• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

13 Y/O boy fends off two armed home invaders - killing one

Excon said:
You are not telling me something that I do not know.
Maybe you should read back a few and figure out what I am speaking to.

And once you do that, tell us about this evidence that he thought the person was armed when they were not shooting back and why it was ok to continue shopoting at the vehicle while it fled away from him.
Click to expand...

For the same reason gun grabbers want more laws after they have got what they want.
 
CanadaJohn said:
I don't have a lot to disagree with in your comments, except for the fact this wasn't/isn't a rural situation - it's a fairly affluent suburb well populated. Rural environments, lifestyles and relative speed of maturity for young people is far different from a more urban or suburban environment. In addition, I'm pretty sure the vast majority if not all of the shootings of children by children in the recent past have been in urban/suburban locations and not rural ones.

My point remains that for me, personally, if you believe that your 13 yr old child will be in sufficient physical danger if you leave him alone that you have to arm him with a loaded weapon then leaving him alone in that situation is irresponsible.
Click to expand...

Do explain what is going to make you believe?
 
Crimefree said:
Do explain what is going to make you believe?
Click to expand...

You've quoted me repeatedly on this issue and expressed your point of view, ad nauseum. There's nothing to be gained by starting up a discussion with you again with the same results. You have your views, I have mine.

A different poster quoted me and expressed an opinion and I courteously responded to his comments as I would with anyone else so inclined to open a discussion.

On that note, have a good day.
 
CanadaJohn said:
I guess that depends on the laws within a jurisdiction with respect to the ownership, transportation and use of weapons. If you can legally own, transport and use a weapon at 18, as an example, you should be able to supervise a younger person around it, provided it's fully understood that the 18 yr old is the one responsible should anything go wrong.
Click to expand...

I am an expert at dealing with males between 18 and 25. I did this for 6 years in the USMC.

Males between 18 and 25 are totally useless on their own and require supervision at all times from males over 25, based on my Empirical experience.

We let them supervise each other, sure, but they still should not do it on their own.

A male over 25 in the military would be an Army staff sergeant (same rank in USMC or USAF) or a Navy chief (same as USCG), or an Army captain or Navy full lieutenant.
 
CanadaJohn said:
I wouldn't go so far as to remove the child from the home but I certainly would have social workers visit the home to interview the child and his mother - not sure where father is in this case - to be sure the child will be protected in future and provided with any psychological assistance he may need going forward.

Who knows? - this kid may be the most independent and unaffected kid in the world when it comes to killing another human being. Many police officers and soldiers, however, suffer psychologically after having killed someone, so it's not unreasonable to expect this child may be likewise affected.
Click to expand...

CJ you were the first person here who was smart enough to notice the issue of the child neglect.

Everyone else is just focused on gun rights and gun laws.

I salute you !!
 
Crimefree said:
You may not have noticed that for a large number of people the world is not perfect and they do the best they can. One can pontificate all one likes but if mum stays at home the kid will probably starve and that is a problem faced by more than you have thought of.
Click to expand...

You are correct. Some people are not cut out or empowered to be parents.
 
Riveroaks said:
Eventually this kid will grow up and have PTSD from the situation that his parent(s) neglectfully put him in.
Click to expand...

We don't know that. Like I said, kids are resilient. I worked with a kid (indirectly) who killed his family (except his dad). His mom and triplets. Horrible stuff. He was playing with matches and burned the house down.

He is starting to turn into a well adjusted kid. But only because his father got counseling and so on. All that matters is if this kid is treated correctly.
 
stonewall50 said:
We don't know that. Like I said, kids are resilient. I worked with a kid (indirectly) who killed his family (except his dad). His mom and triplets. Horrible stuff. He was playing with matches and burned the house down.

He is starting to turn into a well adjusted kid. But only because his father got counseling and so on. All that matters is if this kid is treated correctly.
Click to expand...

Wow !!!!!

That must be some serious social work !!!!!
 
Riveroaks said:
Wow !!!!!

That must be some serious social work !!!!!
Click to expand...

Yea. My friend was the counselor for the kid. It was a nightmare. The kid was always talking about it. And how his dad hated him. Which was part of the issue. I don't know how he will act when he has kids, but that is a lifelong thing.

Idk how it compares to taking someone's life, but since the kid's life was at risk...idk
 
stonewall50 said:
Yea. My friend was the counselor for the kid. It was a nightmare. The kid was always talking about it. And how his dad hated him. Which was part of the issue. I don't know how he will act when he has kids, but that is a lifelong thing.

Idk how it compares to taking someone's life, but since the kid's life was at risk...idk
Click to expand...

