The Glade 4.0

of course neither CNN, nor FoxNews are even mentioning this article. MSNBC has a quick blurb.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44207798/ns ... mcdonalds/

This isn't exactly making the headlines Khross is claiming. Most of the news sources are local.

Interesting theory, Khross, but I think it's unsupported.

Just like there's a lot of knee-jerk calls of racism out there, there's a lot of people who are expecting such reactions so fully, they have a knee-jerk reaction.

This wasn't a police officer. It was a retired officer, yes, but this wasn't some kid shot by an on-duty officer, so we can't really make an apples to apples comparison to white officers shooting black teens.

This in particular strikes me as curious, because my own initial reaction was to note that we're going to automatically assume the retired officer is a white male, because that's our stereotype for police officers. You could make the case that this story is just as much about vigilantism as anything else.

Except for the fact you know about it ...

Seems to me, if it's a total non-issue and not making news, we wouldn't be discussing it.

_________________

we're discussing it because one of our members brought it up.

Don't get me wrong, I definitely think race is in play, even if it's more of an undeclared subtext. I just think the youth of the robber, as well as the pseudo-vigilante status of the retired officer, are also issues here. The ambiguity's all the more reason for this story to disappear pretty quickly; it's not so cut and dried how we're supposed to react to it. Kinda hard to be polarizing if we can't even sort out exactly which poles we're talking about There's an Onion article in here somewhere, about frustrated readers who can't quite put a finger on what they're supposed to be mad about.

Really? You think we only discuss large issues and big news? This place is the poster child for "personal axe to grind".

... or it's a slow news week.

_________________

Not really ...

_________________

So, sharp end pointing towards the hone, or away?

And, get that citation handy, mr "away, 'cause someone could get hurt!" Aizle.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

No, not really. Why are you bringing up the number of shots fired? It could be 1400 shots, what matters is control over the weapon. 14 shots is not a lot; that's less than one full magazine for some pistols.

Just because the McDonalds is "crowded" doesn't mean much either. Yes, if someone is spraying shots wildly, there's obviously a greater chance for someone to get hurt, but there were no automatic weapons that would encourage that kind of lack of fire discipline, the former cop obviously did not hit anyone but the criminal and probably because he knew he could make the shot, and the criminal, undisciplined as he might be is not likely to shoot at anyone but the guy shooting at him. I can't recall anyone who has blasted away randomply at bystanders while being shot at by someone else.



That's possible, but it's hardly "Typcially the case". It depends what you mean by "kill shot". A shot instantly fatal? In that case a single, reflex action shot is possible, but unlikely. A shot that will prove fatal almost instantly? Again, a shot or two is possible, but the fatal wound will present rapidly. A wound that will prove fatal if untreated, or fatal beyond the time frame of a gun fight? (more than 15 seconds or so) Again, he might blast away, but if he does it will be at the guy that shot him, not all over the place, and people instinctively get down and take cover when guns get fired.

People get slaughtered by unopposed gunmen. Stray bullet killings are simply not that common.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

*reminded of the ricochet s***storm thread by he should not be named.*

_________________
A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. ~ John Stuart Mill

Khross - did I miss the post where you provided a link indicating the race of the retired cop, or are you just making **** up here?

Maybe our medical professionals here can answer this better, but it was my understanding that unless the brain or spine are hit the body will still mostly function, even with a direct hit to the heart, the fatally wounded person could continue to pull the trigger for 10-15 seconds until lack of blood to the brain caused the person to lose consciousness.

This discussion is stupid. If he even stuck a finger in his pocket and said "stick 'em up!" he got what he deserved. Use of, or even threatened present use of a deadly weapon is enough to justify defense of self or others. If the guy had shot him as he ran off, or if the kid had grabbed cash from the till without brandishing the gun...that would be a different story. If the retired officer had shot wildly into the crowd trying to get the thug, that would be a different story. But it isn't a different story. The End.

Maybe. So? Does that mean we should never shoot anyone when people are around because they might randomly shoot back as they are dying. I don't understand why people are digging so deep to turn this into a bad case. The only person who was hurt in this case is the person who chose violence against the innocent, only to find out one of the innocent weren't more capable to turn violence back.

This should be lauded as a warning flag to everyone who ever thinks about committing armed robbery. You never know who is watching and there are still people out there unwilling to tolerate your actions.

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"

Also anyone who's taken active shooter training. You're supposed to assume anyone brandishing a gun has full intentions to use it right. That's what they teach you right?

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"

Headline should be "Teen armed robber dies in shootout with retired policeman"

I hate that they're called "suspects". Its stupid.

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

No, it's not. It might be stretching the limits slightly to have someone caught red handed be called a suspect, but the principal behind it is very important to the way our legal system works.

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"

TheRiov: Dead people don't need medical treatment, so I don't think any of us medical professionals here can help you there. DE's one of the ones with the training on where to put a fatal bullet. Unless somebody here is a medical examiner, the people with combat firearms training are the experts.

_________________
Women are from Hoboken, men are from Trenton. ~ Jimmy Kimmel

You have a good point, but when reading "teen suspect" in the headline instead of "armed robber," it seems to imply some sort of innocence and makes is seem like the real crime was the shooting of the teen. The choice of words there is very important.

_________________
"Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own." Jesus of Nazareth

Indeed. Perhaps "Teen Armed Robbery Suspect" would be a better headline.

_________________
This must be Thursday. I could never get the hang of Thursdays.

Honestly this is just another line of inquiry only tangentially related to the subject, I'm not trying to make a point regarding the to-shoot or not-to-shoot discussion.

Our media is not our legal system. Its intellectually dishonest. Was he armed? Yes. Was he robbing the McDonalds? Yes. Therefore, he's an Armed Robber. He's not *suspected* of doing it, he was actually doing it.

In court, sure, he'd be a "suspect". But the newspaper isn't the court. Report the facts, not politically correct bullshit.

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

You're right, it does.

You're assumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

That bold part is important, and frankly I want our news industry supporting it. They **** up enough court cases with predjudice as it is.