KBintheSLC
Member
If he did that, he would have been charged with a crime.
A 50% hit rate is pretty darn good in a low-light confrontation. Police shooting's are closer to 10% hit rates on average.
Jogger Shoots Robber
- Thread starter Mike J
- Start date
- Status
If he did that, he would have been charged with a crime.
A 50% hit rate is pretty darn good in a low-light confrontation. Police shooting's are closer to 10% hit rates on average.
ForumSurfer
Member
frankenstein406 said:
Yes it is.
I found out by dating someone involved in the court system. It really opened my eyes to many, many things. I feel more prepared for it, but I also miss the days of being blissfully ignorant in a way.
Rat Blaster
Member
OK, let me play devil's advocate for a moment:
1. Who jogs in the middle of the night? Remember, he is unemployed so you would think he could find time during the day, right?
2. Who jogs in the middle of the night with $900.00 on them? If you have ever jogged or ran very much you know that a wallet full of money, or just a wallet alone is unnecessary weight. He could have just brought his gun,permit and id.
3. "you want to play games?" should have been more like "STOP!!! I have a gun and will defend myself" or "leave me alone, I'm in fear of my life.....etc."
Now I realize I was not there and I dont know if I would have or could have done any different once the assault began, but I would never have been in this situation in the first place. I am not bashing the good guy, I'm just saying imho better decisions could have been made.
1. Who jogs in the middle of the night? Remember, he is unemployed so you would think he could find time during the day, right?
2. Who jogs in the middle of the night with $900.00 on them? If you have ever jogged or ran very much you know that a wallet full of money, or just a wallet alone is unnecessary weight. He could have just brought his gun,permit and id.
3. "you want to play games?" should have been more like "STOP!!! I have a gun and will defend myself" or "leave me alone, I'm in fear of my life.....etc."
Now I realize I was not there and I dont know if I would have or could have done any different once the assault began, but I would never have been in this situation in the first place. I am not bashing the good guy, I'm just saying imho better decisions could have been made.
I gotta agree with rat blaster. I was not there, so I do not know the whole story, but based on the news article, it seems that more common sense could have been used here. A little situational awareness and the entire situation could have been avoided.
Rat Blaster
Member
Exactly. I DO agree that the writer is biased, as usual. Wonder what the writer would have done in that situation, and how different the story would have been.
phoglund
Member
Indeed Rat Blaster you are correct. Any time somebody get's killed in a confrontation, better decisions could have been made. In this case by one party in particular (the deceased) but also by the other party. The first rule of self defense is not to get into a confrontation in the first place. There are certainly circumstances beyond one's control. Jogging around after midnight with $900 in your pocket isn't exactly the best way to avoid potential confrontations. Yes, perhaps he was justified in shooting under the circumstances, but he still put himself in circumstances that increased the odds of a confrontation.
I'm sure I'll get those that will disagree and state they can go out whenever and wherever they want...which is true. But if you are going to go out after midnight and jog around city streets your risk may just be higher than your gain. I too find the jogging with $900 a bit odd.
On the other side, why did the reporter find it necessary to mention there were hollow point bullets in the weapon used? I agree with earlier posters, the bias against the jogger is obvious.
Paul
I'm sure I'll get those that will disagree and state they can go out whenever and wherever they want...which is true. But if you are going to go out after midnight and jog around city streets your risk may just be higher than your gain. I too find the jogging with $900 a bit odd.
On the other side, why did the reporter find it necessary to mention there were hollow point bullets in the weapon used? I agree with earlier posters, the bias against the jogger is obvious.
Paul
2WheelsGood
Member
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2010
- Messages
- 623
Perhaps I missed it in the story, but did the bad guy somehow know how much money he was carrying? If not, it's completely irrelevant.
