Boys Attack Cyclist Who Fights Back (Page 3)

Well said, Brian.

I grew up in a home with the staunchest NRA father you could find.  However, he hunted and never used his guns for anything but hunting and occasional target practice.  I have never knowingly hung out with anyone who had concealed carry permit and used it as an excuse to always have a gun at hand.

There are arguments on both sides of this....violence begets violence.  True enough.  BUT, if someone is protecting themselves in clear self defense, then he is right. I'm sure there are groups stirring up all kinds of hate toward the man who could easily have been found dead on the trail had these thugs succeeded in their attack.  He will live the rest of his life with this, as much as the boys mother will live hers without her son.

I would never ride in an area that felt so unsafe I thought about carrying a weapon.....but that's my choice.  I don't know about Berks County anymore, it's been a long time since I lived in the area.....but it is a sad day when a cyclist feels he needs to carry a gun and then has to use it to protect his life.

It happened in West Reading. That's pretty far out on the trail, and way further than I have gone from CC Philly (100 miles). I went to college in Reading, it's not great, but at 11am on a school day you'd think the trail would be OK. And these "kids" would be in school.

The Reading Eagle news article is here

I was thinking the same thing.  Many people are saying the situation is sad because the man now has to live with the fact that he has taken a life.  At this point I do not know the man's history, but it very well could be true that this is not the first time he has killed someone.

And that's the part I don't see.  How do you know he got what was coming?  He attacked someone - yes.  He was the perpetrator of a crime - yes.  He deserved to die - I don't know, this is the part I struggle with.  The guy with the gun knows this answer, but me as a couch judge, I can't proclaim the verdict.

Not going to really get sucked in here but just an FYI that the area where this happened does have the Castle Law in effect.

That makes use of deadly force much more easily justifiable than areas that do not have this law on the books.

Referenced stats on homicide & crime rates after passage of concealed carry laws in various US states. 

www.concealedcampus.org/pdf/ccw_gun_facts.pdf

And a more recent view from Texas 15yrs after they passed their law-

http://www.myfoxhouston.com/dpp/news/texas/100707-concealed-carry-effects

And the "classic" research book in the field by Dr. John Lott of Univ of Chicago (updated 2010)

http://www.press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/M/bo6686900.html

The detailed statistical work of Dr Lott's group was unable to be refuted by the US National Academy of Science's National Research Council, Committee on Law & Justice  (CLAJ) which instead claimed to find "no credible evidence that the passage of right-to-carry laws decreases or increases violent crime"--

http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309091241&page=2

However the logic used to reach their conclusion was based on almost laughable selective ignorance of the available published data.  For example their analysis of "counting defensive uses" of firearms gave equal weight to a single study claiming ~65,000 defensive uses/yr vs "at least 19" (yes their words- at least 19) others putting that number in 2 MILLION range. Those 19+ other studies were NOT refuted by CLAJ, but just ignored in their analysis.

http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10881&page=103

Why do we worry ourselves with the criminals, or take their sides?  Do you actually think "biker mugged on MUP" would have even made our radar, or that of the national news?  Good on the guy.  Builds an image for the rest of us.

Castle Law does not apply here since intended victim was not in his home but out in public.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Doctrine

Legal justification would then depend upon specific circumstances such as reasonable fear for his safety.  Link in OP indicates local prosecuting attny's opinion was rather clear on the matter.

Not in all cases...."(or, in some states, any place legally occupied)"...which I believe is the case here.

I just wanted to point out that some in some places "legal" justification in these matters is much easier than others.

Castle Doctrine

You assume everyone is a homicidal maniac.... Most thieves do not want to bother, they just want you stuff. They just want a quick sore with little fuss to go buy some dope. They don't want a murder wrap. And they know from a life time of looking for victims what victims look like. They don't need to bother with "working" for it.

As far as those that are just pissed off... well they just like hurting people. Not necessarily killing people. Those that like killing people... well they are called killers and end up dead or on death row at some point. Most drug addicts... which drive most of these crimes of opportunity... just want to get high, not necessarily spending life on death row.

What you are talking about is a world without checks and balances, consequences for actions... that is not the world we live in.

BD, I can take you at your word... sometimes explanations are offered and are not meant as excuses. I get that we have different views... however

Guns are not band aids to societies problem... guns are for those that are willing to protect their rights with deadly force. Something the law says very clearly we have the right to do. Guns are not parenting tools.

As far as the other bolded sentence.... the "victim" "poor me" mentality is what drives those that want what they want "right now". They don't want to work, they want to take. And I understand there are a lot of people in crappy circumstances... but it took me a long time in my life to finally learn it is not my fault I hand the hand dealt to me I did... but it was my responsibility to deal with it. That's coming from someone that has "been there".

I don't have a problem with the actions the guy took. What is a shame is that people can just write off a boy of a whole 16 years of age as a POS that deserved to die. Assault and battery is not a capital crime. He could have spent 75% of his long life incarcerated, or he could have turned his life around and helped others do the same.... now we will never know.

You posted this in response to one of my comments, so I'm working on the assumption that this is directed to me. I tried very hard not to come across as preachy. I was answering direct questions that asked for opinions from anti-gun people.

I think, in instances such as this, we fail as a society to define the problem completely. It's easy to see only as far as the instigators themselves (which is quite understandable ... what they did was categorically wrong).

And the second bolded statement is certainly accurate and quite important to consider. I'm currently committed to accepting the consequences associated with pacifism. I think I usually have a pretty good sense of what they are.

This story made me sad...he only killed one of the scumbags.

I live only a couple of miles from where this happened. Reading recently beat out Flint, MI for being the poorest city in the US. We have been in the top tiers for violent crime in cities of its size for a while. High rates of unemployment, as well as high drop out rates which make the whole place less attractive to prospective businesses. 

The boy who died was on probation. His JPO had been by his house earlier after his mother called to report he was truant. They found the other two boys at his house and told them to go home (but no authority over them) and put an ankle monitor on him. He then left the house and met up with his buddies where they mugged or attempted to mug two other people in West Reading (maybe a mile or so from where the shooting occurred). 

From the news reports, the gentleman who shot the kids was not, as has been theorized here, an ex-cop or military. Nor was he "Dirty Harry" - the poor guy was very shaken up, not only by the attempted robbery, but by the fact that he had just shot and killed one kid and seriously wounded another. There was no jumping for joy, or pro- or anti-carry. There was just a tragic loss of one life, and three others ruined (the kid who was shot, the kid who will be carrying guilt for being involved in his friend's death, and the man who shot the kids. Not to mention how the probation officers must be feeling.

W/R/T the whole "Castle doctrine", the way the PA law is written, it does count for this situation, where the gentleman could not escape and reasonably feared for his life.

All the chest thumping and cheering is kind of making me sick.