Man on Bike Kills Teen Who Pushed Him Off


The first teen learned his lesson as the bullets went into him. The other two teens need to be charged with the assault and the hate crime for picking to attack an elderly person.
 

Curmudgeon said:
Here is another recent article with (I think a better headline...

Link Removed






Looks to me like they'd have been better off staying in school instead of going to the park to assault people.

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
Click to expand...

That area of Reading is notorious for (politically incorrect terms coming up)racial gang activity. The trail was part of the 'beautification' project that took place in Reading and the project did a good job of reducing the criminal youth activity (politically correct) to what the city considered 'acceptable limits'.

Evidently the senior citizens have taken the 'acceptable limits' to a new level! :sarcastic:
 
I wonder if they had an "A ha" moment or an "O SH.." moment?

Maybe their friends won't mess with "old guys" on bikes any more!
 
The two survivors should be charged with the death of their friend, just like the idiot in Oklahoma who's partner was killed as they tried to break into the girl's trailer to rob her and her kids. Someone died while they were in the act of committing a crime; they're responsible for that death. The guy in OK has discovered that as he was charged with murder for that righteous shoot.
Good on the gentleman for having the wherewithal to draw and shoot even in the midst of an attack, that is a very difficult thing to do successfuly, I would imagine.
 
localgirl said:
Just reading the headline, I would have been somewhat dubious. But they did more than just push him down. They also proceeded to attempt to rob him, actions which show an individual might be primed for something more. Plus, three against one just isn't fair.

I think a lot will depend on the 65-year-old's physical condition, and the degree of premeditation on the part of the boys. But, so far, from where I'm sitting, it looks to be self-defense.
Click to expand...

Why would the 65 year old's physical condition enter into the discussion? No one can be expected to take on 3 against one successfully and would be entitled to use whatever force necessary to protect himself from serious bodily harm or death.
 
Deserteagle said:
The first teen learned his lesson as the bullets went into him. The other two teens need to be charged with the assault and the hate crime for picking to attack an elderly person.
Click to expand...

Somehow "elderly" seems a questionable description of a 65 year old riding a bike. He may have fit the description but I seriously doubt it.
 
maybejim said:
Why would the 65 year old's physical condition enter into the discussion? No one can be expected to take on 3 against one successfully and would be entitled to use whatever force necessary to protect himself from serious bodily harm or death.
Click to expand...

Because the punishment will depend on how able the man was to defend himself.

If he was a triathlete in top form, fair or not, society will see him as more able to defend himself, and therefore the boys' actions as less egregious. If he was particularly frail, their crime will seem much worse, and their punishment will be doled out accordingly. Same thing if a woman is attacked versus a man, an old lady versus a young athlete.
 
localgirl said:
Because the punishment will depend on how able the man was to defend himself.

If he was a triathlete in top form, fair or not, society will see him as more able to defend himself, and therefore the boys' actions as less egregious. If he was particularly frail, their crime will seem much worse, and their punishment will be doled out accordingly. Same thing if a woman is attacked versus a man, an old lady versus a young athlete.
Click to expand...

3 against one even a triathlete is evidence of the need for a weapon to even the odds. Only a highly trained fighter of some kind would change that.
 
maybejim said:
3 against one even a triathlete is evidence of the need for a weapon to even the odds. Only a highly trained fighter of some kind would change that.
Click to expand...

No, I'm not saying HIS actions weren't justified, I'm saying that a judge and jury will go harder or easier on the boys. Or possibly not, because frankly, three against one is pretty shameful.

I guess I'm picturing a thug picking a fight with someone his own age and size, versus the same thug pushing down Grandma and stealing her wallet. The first gets a month probation, the second gets some hard time.
 
One career mercifully ended at an early age. Many people have been saved pain, loss and possibly worse. With any luck the other two will spend many years locked up for manslaughter. The longer they keep them in jail the better.

Three cheers for the old fart. I wonder what he was packing and how long it will take before he gets it back.

I've heard it said, "don't mess with old people, they'll flat kill you".

Two to one is disparity of force. Three to one is even worse. Even a black belt would not be expected to leave the gun in a holster when faced with multiple attackers. Having said that, you never know what the DA is going to do.
 
Caribou said:
One career mercifully ended at an early age. Many people have been saved pain, loss and possibly worse. With any luck the other two will spend many years locked up for manslaughter. The longer they keep them in jail the better.

Three cheers for the old fart. I wonder what he was packing and how long it will take before he gets it back.

I've heard it said, "don't mess with old people, they'll flat kill you".


Two to one is disparity of force. Three to one is even worse. Even a black belt would not be expected to leave the gun in a holster when faced with multiple attackers. Having said that, you never know what the DA is going to do.
Click to expand...

My goodness, such talk. Everyone knows that their mommas will tell you they were good boys and our dear king will tell you this was just some form of "childhood developmental insensitivity" and had nothing to do with being slimebuckets. Imagine if they had "wandered across our southern border"---I guess we could hold out our hand to these "displaced undocumented youngsters" and send them to college, tuition free--its the least we could do.
 
maybejim said:
Why would the 65 year old's physical condition enter into the discussion? No one can be expected to take on 3 against one successfully and would be entitled to use whatever force necessary to protect himself from serious bodily harm or death.
Click to expand...

I've known some serious scrappers in my time - big guys who could go toe-to-toe with anyone. None of them would like their chances if they were the "1" in a 3-on-1 fight unless maybe the perps were really small or really drunk. The (potential) problem is that many states don't consider a knuckle sandwich or two to be enough of a threat to constitute a "fear of death or grievous bodily injury". I doubt if there are many DAs who would go after a 65yr-old in this situation but it's a real gray area with people who're younger and probably healthier. Unfortunately I don't think it's as simple as saying "I feared for my life", especially if you've got a DA who doesn't like guns in the hands of private citizens and is looking to make an example.
 
maybejim said:
Somehow "elderly" seems a questionable description of a 65 year old riding a bike. He may have fit the description but I seriously doubt it.
Click to expand...
'
You are confusing elderly with disabled. You can be charged with a hate crime for picking your victim because of their age. Regardless of if they are in shape or not or what physical activity they are doing. Age, not disability.
 
Deserteagle said:
'
You are confusing elderly with disabled. You can be charged with a hate crime for picking your victim because of their age. Regardless of if they are in shape or not or what physical activity they are doing. Age, not disability.
Click to expand...

To me to say "elderly" is to say somewhat disabled. I'm 68 but I don't feel elderly.
 
B2Tall said:
I've known some serious scrappers in my time - big guys who could go toe-to-toe with anyone. None of them would like their chances if they were the "1" in a 3-on-1 fight unless maybe the perps were really small or really drunk. The (potential) problem is that many states don't consider a knuckle sandwich or two to be enough of a threat to constitute a "fear of death or grievous bodily injury". I doubt if there are many DAs who would go after a 65yr-old in this situation but it's a real gray area with people who're younger and probably healthier. Unfortunately I don't think it's as simple as saying "I feared for my life", especially if you've got a DA who doesn't like guns in the hands of private citizens and is looking to make an example.
Click to expand...

You are right it's not as simple as saying "I feared for my life". You need to be able to verbalize a reason for that fear. " I was afraid for my life because it was three young men against me, a 65 year old man. They had already assaulted me and knocked me to the ground." Unfortunately, much of the time what you say and how you say it are very important to a favorable outcome.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New Threads

Members online

No members online now.
Total: 170 (members: 0, guests: 170)

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
49,544
Messages
611,260
Members
74,959
Latest member
defcon

Share this page

Back
Top