ForumSurfer
Member
I did at one time. I worked odd hours and couldn't afford a 24 hour gym. I believe staying healthy is every bit as important, if not more so than carrying a weapon for self defense. I'm a busy guy, so I work out when I can. Sometimes it's 6 am, other times it's after midnight. It depends entirely on what my work schedule looks like. Maybe the guy is used to working odd hours and prefers to keep it that way. Maybe he was working on a friend's car or otherwise busy all day that day, and still wanted to get his exercise in. He can jog whenever he wants.
Times are tough. Maybe he wants to keep his hard earned money on him because he lives in a questionable area until he gets on his feet. Maybe he has a roommate he doesn't trust with $900 cash tucked away? Maybe he had a one night stand and she hasn't left yet? The point is, he can jog whenever and carry whatever he wants within the confines of the law. The other guys broke the law.
No counterpoint there.
phoglund
Member
I disagree that the money in his pocket is irrelevant. It speaks to the state of mind of the jogger. His response to a potential robbery is going to be different somewhat depending on what he's carrying. The fact the jogger brings up the amount he had in his pocket speaks this state of mind. I certainly feel differently when I'm packin' that kind of cash!
2WheelsGood
Member
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2010
- Messages
- 623
So I guess if you're wearing a $900 Rolex, you've earned your attack? Wow, I hope if I ever find myself on trial, I sure hope you're not in the jury box.
SSN Vet
Member
Change "can" to "usually" in any culture and watch the incidence of violent crime go down!
The law of reaping and sowing is an eternal equalizer...
when it is interupted, even with good intentions, it only serves to let the person fester (like an infected wound), and require more drastic measures down the road (like amputation)
Rat Blaster
Member
Because the media portray them as being "more deadly and dangerous" than "normal" ammo. The irony to this, as we know, is that one of the benefits of hollow points is that they (hopefully) expand and mushroom so that they do not overpenetrate and strike a bystander.
I agree, if the bg did not know that the gg had a wad on him then it is irrevelant, and makes this all the stranger. Why would someone rob a jogger if they did not know what sort of payoff to expect? When I think of robbing a jogger:
-most do not carry a lot of money or even a wallet
-the most you can expect is an ipod or similar device, maybe a cell phone
-since he/she jogs he/she may be in good enough condition to put up a fight or pursue the bg
Now I know that joggers ARE often victims of robbery, but I just dont see why since there are bigger and easier fish to catch. Are ipods and cell phones worth the effort?
If I wanted to go jog at midnight and thought "I should take my gun, it could be dangerous" then why would I take a big wad of cash too? Bad room mate? Forgot I had it on me? Beer run? Maybe he really had no choice, but it seems odd.
I agree, if the bg did not know that the gg had a wad on him then it is irrevelant, and makes this all the stranger. Why would someone rob a jogger if they did not know what sort of payoff to expect? When I think of robbing a jogger:
-most do not carry a lot of money or even a wallet
-the most you can expect is an ipod or similar device, maybe a cell phone
-since he/she jogs he/she may be in good enough condition to put up a fight or pursue the bg
Now I know that joggers ARE often victims of robbery, but I just dont see why since there are bigger and easier fish to catch. Are ipods and cell phones worth the effort?
If I wanted to go jog at midnight and thought "I should take my gun, it could be dangerous" then why would I take a big wad of cash too? Bad room mate? Forgot I had it on me? Beer run? Maybe he really had no choice, but it seems odd.
BigMustard
Member
Since he was with his younger buddy I can only imagine he was trying to show his buddy how "street" or "thug" he is...was. He probably just wanted to beat him down to get a rush because people are sick like that. And that was the little homie could go back to school and talk about how much of a gangster the big homie is...was.
My $0.02
BigMustard
Member
Good grief....
1. Because he can/wants too.
2. Because OBVIOUSLY he needed too.
3. Best idea would be not to mug people.
Man...I've killed soooooo much paper. Like literally, half a forest worth of paper. Some cardboard too. Don't turn me in, the tree huger police might arrest me for murder
1. Because he can/wants too.
2. Because OBVIOUSLY he needed too.
3. Best idea would be not to mug people.
Man...I've killed soooooo much paper. Like literally, half a forest worth of paper. Some cardboard too. Don't turn me in, the tree huger police might arrest me for murder
phoglund
Member
2Wheels,
I didn't say anything about 'deserving' anything. Staying within the bounds of what is actually in a post when you reply will give your response more weight. I'd say if you went around in many neighborhoods after midnight with a $900 Rolex on your wrist you'd be an idiot.
