One more reason to carry

[GabonX]

http://www.philly.com/philly/hp/news_up ... 43019.html

The sad thing is this happened in my home state where all you have to do is ask and if your record is clean you'll get a carrying permit. People pay a price for ignorance.

[Snorri1234]

http://www.philly.com/philly/hp/news_update/28043019.html

The sad thing is this happened in my home state where all you have to do is ask and if your record is clean you'll get a carrying permit. People pay a price for ignorance.

Given the fact that he was just carrying a hammer and noone did anything, I'd say blaming it on people being cowardly shitbags is a far better idea than saying people need moar guns.

This is not a problem that stems from having too few guns.

[Matroshka]

I think he was saying that a gun would have been very useful at that moment. Not that the attack was a result of nobody carrying guns.

[Snorri1234]

I think he was saying that a gun would have been very useful at that moment. Not that the attack was a result of nobody carrying guns.

Yeah, but the problem is that people still wouldn't have used them.

[pimpdave]

I think he was saying that a gun would have been very useful at that moment. Not that the attack was a result of nobody carrying guns.

Yeah, but the problem is that people still wouldn't have used them.

Kitty Genovese! Kitty Genovese!

(Snorri's absolutely right!)

[Matroshka]

I think he was saying that a gun would have been very useful at that moment. Not that the attack was a result of nobody carrying guns.

Yeah, but the problem is that people still wouldn't have used them.

I would hope that if someone went through the whole process of getting a gun and then also carrying it with them they would use it when the time arose. I believe the type of person to carry a gun is the type of person that would rush to help.

I would have also thought that someone would have attempted to help the guy out. Although I'm sure the people were absolutely shocked and maybe even frozen by that shock. I'm sure someone was carrying at least a can of mace or maybe even a stun gun.

[pimpdave]

I would hope that if someone went through the whole process of getting a gun and then also carrying it with them they would use it when the time arose. I would have also thought that someone would have attempted to help the guy out.

Easy to say, so much harder to do in real life.

Read up on Kitty Genovese. The same mob mentality that diffuses responsibility in terms of helping is of the same coin, but different side, of the phenomenon that leads to lynch mobs, or My Lai.

[Snorri1234]

I would have also thought that someone would have attempted to help the guy out.

I bet they were all thinking "someone should do something about this".


This is a fairly well known thing. The more people that see something the less likely they're actually ready to do something about it.

[GabonX]

If the victim had carried a gun instead of or in addition to his iPod he could have avoided brain injury. Frankly he was lucky he wasn't killed. In addition, the attacker had a record including previous assault, rape, robbery, and narcotics violations.
http://www.philly.com/philly/hp/news_up ... ttack.html

If any of his previous victims had have taken the simple precaution of arming themselves they could have protected not only themselves but also his future victims. In this way they were all as guilty as the people who stood by and did nothing on the subway. While I agree that people should have taken action to stop the attacker, this example, as well as the man with the knife on the bus in Canada, shows that it is foolish and undependable to rely on others for your own security.

These two examples also prove that a lack of guns does not translate into a lack of violence, only the means by which violence manifests itself. Across the board states which have adopted right to carry laws have seen a reduction in illegal crime the year after such legislation was passed.

Pick any one of the top ten search results if you doubt the integrity of that claim.
http://www.google.com/search?source=ig& ... arry+crime

[gdeangel]

I've got to think there was some provocation or some history between these guys.

Vanore said that he would not fault the other riders for not coming to Taylor's immediate aid, but that he had a problem with their not coming forward to tell police what they saw.

So other than the images, how do they know what transpired on the train... I'm not running to get a gun. Interesting fact that the guy's own family turned him in...

[GabonX]

I've got to think there was some provocation or some history between these guys.

Vanore said that he would not fault the other riders for not coming to Taylor's immediate aid, but that he had a problem with their not coming forward to tell police what they saw.

So other than the images, how do they know what transpired on the train... I'm not running to get a gun. Interesting fact that the guy's own family turned him in...

There was no previous interaction between the two of them that I can find and given that the victim could not identify the attacker there probably was none. As difficult as it is to fathom there are people out there who enjoy harming strangers for no reason other than sadistic pleasure.

