Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
"Not even touched in 20 years, I wish I didn't need to."
Charles "Gus" Augusto Jr., 72, owns Kaplan Brothers Blue Flame Corporation, a restaurant supply company on 125th St. and Amsterdam in Manhattan that opened way back in 1927. At 3 p.m. yesterday Augusto and his two assistants were visited by four men, one armed with a handgun, who intended to requisition the company's rather limited cash supply. Equipped with plastic handcuffs and duct tape, the robbers pistol-whipped one of Augusto's employees and attempted to bind his hands:
The employee, who goes by J. B. and declined to give his last name, said that he “lost my mind” while the robbers tried to restrain him with duct tape, and that when he struggled, he was hit with the pistol.
During the melee, Augusto retrieved his shotgun and open fired, killing two of the robbers (and injuring the other two). The Times fills in the details:
Watching it happen, Mr. Augusto, whom neighborhood friends call Gus, rose from a chair 20 to 30 feet away and took out a loaded Winchester 12-gauge pump-action shotgun with a pistol-grip handle. The police said he bought it after a robbery 30 years ago.
Mr. Augusto, who has never been in trouble with the law, fired three blasts in rapid succession, the police said, although Vernon McKenzie, working at an Internet company next door, heard only two booms, loud enough to send him rushing to a window, where he heard someone shout: “You’re dead! You’re dead!”
The first shot took down the gunman at the front. He died almost immediately, according to the police, who said he was 29 and had been arrested for gun possession in Queens last year and was the nephew of a police officer.
Mr. Augusto’s other two blasts hit all three accomplices, who stumbled out the door, bleeding.
One of them, a 21-year-old, staggered across 125th Street and collapsed in front of the General Grant Houses, a nine-building complex with 4,500 residents, one of the city’s biggest housing projects. Someone called 911, and an ambulance rushed him to St. Luke’s-Roosevelt Hospital Center, where he was dead on arrival. The police said he had a record of arrests for weapons possession and robbery.
Interviewed yesterday by The New York Times, local residents seemed united in support of Augusto:
“How the hell are you going to rob someone in broad daylight?” said Sarah Martin, president of the General Grant Residents Association. Looking around at the crowd of people, she added, “They’re very upset, the people who live in this area.”
Gene Hernandez, 47, sympathized with Mr. Augusto, but not with the would-be robbers. “If I were him, I would kill a dozen of them,” he said. “You have to protect your workers and your family. Case closed.”
Stefany Blyn, who leases a commercial building from Mr. Augusto, described him as a “laid-back, unexcitable guy,” who often lounged in his chair on the sidewalk...
“He was trying to make a living in his business,” said John E. Walker, who works at Drum Television Network, next door.
Venus Singleton, 51, said she hoped that Mr. Augusto would not get into trouble over the shootings. “I hope that the gun was licensed and that he was in his rights,” she said.
In a follow up story, Augusto told The Times that he had a permit for the weapon, which sat unused for a few decades:
Mr. Augusto said he had bought the gun, a Winchester 12-gauge pump-action with a pistol-grip handle, after a robbery 20 years ago and had a permit for it. “Not even touched in 20 years,” he said. “Not even touched. I wish I didn’t need to.”
No word on whether the Keystone Robbers were violating New York City's strict gun laws.
hmm|8.14.09 @ 5:45PM|#
I read that this morning. I laughed out loud. I'm a sick
fuck.
Apparently the guy the guy screaming "you're dead" was the pistol
whipped guy and he dragged the dead guy back across the street and
proceeded to kick the shit out of him and scream at him. Owned, and
insulted. I still laugh.
anarch|8.14.09 @ 5:57PM|#
First I thought, Ha!
Then I remembered my humanity and thought, What a pity.
|8.14.09 @ 5:59PM|#
In a follow up story, Augusto told The Times that he had a
permit for the weapon, which sat unused for a few
decades
I hope the permit wasn't "unused" for a few decades, because NYC
permits for long guns (only NYC has long gun permits; the rest of
the state does not) expire after a few years and need to be
renewed.
Otherwise, well done, dude.
|8.14.09 @ 6:01PM|#
As strait up a case of justified killing as I've ever heard. But it's still killing, therefore it's still a tragedy. I'm glad the victims overcame their attackers, but the old guy said it best.
hmm|8.14.09 @ 6:01PM|#
anarch | August 14, 2009, 5:57pm | #
First I thought, Ha!