There is a difference between how we'd like the world to be and how it actually is. Where I live, running around with a $900 Rolex any time of day or night wouldn't be an issue. Some places in this country it would be like playing Russian Roulette with 5 cylinders full.
If you had shot somebody in such a place after going in there after midnight and wearing a lot of bling while carrying a gun you probably wouldn't want me on the jury. I'd wonder if you had vigilante motives. In this particular case, with the facts as presented, you'd not mind at all.
Rule of law matters, the right to self protection is an absolute, out looking for trouble isn't.
Paul
I didn't say anything about 'deserving' anything. Staying within the bounds of what is actually in a post when you reply will give your response more weight. I'd say if you went around in many neighborhoods after midnight with a $900 Rolex on your wrist you'd be an idiot.
There is a difference between how we'd like the world to be and how it actually is. Where I live, running around with a $900 Rolex any time of day or night wouldn't be an issue. Some places in this country it would be like playing Russian Roulette with 5 cylinders full.
If you had shot somebody in such a place after going in there after midnight and wearing a lot of bling while carrying a gun you probably wouldn't want me on the jury. I'd wonder if you had vigilante motives. In this particular case, with the facts as presented, you'd not mind at all.
Rule of law matters, the right to self protection is an absolute, out looking for trouble isn't.
Paul
I don't think anyone should second guess the guy. Even if the accomplice's report was accurate, maybe what he said and did was the right thing to do at the time. I mean, if someone literally tries to cold clock you, the fight is already on. Your adrenaline is up, you're out-numbered, and you've suffered the first blow. If you're going to lay down, then fine. If you're going to fight for your life, then what comes out of your mouth may very well be fighting words. Words than mean "I'm not afraid, and I'm going to fight back." There may be no time to try reasoning, and after getting decked it might be temporarily impossible, anyway. The guy was already impaired at that point.
And to hell with all this "teen" crap. My 18 yr-old self could whip my 35 yr-old self any day and twice on Sunday.
And to hell with all this "teen" crap. My 18 yr-old self could whip my 35 yr-old self any day and twice on Sunday.
2WheelsGood
Member
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2010
- Messages
- 623
The one mistake I made in my post was to compare having $900 in your pocket to having a Rolex. The Rolex is visible to anyone, the money is not. Your suggestion that he was somehow responsible because he had $900 in his pocket is the real issue. Nobody but him knew he had that money, so the robbery could have just as easily been over $20. Yet you claim his mindset (which you pretend to know) was partially responsible for him getting robbed. Am I correct, or not? And if $900 is too much, what is the exact amount he should have had to have been in the correct mindset?
I know we're having fun and all with Ratblaster's devils advocate, but no matter what twist you throw into this, he has a right to be stupid. That's all.
Even then, the surviving perp collaborated EVERYTHING that happened on his end-- They saw the guy jogging, planned the hit and failed to execute. You can come up with conspiracy theories for the jogger all day long, but after that confession, his reasons for being out at night with $900 in cash jogging around no longer matter. They initiated the encounter. Admitted to it. Even the potentially biased story reports it that way. 'A' is not connected to 'B'. End of story. Literally.
And if you want devils advocate thrown right back at you, you have to take perp #2's word for it that he is telling the truth in saying the jogger said "you want to play games," since the report provides no corroboration as to any other source but the perps, a known brigand. This is after hostilities have been initiated by both perps anyway, so what he said and what he didn't say is also irrelevant.