[kyleboy]

why would a gun have helped? so he could have casually withdrawn his pistol whilst the man was beating him, then have that taken from him and possibly getting shot for his troubles?

if your arguement is that the people in the carriage could have had guns, odds are that at least one did, just not that many people care for each other any more.

[kyleboy]

hang on, you're saying he should have killed the guy for attacking him? you're a fucking idiot.

[pimpdave]

I've got to think there was some provocation or some history between these guys.

Vanore said that he would not fault the other riders for not coming to Taylor's immediate aid, but that he had a problem with their not coming forward to tell police what they saw.

So other than the images, how do they know what transpired on the train... I'm not running to get a gun. Interesting fact that the guy's own family turned him in...

There was no previous interaction between the two of them that I can find and given that the victim could not identify the attacker there probably was none. As difficult as it is to fathom there are people out there who enjoy harming strangers for no reason other than sadistic pleasure.

If there was previous contact between the two, it'll come out in court records. Set up a google news tracker on the key names mentioned in the article, and you can follow the story in the coming months. More of the story (if there is any) will come out.

[Snorri1234]

why would a gun have helped? so he could have casually withdrawn his pistol whilst the man was beating him, then have that taken from him and possibly getting shot for his troubles?

Word. Being suddenly and randomly attacked by a dude with a hammer won't make it easy to draw your gun.

[gdeangel]

hang on, you're saying he should have killed the guy for attacking him? you're a fucking idiot.

Well I don't know if your talking about me, but, in reality, if the guy had been packing, he would have had the right to defend himself from deadly force with deadly force.

But two issues come to mind:

1) Watching the video, it hardly seem that the attacker was intending to kill. A hammer can kill with one directed blow to the skull pretty easily. Yet when you read the article, it sounds like a scene out of Jagged Edge or Presumed Innocent. Now imagine you are the jury and you have to determine whether use of deadly force in self defense was appropriate... all you'll have to go on are words, which can easily be manipulated... not that video can't be... but I guess it just makes you wonder whether a criminal justice system can every be reliable when it recreates events for a jury through narrative.

2) Just because the victim did not identify the assailant doesn't mean there was no history. Maybe it was just history that the victim didn't care to share with the police. Again interesting fact that the victim actually never called the police. I wonder what he told the hospital people when he was being treated before going home...

[Snorri1234]

The fact that this guy didn't die speaks volumes on how this wasn't a very serious attack.

[gdeangel]

The fact that this guy didn't die speaks volumes on how this wasn't a very serious attack.

I hate to do this to you snorri, but if you're saying it's clear that shooting your assailant in this situation would have been out of the question, I've got to point out that it would matter a lot if you were male or female. Or if your a little puss of electrical engineer....

How many of you remember this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernhard_Goetz? Some of the details on Wikipedia are not quite right, I think, but he definitely was acquitted on the attempted murder charges. Actually Wiki makes is sound like the charges were dropped:

This second indictment was later dismissed after two of the shooting victims were arrested on separate rape and robbery charges, and a third shooting victim stated in a newspaper interview that the other members of the group decided to rob Goetz because he looked like "easy bait." Independent eyewitness statements were still withheld from the media.

People who moved to New York after Guilliani just have no concept of what it was like to live there 20 or 30 years ago.

I did find it quite amazing - and something I hadn't heard before - that the "assailant" won a civil suit for $43MM. God bless America!

[Snorri1234]

The fact that this guy didn't die speaks volumes on how this wasn't a very serious attack.

I hate to do this to you snorri, but if you're saying it's clear that shooting your assailant in this situation would have been out of the question, I've got to point out that it would matter a lot if you were male or female. Or if your a little puss of electrical engineer....

Well I'm not actually sure about how it works in the US, but over here you are only able to use the self-defense-defense (deadly force) if it was ultimately clear that you were going to die otherwise.

And I was more or less commenting on the fact that this story seems to act far more HOLY SHIT than it actually is. The story really sounds like that guy should've died from being beat by a hammer, but the video and the fact that he didn't die show it is much less severe.

[Snorri1234]

Also: http://www.cracked.com/article_16239_5- ... oomed.html

[MeDeFe]

Also: http://www.cracked.com/article_16239_5- ... oomed.html

The closing paragraph is pure genius.

