2 Shot At Louie's On Lake Hefner; Suspect Killed By Armed Patron

[ecofarm]

Agreed.
Gun fights between 'citizens' would seem to put a society a few notches lower than perfect. Especially if it's all put in a positive spin.

And a notch above citizens stripped of the ability to defend themselves.

 

[ajn678]

Value can be found in any life. There mere fact that society incarcerates instead of executing makes society worth joining. Justice is the stuff that justifies the existence of society. The stuff that makes society worth being a part of. Incarceration for public safety and possible rehabilitation or even redemption makes society worth being a part of. The safety part is nice and when redemption happens it's special. Sometimes it changes us not only as individuals but as a society.

You know what doesn't make me think, "yeah, I wanna be a part of that"? Killing for revenge or to save money. That's not justice.

Disagree, plenty of people by actions they committed put more bad into the world than they can even repay. What kind of society would we have if criminals were allowed to continue committing crimes because "we can't be sure if they intend to keep committing more crimes"? This person murdered two people in cold blood in a public place. We are lucky that he didn't kill anyone else. No one should mourn the loss of trash like this.

 

[ecofarm]

What kind of society would we have if criminals were allowed to continue committing crimes because "we can't be sure if they intend to keep committing more crimes"?

No one suggested any such thing. In fact, many times I specified the opposite.

This person murdered two people in cold blood in a public place. We are lucky that he didn't kill anyone else. No one should mourn the loss of trash like this.

It's not about mourning anyone. It's about not finding value in death.

 

[ajn678]

No one suggested any such thing. In fact, many times I specified the opposite.



It's not about mourning anyone. It's about not finding value in death.

There can be value in death. When the death is of someone with no moral character such as this individual.

 

[ecofarm]

There can be value in death. When the death is of someone with no moral character such as this individual.

That benefits you or society how?

 

[ajn678]

That benefits you or society how?

1. Less chances this person continues to murder other people(Obviously).
2. Less tax resources spent on housing violent felons.
3. One less criminal in the world.

 

[ecofarm]

1. Less chances this person continues to murder other people(Obviously).
2. Less tax resources spent on housing violent felons.
3. One less criminal in the world.

Incarceration accomplishes 1 and 3 while providing value. As far as money, it's more expensive to execute.

 

[Felis Leo]

What if the suspect had no intention of harming anyone else?

Then it would only have been wrong to shoot him if the person who shot him was omniscient and knew of the suspect's intentions.

If the man who shot the suspected shooter knew with absolute certainty that the suspected shooter lost his taste for harming others the moment the second victim was gunned down, and was willing to surrender, but still shot him anyway, I believe that would be an absolute travesty. And certainly a misuse of his omniscience.

 

[ecofarm]

Then it would only have been wrong to shoot him if the person who shot him was omniscient and knew of his intentions.

Of course. But it's still a pointless death if so. And one that probably would have been avoided by the cops.

Look, it appears to be a good shoot (if I have my Blue Bloods lingo correct) but I'm gonna need more info before I get behind it as an example of things going right.

 

[ajn678]

Incarceration accomplishes 1 and 3 while providing value. As far as money, it's more expensive to execute.

Its not more expensive for a civilian to take a criminal out in this way. I wasn't talking about lethal injection or something else. And no, incarceration doesn't accomplish 1 or 3. They can still kill people in prison, and they are still in the world. You aren't being very accurate with your claims.

 

[ecofarm]

Its not more expensive for a civilian to take a criminal out in this way.

Maybe we should ask them.

I wasn't talking about lethal injection or something else. And no, incarceration doesn't accomplish 1 or 3. They can still kill people in prison, and they are still in the world. You aren't being very accurate with your claims.

In prison, murderers are only exposed to volunteers. Guards volunteer for the job knowing the risks. Inmates volunteered to be there when they committed crimes. It's a sufficient risk reduction.

Are you suggesting we kill all murderers?

 

[Felis Leo]

Are you suggesting we kill all murderers?

I would not wish to speak for ajn678, but I think that is a perfectly good option in cases of heinous murder. I believe that criminals who engage in heinous murder should be executed.

 

[Kal'Stang]

What if the suspect had no intention of harming anyone else?

Would you want to take that chance if you had a chance to put someone down that just shot two people? "What if's" are fine and dandy in the philosophical world of debates, but philosophy doesn't always work in real life.

 

[Kal'Stang]

You know that doesn't hold water intellectually. Death serves no legitimate purpose in and of itself. Death resulting from self defense is justified yet unfortunate.

Yes, it does. That POS will no longer be able to kill anyone else. That is a legitimate purpose.

 

[dogboy49]

Of course. But it's still a pointless death if so. And one that probably would have been avoided by the cops.