Then I remembered my humanity and thought, What a pity.
First I thought, Ha!
Then I realized two were still kicking, What a pity.
I have had that damn Rage Against the Machine song for pistol grip
pump in my head all day because of this article.
qwerty|8.14.09 @ 6:10PM|#
Good for you, Charles Augusto! Next time someone tries to restrict gun rights, this story should be told over and over.
Ben Kenobi|8.14.09 @ 6:18PM|#
Wait, so is Augusto ok? I kept reading, waiting for the
paragraph where the NYC PD arrested him for having a gun or for
shooting robbers or something asinine.
I can't work up much sympathy for these guys shot in the robbery,
sorry.
wayne|8.14.09 @ 6:19PM|#
It just goes to show that if you leave a gun unsupervised long
enough, somebody will wind up dead as a result.
This would not have happened if that shotgun had been secured in a
safe, dismantled and with a trigger-lock installed.
Candy Lightner|8.14.09 @ 6:22PM|#
The first shot took down the gunman...according to the police,
who said he ...was the nephew of a police officer.
Somebody is going down for murder of the relative of his
better.
When will the slaves learn to submit?
Elemenope|8.14.09 @ 6:23PM|#
As strait up a case of justified killing as I've ever heard.
But it's still killing, therefore it's still a tragedy. I'm glad
the victims overcame their attackers, but the old guy said it
best.
Word.
Elemenope|8.14.09 @ 6:25PM|#
Wait, so is Augusto ok? I kept reading, waiting for the
paragraph where the NYC PD arrested him for having a gun or for
shooting robbers or something asinine.
I was waiting the entire article for the other shoe to drop. Balko
has me conditioned.
wayne|8.14.09 @ 6:28PM|#
A law enforcement official said that the district attorney
was considering a possible misdemeanor weapons charge against Mr.
Augusto, indicating that he did not have a permit for the
shotgun.
I, Kahn O\'Clast|8.14.09 @ 6:36PM|#
I was just going to write "this" but then I thought that a
better addition would be:
They should hand out shotguns along with business licenses. Once
word got out that every shop had a shotgun at the ready holdups
would become quite rare.
|8.14.09 @ 6:37PM|#
Store owner has a gun --> Two dead, two shot but alive, one
pistol whipped.
Sotre owner without gun --> One pistol whipped, some money
stolen.
You value that little bit of money more highly than two human
lives? The world has gone mad.
------------------------
/sissy off
Actually, those sissies have an interesting POV.
hmm|8.14.09 @ 6:39PM|#
I value the defense of property and person over scum trying to steal it. Every time.
hmm|8.14.09 @ 6:41PM|#
They should hand out shotguns along with business licenses.
Once word got out that every shop had a shotgun at the ready
holdups would become quite rare.
This is why you rarely hear story about Bubba's Grocery, Gas, and
Live Bait out on I9 in the middle of nowhere being robbed. Everyone
assumes Bubba is packing and will just bury you ass out back or
feed your corpse to the 15 dogs living under his porch.
Elemenope|8.14.09 @ 6:41PM|#
Actually, those sissies have an interesting POV.
Yeah, I was in sissy mode yesterday for fun, arguing that perhaps
lives are more important than "showing those Islamists!" by
republishing some cartoons. Sometimes it's easy to lose sight of
the value of human life when we have all these crazy ideologies
running around.
anarch, in a moment of confusi|8.14.09 @ 6:42PM|#
Once word got out that every shop had a shotgun at the ready holdups would become quite rare.
No they wouldn't. That would just deflect the robbers to other
targets, like patients in hospital beds.
Prohibition doesn't work, okay?
|8.14.09 @ 6:52PM|#
My guess is that he had a state permit, but not one to have it in NYC. The cops are probably going to keep that quiet. This guy has turned into an instant folk hero and to charge him with anything would focus attention on the bogus nature of NYC's gun laws.