[GabonX]

hang on, you're saying he should have killed the guy for attacking him? you're a fucking idiot.

He would have absolutely been in his right to use potentially lethal force to defend himself under the circumstances. Believe it or not most people who are shot don't die from their wounds but if someone had shot him to stop the attack and he died as a result the shooter would have been justified. You're statement lacks any kind of logic as you're stating that one person can use a deadly weapon but it would be immoral to respond in the like. Not everyone is willing to roll over and die.

quote]

Well I'm not actually sure about how it works in the US, but over here you are only able to use the self-defense-defense (deadly force) if it was ultimately clear that you were going to die otherwise.

And I was more or less commenting on the fact that this story seems to act far more HOLY SHIT than it actually is. The story really sounds like that guy should've died from being beat by a hammer, but the video and the fact that he didn't die show it is much less severe.

The law is the same over here and this attack would have qualified. Keep in mind that the video shows only about 30 seconds of a 5 minute attack so you have to take whatever violence you saw and multiply it by ten to understand the true severity of the situation. Claiming that the attack wasn't serious when in the brief snippet that we say the man was standing over the victim bludgening him with a hammer all but eliminates your credibility on this topic. The fact that the victim survived is inconsequential as he just as easily could have been killed. The difference between life and death when striking the human head with a blunt weapon like a hammer is a matter of inches and it was sheer luck that the victim survived.

The police seem to agree with me as the man is being charged with attempted murder. Really, claiming that this particular attack wasn't serious is not only irrelevant when considering the merrits of carrying a weapon for self defense but it's completely innacurate.

[Snorri1234]

Also: http://www.cracked.com/article_16239_5- ... oomed.html

The closing paragraph is pure genius.

Almost 80 percent. Think about that when you're walking around the mall: Eight out of ten of those people you see would torture the shit out of a puppy if a dude in a lab coat asked them to.

[gdeangel]

The law is the same over here and this attack would have qualified. Keep in mind that the video shows only about 30 seconds of a 5 minute attack so you have to take whatever violence you saw and multiply it by ten to understand the true severity of the situation. Claiming that the attack wasn't serious when in the brief snippet that we say the man was standing over the victim bludgening him with a hammer all but eliminates your credibility on this topic. The fact that the victim survived is inconsequential as he just as easily could have been killed. The difference between life and death when striking the human head with a blunt weapon like a hammer is a matter of inches and it was sheer luck that the victim survived.

The police seem to agree with me as the man is being charged with attempted murder. Really, claiming that this particular attack wasn't serious is not only irrelevant when considering the merrits of carrying a weapon for self defense but it's completely innacurate.

Bludgeon. Nice word. You must be a prosecutor or a prosecutor in training. So you should know the prosecutor will bring a stiff charge like attempted murder to scare someone into copping a plea.

And I made this point above - it's so easy to kill with a hammer strike, and the fact that he has the element of surprise, makes it seems much more likely this was an intended beat down and not an intended murder. And the assailant did a pretty good job of "predicting" that his "victim" wouldn't go to the police. A fist can also be a lethal weapon. When should you be privileged to shoot someone when they start punching you. It's not the act of punching that matters... it's the intent to kill you vs. just to give you a nice black eye!

[Snorri1234]

The law is the same over here and this attack would have qualified.

The law is very much not the same over there. If the dude would've shot that guy he would've faced prison.

Keep in mind that the video shows only about 30 seconds of a 5 minute attack so you have to take whatever violence you saw and multiply it by ten to understand the true severity of the situation. Claiming that the attack wasn't serious when in the brief snippet that we say the man was standing over the victim bludgening him with a hammer all but eliminates your credibility on this topic. The fact that the victim survived is inconsequential as he just as easily could have been killed. The difference between life and death when striking the human head with a blunt weapon like a hammer is a matter of inches and it was sheer luck that the victim survived.

I could kill anyone with a hammer. It's not that hard to do. Shit, I would've killed him with a single stroke. The human skull is very fragile, it's why a blunt object can easily kill a man and has been shown to do exactly that in history.

The fact that the victim survived is A.) Because the dude didn't know how to hit him or B.) because he didn't intent to kill him.


If you want someone dead and you have a hammer, that guy is dead if noone stops you.