.

As would I. That still doesn't mean there aren't levels of force.

If they abused the man after disarmed, its tragic, but I am not going to pretend laws can change human nature. His actions brought about his demise, cause and effect.

True but they're merely mitigating circumstances for the tourists. If they killed him after the fact human nature doesn't make it right. Being in the heat of the moment doesn't make it right either. It does mitigate things a little bit though.

I see no difference. Just because there is a crowd, doesn't mean they are willing to die trying to "humanely" stop a criminal who is using force to remove rights. That just isn't the way it works, and it counters natural instinct.

True, but if they're not willing to die, why are we celebrating the actions of a man who puts these lives at risk? In attacking three people he risked everyone's lives. Admittedly it luckily worked out this time. Thank god.

You know, in a perfect world, maybe. More likely would be this case..... Man points gun at crowd, makes demands, crowd panics, while others take action to rush gunman, gunman fires into crowd, wounding three, killing one, and then is captured to stand trial.

You say that like it couldn't have still happened this way with the same actions on the part of the tourists. As things happened, the one gunman was in a headlock and the gun was potentially restrained.

If it was, then at this point he used excessive force given the circumstances. You can only use lethal force as long as its being threatened/applied toward you. Not a week later. Not a day later. Not moments later. I'm not saying these people/this marine are guilty of murder. It just has a lot of the same markings as a voluntary manslaughter to me.

If it wasn't, then it was reasonable force in order to stop the man.

Police obviously don't observe your "humane" rule, why should a citizen?

Say this was a black 20 year old youth and the person that killed him was uniformed white cop who snapped his neck. That cop would be on administrative leave right now and people would be calling him a racist at worst and say that he used excessive force at best. People in this thread wouldn't be implying he was a hero.

[Gods_Mercenary]

You say that like it couldn't have still happened this way with the same actions on the part of the tourists. As things happened, the one gunman was in a headlock and the gun was potentially restrained.

Potentially? Sorry, but if I'm in this situation I'm not settling for potentially. One slip and someone, possibly many, die. This way, one guy, the guy who started it, dies.