Most people if their job requires it need to be trained to kill.

This normally involves rigorous training combined with high stress.

LEO's and soldiers are the classic examples.

For LEO's they are put through an academy and are yelled at, sleep deprived, exercised hard, and conditioned to take the shot when they have it.

For soldiers they are put through basic training, and are yelled at, sleep deprived, exercised hard, and then the bayonet field is where they learn to make the kill.

Spontaneously killing someone without such training is extremely rare and quite traumatic -- even so there is PTSD for anyone who kills.

Criminals suffer no PTSD however. On the other hand they experience pleasure from it. These people are of a sort that is either psychotic or sociopathic, even BPD (borderline personality disorder). For them killing is a relief for a need they have.

At any rate the whole issue is complex.
 
Riveroaks said:
CJ you were the first person here who was smart enough to notice the issue of the child neglect.

Everyone else is just focused on gun rights and gun laws.

I salute you !!
Click to expand...

child neglect has nothing to do with this issue

in most states, 12 is the age that you can legally leave a child at home during day trips.

the child apparently was not neglected in terms of training. He acted properly and he solved the problem. His father or parents obviously had instilled in him the knowledge to survive such a challenge
 
Riveroaks said:
Most people if their job requires it need to be trained to kill.

This normally involves rigorous training combined with high stress.

LEO's and soldiers are the classic examples.

For LEO's they are put through an academy and are yelled at, sleep deprived, exercised hard, and conditioned to take the shot when they have it.

For soldiers they are put through basic training, and are yelled at, sleep deprived, exercised hard, and then the bayonet field is where they learn to make the kill.

Spontaneously killing someone without such training is extremely rare and quite traumatic -- even so there is PTSD for anyone who kills.

Criminals suffer no PTSD however. On the other hand they experience pleasure from it. These people are of a sort that is either psychotic or sociopathic, even BPD (borderline personality disorder). For them killing is a relief for a need they have.

At any rate the whole issue is complex.
Click to expand...

more generalized crap. I have interviewed dozens of NON leo Civilians who have killed criminals. Few, if any had PTSD. So your claim is complete BS
 
Riveroaks said:
Most people if their job requires it need to be trained to kill.

This normally involves rigorous training combined with high stress.

LEO's and soldiers are the classic examples.

For LEO's they are put through an academy and are yelled at, sleep deprived, exercised hard, and conditioned to take the shot when they have it.

For soldiers they are put through basic training, and are yelled at, sleep deprived, exercised hard, and then the bayonet field is where they learn to make the kill.

Spontaneously killing someone without such training is extremely rare and quite traumatic -- even so there is PTSD for anyone who kills.

Criminals suffer no PTSD however. On the other hand they experience pleasure from it. These people are of a sort that is either psychotic or sociopathic, even BPD (borderline personality disorder). For them killing is a relief for a need they have.

At any rate the whole issue is complex.
Click to expand...

Yes. Complex. But I don't think that survival requires training. It is instinct. This kid is the point. We humans don't want to die and when someone puts us in a place where we fear it...it is instinct to survive.

PTSD isn't a guarantee. This kid WILL have problems, I agree, but if he has a support network and family that reminds him he is alive because he did right...it could be a lot easier.
 
TurtleDude said:
more generalized crap. I have interviewed dozens of NON leo Civilians who have killed criminals. Few, if any had PTSD. So your claim is complete BS
Click to expand...

To be fair, it would be hard to detect unless it is severe.
 
Mr Person said:
This store owner defeated a bad guy with a gun using a slipper....and hands...

Man Defeats Shotgun-Wielding Robber Armed With Only A Slipper
Click to expand...

the real weapon is the mind

IN HS I had a coach/teacher who had been in the OSS and then early versions of the CIA. He was an infantry officer in Korea. One of the men he served with from another Platoon was a 2nd Lt and that 2nd Lt led a charge up a hill thinking that the artillery had wiped out the Chinese Machine gun position and most of the Chinese defending it. He was wrong and the Chinese Machine Gunner was only wounded and his gun was operational and a few other infantry rifle men killed or severely wounded most of the platoon. The second LT's weapon was hit and destroyed and the Lt was shot through the chest but not sufficiently to stop him. As he neared the machine gun position, he grabbed his entrenching tool, jumped into the machine gun position and decapitated the machine gunner and the other enemy with the shovel. He apparently didn't even realize he had been wounded. SO one army officer with a shovel takes out a machine gun position and a few riflemen. Yeah he got a chestful of medals for that but he apparently didn't really plan what he did-he used the one weapon he had available and used it efficiently
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom