You can't shoot'em in the back, but nobody would think much when the bad guy kills a 90-year old lady.

Potentially killing someone because of a robbery regardless of who or where is hardly necessary. Stun gun, mace, ass whooping, and then jail time and fines should be more accurate.

Dirtydog200, don't be so quick to kill.

Potentially killing an old woman to steal her credit cards is hardly necessary.

Being sentenced to 5 years in jail and only serving 60 days is exactly why this crap happens. Criminal has nothing to lose, but something to gain.

Exactly. Shoot 'em dead. It's the american way and it's the second amendment.

Unless you're in Sanford FL...

Well, first off glad to hear this man stepped up and helped this woman out and even more glad they caught the perp. Hope he put him in an extra tight headlock.

Now for punishment, if the guy would've got shot while in the act of robbing do to self defense, too bad you made the choice. Now if he took off and they caught him then no. I think some type of corporal punishment would be fitting but that would be in addition to putting him (and others like him) in some type of work style boot camp where he spends the next year or two and they work his pecker into the ground. Combined with some type of public humilation might be good too. No sitting around, 3 hots and a cot, or doing whatever else while in lock up, and then getting out in a few months on good behavior. These low level criminals need to be worked hard and receive some disciplinary training; then if they are good after so long, but not before, maybe help them learn a trade or something or get dipolma if they don't have it. Helps pay for while they are in lockup and I think that would be much more of a deterrent. Coming off a rough life in the streets, no job, to a rough life in jail or low level prison isn't much of a change. In some cases might even be better off in that at least he knows he will be fed. Make it so they don't want to go. If they repeat, welcome back, more hard work and for longer. That's my solution.

It is time

@ Blake

Potentially killing someone because of a robbery regardless of who or where is hardly necessary. Stun gun, mace, ass whooping, and then jail time and fines should be more accurate.

I agree with you in principle, but reality is somewhat different. The reality is that he'll be back on the street at some point (likely sooner than later), and you can bet he'll likely become a criminal again REAL soon. Not only that, but he'll be a more wily criminal, benefiting from his criminal "graduate studies" while incarcerated.

Putting him down offers the most benefit to the law abiding members of society.

sam adams

Exactly. Shoot 'em dead. It's the american way and it's the second amendment.

Actually in CA I half expect the mugger to sue the Samaritan and the old lady for injuries and damages to his attire.

Sad that some of you don't seem to know the difference between a criminal robbing a person at a gas station and a young man (with no warrants and committing NO CRIME) walking home from the convenience store. I guess that since both were black there is no difference in your minds. So sad. So truly sad.

I hardly think he will be well treated in jail or prison. Most criminals don't think too highly of guys who hurt/molest/kill children or someone's mom or grandma.

May he rest in peace. (sarcasm)

Trust/Verify -

Wait on it. Some lawyer has probably already started the "billable hours" sheet.

Devil's Son

I guess that since both were black there is no difference in your minds. So sad. So truly sad.

Are you assuming this criminal was Black? Why? The photo is captioned "A man, disgusted by the crime he witnessed, teams up with the 90-year-old victim to chase down the man who mugged her. KNTV's Jodi Hernandez reports." The story certainly doesn't state the race of anyone... should we assume every time MSNBC doesn't mention race that the perp is Black? Other than you I haven't seen one commentator say anything about the race of the mugger. Sounds like someone might be overly sensitive.

trust verify, did you watch the video? I did, it is obvious you didn't because the criminal can clearly be seen. Sounds like you talk before you know what you are talking about.

Devil's Son

trust verify, did you watch the video? I did, it is obvious you didn't because the criminal can clearly be seen. Sounds like you talk before you know what you are talking about.

Actually NO.. I only saw the PHOTO. But again you seem rather DEFENSIVE about the RACE involved. As far as *I* am concerned I see a CRIMINAL was chased down by the victim and a good Samaritan in this story. In the Sanford case I see a good Samaritan being railroaded for defending himself by whatever means necessary. Just for your information when that story first broke I was against the shooter until the details started to unfold. I doubt that my view in THIS incident will change.

Blake, you are an idiot & probably a mugger yourself! I agree with dirtydog200, this mugger should have been DRT, Dead Right There.

There is NO excuse for stealing & hurting an innocent person for your own gain. If you think so, like Blake, your thinking is defective.