I suspect that the guy's chances of survival upon police apprehension are probably not as good as you are imagining

Look, it appears to be a good shoot (if I have my Blue Bloods lingo correct) but I'm gonna need more info before I get behind it as an example of things going right.

Agreed.

To your philosophical questions: In every killing, there will always be things that could have gone better (this includes the death sentence for capital crimes). There are also things that could have gone worse.

No shooting is "good". There are more than a few people who believe philosophically that shooting a known murderer is a reasonably good risk/benefit when weighed against possible consequences. For instance, if I were armed, and I failed to stop a person I believed to be a murderer, and that person went on to murder someone else, I would have a hard time facing myself in the mirror. Risk/benefit.

 

[PirateMk1]

What if the suspect had no intention of harming anyone else?

:roll: So?

 

[ecofarm]

Agreed.

To your philosophical questions: In every killing, there will always be things that could have gone better (this includes the death sentence for capital crimes). There are also things that could have gone worse.

No shooting is "good". There are more than a few people who believe philosophically that shooting a known murderer is a reasonably good risk/benefit when weighed against possible consequences. For instance, if I were armed, and I failed to stop a person I believed to be a murderer, and that person went on to murder someone else, I would have a hard time facing myself in the mirror. Risk/benefit.

The question is not whether to shoot. We'll presume he had good reason. The question is, "was it meaningful". I expect we'll get more information today.

 

[ecofarm]

:roll: So?

Then his death was pointless. No one benefited.

 

[Rucker61]

Then his death was pointless. No one benefited.

Hindsight is always so accurate, isn't it?

 

[ecofarm]

Hindsight is always so accurate, isn't it?

It's not about hindsight.

Look, if this guy shot someone with no intention of hurting anyone else, it doesn't serve gun rights to laud him as a hero. Sure, he had reason to shoot. Sure, it's the right thing to do. But if it was pointless, I'm not using it as an example of armed citizenry getting it right.

What if the suspect had dropped his weapon and was walking towards a cop car?

We don't know enough to risk being, "see, it works". I'm not gonna have the rug pulled out from under me. There are already enough questions for me to leave my pom poms on the bench.

 

[Rucker61]

It's not about hindsight.

Look, if this guy shot someone with no intention of hurting anyone else, it doesn't serve gun rights to laud him as a hero. Sure, he had reason to shoot. Sure, it's the right thing to do. But if it was pointless, I'm not using it as an example of armed citizenry getting it right.

What if the suspect had dropped his weapon and was walking towards a cop car?

We don't know enough to risk being, "see, it works". I'm not gonna have the rug pulled out from under me. There are already enough questions for me to leave my pom poms on the bench.

Did the dead perp have no intention of shooting anyone else? Do we owe him the benefit of the doubt?

 

[OlNate]

one asshole dead. the public spared thousands in court costs and hundreds of thousands in incarceration costs. and again, its a good bet the slain mope's nastiness was not limited to this one incident

Oh...careful, man, that's making a strong case for mob mentality and lynch mobs and vigilantism...what happens to them after being convicted is up for debate, but I believe the right to a fair trial is guaranteed by your constitution, is it not?

PS: This is in general, that this guy was brought down in this case doesn't bother me...but perhaps not a good activity to normalize? Just curious as to if and where you'd draw the line...

 

[ecofarm]

Did the dead perp have no intention of shooting anyone else?

Targets appear specific, dunno if there were others. The suspect left the restaurant. Haven't looked this morning.

Do we owe him the benefit of the doubt?

No. But that doesn't make the shooting meaningful.

 

[ecofarm]

I suspect that the guy's chances of survival upon police apprehension are probably not as good as you are imagining

We don't have info. But let's say the armed citizen was outside the restaurant looking through the window and saw the suspect murder people. The suspect exited the restaurant and the person shot them. Fine.

Now, what if the suspect had his gun at his side or in his pocket. Could the police have apprehended him without shooting him? Probably. But maybe he was pointing the gun around, in which case cops would have shot virtually immediately as well.

At some point we get the answers and the discussion is less creative.

 

[dogboy49]

We don't have info.

Given.

Now, what if the suspect had his gun at his side or in his pocket. Could the police have apprehended him without shooting him? Probably.

Could they? Absolutely. Would they? Again, not enough info. My opinion is that the liklihood is higher than 50%, but not a whole lot higher.

But maybe he was pointing the gun around, in which case cops would have shot virtually immediately as well.

Not enough info. My opinion is that the liklihood is higher than 95%

At some point we get the answers and the discussion is less creative.

Yeah, I already agreed that we are just engaging in idle speculation about imaginary scenarios.