This silliness of trying to find fault with the shooter through a charade of devils advocate is exactly that-- Silliness. "But he had $900 in his pocket!" Irrelevant given the surviving perp's own testimony as to the events and the subsequent deployment of the jogger's firearm. He might have an obsession with always carrying cash in case of the Apocalypse. As somebody else mentioned, he might not have trusted his roomie. He could have been off to see a hooker. Did they make him suddenly less justified in pulling his gun upon being attacked?
No.
Are we done now?
Even then, the surviving perp collaborated EVERYTHING that happened on his end-- They saw the guy jogging, planned the hit and failed to execute. You can come up with conspiracy theories for the jogger all day long, but after that confession, his reasons for being out at night with $900 in cash jogging around no longer matter. They initiated the encounter. Admitted to it. Even the potentially biased story reports it that way. 'A' is not connected to 'B'. End of story. Literally.
And if you want devils advocate thrown right back at you, you have to take perp #2's word for it that he is telling the truth in saying the jogger said "you want to play games," since the report provides no corroboration as to any other source but the perps, a known brigand. This is after hostilities have been initiated by both perps anyway, so what he said and what he didn't say is also irrelevant.
This silliness of trying to find fault with the shooter through a charade of devils advocate is exactly that-- Silliness. "But he had $900 in his pocket!" Irrelevant given the surviving perp's own testimony as to the events and the subsequent deployment of the jogger's firearm. He might have an obsession with always carrying cash in case of the Apocalypse. As somebody else mentioned, he might not have trusted his roomie. He could have been off to see a hooker. Did they make him suddenly less justified in pulling his gun upon being attacked?
No.
Are we done now?
Last edited:
Well the dead guy did tell his fellow conspirator he was going to knock the guy out and rob him.
Ever been knocked out??
It's no fun especially when your head lands with all your body weight on the hard pavement compounding the injury.
Unfortunately there are an awful lot of teenagers in this land that think just like these two and some of them are very large in pysical stature.
For the life of me I cant understand why the guy would carry such a wad of money with him to go for a work out run but stupid isn't against the law.
Anyone know what caliber the survivour was using??
Ever been knocked out??
It's no fun especially when your head lands with all your body weight on the hard pavement compounding the injury.
Unfortunately there are an awful lot of teenagers in this land that think just like these two and some of them are very large in pysical stature.
For the life of me I cant understand why the guy would carry such a wad of money with him to go for a work out run but stupid isn't against the law.
Anyone know what caliber the survivour was using??
Deltaboy1984
Member
Stupid Thug , Good Shoot , Glad the Jogger lived and was cleared by the System.
I work in a HS, Teens are big and strong enough to kill you if you let them get the drop you.
As for his buddy he better wise up and Momma needs to have a come to Jesus meeting with him instead of protecting him.
mgkdrgn
Member
One less skumbag on the street ... cry me a river. (and one 16 year old that might now look for better friends)
It may have been ruled justifiable homicide however, if the attack was over, there was no need to shoot.
Having said that, the tone of the article indicates the reporter was looking for a reason to demonize the shooter and may have been a bit liberal describing the action.
Having said that, the tone of the article indicates the reporter was looking for a reason to demonize the shooter and may have been a bit liberal describing the action.
rfwobbly
Member
The shooter could reasonably have had blurred vision from the punch or blood running over his eyes. Any motion of the arms by the perp after that could/should have been interpreted by the shooter as going for a weapon. Because the attacker led with a blow to the face, the shooter was justified to take almost any action he deemed necessary. IMHO, the law evaporated for the perp by that action.
If the perp had simply pushed the jogger to the ground and not destroyed the jogger's vision, then things could have gone the other way for the shooter. It would still be an attack, but not life threatening. Of course, then the red laser might have been enough to end it all.
8 shots of 38 Special. He must have had one of the new S&W.
brandon_mcg
Member
when your occupation is that of a criminal then getting shot at is an occupational hazard. i wish someone could have explained that to him sooner. too many people are trying to take the "easy" way out and take things that dont belong to them.
macadore
Member
Big and strong is only part of the story. Most of them do not think they can be hurt. After all, they never have been. It often takes a traumatic event to convince them otherwise.
- Status