Blake, you are a cretin. This mugger, & all others, should be DRT.

Have you ever been mugged or held up at gunpoint? Predators like this need to be removed from society permanently.

Bet his, the mugger's, Mother will say, "But, his is a good boy that just got in with the wrong crowd". BS to that!

That elderly woman could have been seriously hurt or killed.

Trust verify, In the Sanford case the "good Samaritain" as you called him was the aggressor. Martin wasn't doing anything wrong when he was profiled and locked on to by a nut with a gun. Sorry to tell you but "walking while black" is not a crime. Zimmerman followed and pursued Martin without a badge or any legal authority to do so and contrary to orders from the police. As a white man I am not sensitive about race only racists. Bottom line Martin was not wanted on any warrants, committing any crime and Zimmerman was not legally entitled to follow him. Everyone even black people have the right to walk the streets freely as long as they are obeying the law. Martin would have made it home that night had Zimmerman acted responsibly instead of playing sheriff. All Zimmerman had to do was leave the innocent kid alone. People have the right to be left alone UNTIL they commit a crime. Zimmerman is lucky that Martin was a innocent young man and not the strapped gang banging punk her imagined him to be. I know you won't change your mind. All the more sad.

Devil's Son

Trust verify, In the Sanford case the "good Samaritain" as you called him was the aggressor.

Perhaps you can explain how George was the aggressor? He was looking out for his neighborhood.

Martin wasn't doing anything wrong when he was profiled and locked on to by a nut with a gun.

WE know that now. He fit the description of those who had been breaking the law in the area.

Sorry to tell you but "walking while black" is not a crime.

Never said it was. but it seems EVERY Black male out there thinks it is. They feel they are the only ones who have had "the talk". that talk seems to be a little different than the one I received in that I was told to call police when some stranger was bothering me. Trayvon seems to have received the advice that he should just take a swing.

Zimmerman followed and pursued Martin without a badge or any legal authority to do so and contrary to orders from the police

OK you win the boob prize. The fact is that even the prosecution has stated for the record that there was no ORDER. It was advice. Also the term pursue has been defeated when the lead detective was questioned as to how that choice of words made it onto the charge sheet.

Bottom line Martin was not wanted on any warrants, committing any crime and Zimmerman was not legally entitled to follow him.

There are no laws against following someone in FLORIDA. Especially if one suspects they MAY be involved in a crime. It only becomes illegal if done repeatedly or an attempt to detain without cause is made. All George did was follow and then lost sight of Trayvon. At that point they were just two citizens walking around in community owned property.

Everyone even black people have the right to walk the streets freely as long as they are obeying the law.

That included George, a concerned citizen.

Martin would have made it home that night had Zimmerman acted responsibly instead of playing sheriff.

Martin had a substantial lead on George and it APPEARS he chose not to go home. George was acting as a concerned citizen.

All Zimmerman had to do was leave the innocent kid alone.

And as far as we know all he did was follow and observe. On the second meeting George and Trayvon exchanged words. Who did what next is in debate.

Zimmerman is lucky that Martin was a innocent young man and not the strapped gang banging punk her imagined him to be.

Fully agree. But then again George would have been proven correct in his assumptions about a suspicious person in the area. Ideally what would have happened is the police arrived 3 minutes or so sooner than they did. Then this wouldn't even be more than a paragraph in the Police/fire article in the local paper. Yet further confirmation that when seconds matter the police are only minutes away ready to file paperwork.

I know you won't change your mind. All the more sad.

Quite sure you won't change your mind even after the trial. I've already changed my mind once from thinking George was in violation of the law. Then the details and EVIDENCE came out. I'm more than willing to accept the findings of jury but there are many who won't if George goes free on the shooting charges. Personally I'm wondering how they are going to add perjury charges from the bond hearing as he kept his mouth shut.. Probably the first smart thing he has done so far in that area.

Thank you to the man who wanted to get involved and Good Going Lady. We must ban together to stop garbage from hurting descent people.

I agree, finally a great story with a great ending.

Agreed!!! ☺

Chose . . .

Most did observe and do absolutely nothing. Hood code of honor. Thanks to the one guy that stood up for her. Waiting for Obama to announce the mugger looks like his son.

Here in Spokane, two days ago, two Sheriff Officers were shot.

http://www.khq.com/story/18829850/spokane-county-deputy-involved-in-shooting-in-north-spokane

A bystander went over and gave first aid (pressure on the wound) while the gun man was still there. Ozzie (the Spokane County Sheriff) last night stated they would like to know who the bystander was because it probably saved one of the Sheriff's life (both survive but one was shot 4 times). Now that's a truly a modest hero to remain anonymous.

@Bill D-2439053

You clearly lacking reading comprehension in multiple articles. First of all, Obama said that after a reporter asks for his opinions. Secondly, Martin didn't rob anyone, but I guess all hoodies are criminal and need to gun down, vigilante justice is the caused of the incident in the first place.

I guess you are just too busy to think clearly in any of the articles to understand any of them.

TheAirdog

@dirtydog2002 - As much as I can appreciate your sentiment, it may not be allowable to use deadly force in all situations like this.

From the scanty details given, I don't see any mention of a weapon being displayed,

Most states with lethal force self defense laws dont say anything about a weapon. If you simply "fear for the safety of you or your family" - you can defend yourself with lethal force. In my state (Pennsylvania) - the old woman would have had the right to use lethal force during the robbery.

For a normal robbery, no. But for the lowest of scum coward who would brutalize a 90 year old woman, he shouldn't have the right to breath the same air as the rest of us. Might be worse than a pedophile, and most sane people want pedophiles dead.

@Dandy416 - NEGATIVE! You need to read up on the laws in your state!

"In Pennsylvania, there is a limited right to self-defense when you are attacked. The use of force in self-defense is justifiable when an individual believes it is necessary to protect himself against force from another person. However, in order to be justifiable, the force used in self-defense cannot exceed the force of the attacker. That is, the use of deadly force is not justifiable unless an individual reasonably feels the need to protect him or herself against death, serious bodily injury, kidnapping or rape. In addition, the threat must be imminent." - From the article linked below.

Inside your home ONLY, you may use deadly force if you "fear for the safety of you or your family" but that does NOT apply in a case like this outside your home.

PLEASE study up on your laws before you get yourself in trouble.

_

And MOST other states hold to the same standard for deadly force. You cannot use it just because you fear for your safety.

Sorry they won't show the link, but if you google "Pennsylvania Deadly Force Laws" you will see the article at Fairlielaw

TheAirdog

And MOST other states hold to the same standard for deadly force. You cannot use it just because you fear for your safety.

BS. You are incorrect. Not sure what web site you got that from. Google "pennsylvania castle doctrine"

"Governor Tom Corbett has signed Pennsylvania Castle Doctrine legislation into law. This common-sense measure permits law-abiding citizens to use force, including deadly force, against an attacker in their home and any place where they have a legal right to be. It also protects individuals from civil lawsuits by an attacker or attacker’s family when force is used."

They even expanded it by including your "person" as being applicable under the castle doctrine. You are wrong.

Hey airdog, how about someone pushing your 90 year old mother or grandmother to the ground. It could be deadly for the person attacked. Anytime youth have to go after the old is bad enough, they should get a good old fashion arse whoopin. Another punk that won't work.

Dandy416

Perhaps you would care to READ the law?

6

(2) The use of deadly force is not justifiable under

7

this section unless the actor believes that such force is

8

necessary to protect himself against death, serious bodily

9

injury, kidnapping or sexual intercourse compelled by force

10

or threat; nor is it justifiable if:

There is more but that is a chunk that says there has to be more than just having an itchy trigger finger. I REALLY wish people would read the LAWS rather than the sound bites the media provides or the lawmakers spout.

TheAirdog

And MOST other states hold to the same standard for deadly force. You cannot use it just because you fear for your safety.

Actually the law says that is when you CAN use it... when one REASONABLY BELIEVES.... there is no "fear" requirement at all.. only that on reasonably believes serious injury or death of oneself or another person not in the commission of a crime.

@trust-verify, Dandy was the one who came up with that and I quote him "Most states with lethal force self defense laws dont say anything about a weapon. If you simply "fear for the safety of you or your family" - you can defend yourself with lethal force"

In Pennsylvania and most other states you cannot merely "fear for your safety". You must be in fear of imminent Serious Bodily Injury or Death.

@Dandy - you are going to end up like George Zimmerman unless you learn the law. Don't just quote news articles. Learn what the statutes say.

18 Pa. Cons. Stat § 505. Use of force in self-protection.
(a) Use of force justifiable for protection of the person.--
The use of force upon or toward another person is justifiable
when the actor believes that such force is immediately necessary
for the purpose of protecting himself against the use of
unlawful force by such other person on the present occasion.
(b) Limitations on justifying necessity for use of force.--
(1) The use of force is not justifiable under this
section:
(i) to resist an arrest which the actor knows is
being made by a peace officer, although the arrest is
unlawful; or
(ii) to resist force used by the occupier or
possessor of property or by another person on his behalf,
where the actor knows that the person using the force is
doing so under a claim of right to protect the property,
except that this limitation shall not apply if:
(A) the actor is a public officer acting in the
performance of his duties or a person lawfully
assisting him therein or a person making or assisting
in a lawful arrest;
(B) the actor has been unlawfully dispossessed
of the property and is making a reentry or recaption
justified by section 507 of this title (relating to
use of force for the protection of property); or
(C) the actor believes that such force is
necessary to protect himself against death or serious
bodily injury.
(2) The use of deadly force is not justifiable under
this section unless the actor believes that such force is
necessary to protect himself against death, serious bodily
injury, kidnapping or sexual intercourse compelled by force
or threat;

Airdog.

Good job on the research.

TheAirdog

Can you provide me a link of the the PA Revised codes or Statutes.. which ever they are calling it in PA this week. Thanks for the polite response to my error...

I also believe that MOST states use the terms meet force with force.. which from military background are the parameters for the use of "Deadly Force" words for words, hand for hand, fist for fist.. on up the list to actual LETHAL force. I couldn't just shoot someone for being stupid they had to pose a real or believable threat. If they were running away they were not a threat... some states do bend that one a little but most have issues even if you shoot a fleeing murder suspect as they are not an imminent threat.

That is so true. If you make it to 90 and are still able to get around on your own you should be totally off limits! Even gang bangers love their grandmas.

When they put him in jail maybe it would be a good thing if other prisoners knew he beat up an old lady who chased him down.

I agree with screminmimi????????

On no........the end is near...........

But at least hell, if it exists, will be frozen over now..........

I've always thought that Troy...I've thought about a paper called "Good News"...it would never sell...evil, death and fighting sell...SAD.

"Grit" was the newspaper that had some good news. I googled it. It's now a magazine. It focused on good things, instead of the bad. The editorial police was/is: Always keep Grit from being pessimistic. Avoid printing those things which distort the minds of readers or make them feel at odds with the world. Avoid showing the wrong side of things, or making people feel discontented. Do nothing that will encourage fear, worry, or temptation... Wherever possible, suggest peace and good will toward men. Give our readers courage and strength for their daily tasks. Put happy thoughts, cheer, and contentment into their hearts.

I think we could use a bit more of this in our everyday lives.

OK Mr. No Offend, I will take that middle of the road suggestion under advisement

Love it!! Great idea for a new TV show. God bless the 90 year old who was brave enough to go after her attacher and God bless the man who helped her, tackled and held the robber until the police could arrive. How brave of them both.

Yes.. because all black people are muggers.....Funny how I have seen many stories where that wasn't the case.

Name 1

No, but most muggers are black.

He will if the mugger is gay

Yeah, and not just for sex either

The support of people just like him and the sympathy of the United States Supreme Court

ProudCracker

THANK YOU

PC,

Not only do we need people helping people like in this article, but we need more people like you and me to tell it like it is.

Being a good samaritan is not about race. I remember a video from about two years ago when an elderly man was hit by a car and was lying in the middle of the road and a street full of white people did nothing. It was in Connecticut in a white neighborhood. Color has nothing to do with it.

What color was the elderly man?

That doesn't matter. Being good means being good to all people not just white people.

Obviously in this case race had everything to do with it. Let me see, black mugger,white victim, black people walk by and do NOTHING to help. White guy helps. Yeah, you keep telling yourself race or color has nothing to do with it. Btw, I have some swamp land in So.Cal for you to purchase.

Yes, it certainly does, doesn't it? Of course, the mugger was black, so that makes it o.k. Crime is normal in that world. If that were a Zimmerman scenario though, oh would we be hearing a different tale from the other side. It's not racist -- it's just plain facts. Read the papers.

Great inputs Jack O, etc., Comments are right on!! You can't deny it after seeing this one. It speaks for itself.