William|8.14.09 @ 7:00PM|#
If Moynihan really thinks this story proves something--why else post it?--he's either dumb as a box of hair or has watched too many Charles Bronson movies. Oh, there's a third possibility: he's a resonoid propagancist who will latch on to anything to push the faith on a slow news day.
|8.14.09 @ 7:03PM|#
Balko hasn't conditioned me to expect the shooter to be arrested, living within 10 miles of manhattan all of my life has. The Second Amendment doesn't really apply around these parts.
hmm|8.14.09 @ 7:04PM|#
I'd say this story difinitively proves robbing a store with a 72 year old shotgun wielding owner is potentially hazardous to your health.
The Libertarian Guy|8.14.09 @ 7:05PM|#
God, I love these "dead right there" stories. Drop the thieving fucker dead in his tracks, though, and it's not exactly MSNBC story material... at least not for the gun-rights audience.
wingnutx|8.14.09 @ 7:07PM|#
"Sotre owner without gun --> One pistol whipped, some
money stolen."
Or maybe "all employees found bound and executed, possibly
raped"
Good for the sotre owner.
|8.14.09 @ 7:08PM|#
Store owner has a gun --> Two dead, two shot but alive,
one pistol whipped.
Store owner without gun --> One pistol whipped, some money
stolen.
Allow me to edit a bit:
Store Owner has a gun: Two armed robbers dead never to commit a
crime again, two armed robbers shot, soon to go to jail for armed
robbery and felony murder. Unknown number of prospective criminals
seriously re-thinking their career choices.
Store Owner without a gun: Four armed robbers have someone else's
money, there is no guarantee that any of the store personnel are
not shot, and the perpetrators go on to commit more crimes. Unknown
number of other criminals emboldened to try their hands at armed
robbery.
|8.14.09 @ 7:10PM|#
What a coincidence. Gus and I are the same age and both have shotguns.I don't keep my loaded though, 'cause the SKS has a 30 round magazine, fiber glass stock and a scope.Probably is enough.
anonymous|8.14.09 @ 7:15PM|#
"You value that little bit of money more highly than two human
lives?"
The value of human life (to other humans) is variable. In the case
of violent criminals, it is generally negative. Even if there was
no money at stake, it would be good that he shot them.
Elemenope|8.14.09 @ 7:19PM|#
The value of human life (to other humans) is variable. In
the case of violent criminals, it is generally negative.
Any reading of an ideology that can drive a person to consider the
value of another human being to actually be negative is fucked
up.
hmm|8.14.09 @ 7:23PM|#
Any reading of an ideology that can drive a person to consider the
value of another human being to actually be negative is fucked
up.
So, you are a pacifist in the strictest sense and would never
defend your own life with deadly force? If that's the case I get
it, I don't agree. But I get it. Otherwise it's bullshit.
The Libertarian Guy|8.14.09 @ 7:25PM|#
El, the moment some criminal schmuck draws a gun to pull off a robbery, his/her value DOES go into negative territory. Quickly. Which is how said criminal schmuck needs to be put down by, say, a law-abiding shopkeep.
ellipsis|8.14.09 @ 7:26PM|#
Moynihan says:
Charles "Gus" Augusto Jr., 72, owns Kaplan Brothers Blue Flame Corporation, a restaurant supply company on 125th St. and Amsterdam in Manhattan
That address is in Harlem, according to google
maps.
Anyway, I'm somewhat surprised to see commentary sympathetic to the
robbers on here. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. Bleeding
hearts notwithstanding.
Elemenope|8.14.09 @ 7:28PM|#
El, the moment some criminal schmuck draws a gun to pull off
a robbery, his/her value DOES go into negative territory. Quickly.
Which is how said criminal schmuck needs to be put down by, say, a
law-abiding shopkeep.
That a person has the right to defend themselves, even to the
extent of killing another, this is unassailable. But it does not
follow that the one being killed is of negative value. A life cut
short is, without exception, a tragedy. Human beings lack the
capacity or the wisdom to see all ends.
|8.14.09 @ 7:29PM|#
If more law abiding people carried weapons jackasses would try
to rob a store in broad daylight. Just the higher probability of
getting shot would keep the scum away.
By the way, did gun ownership regulations keep weapons out of the
hand of the robbers?
hmm|8.14.09 @ 7:33PM|#
Wouldn't you have to "see all ends" to declare such an action a tragedy? Maybe the deceased would otherwise go on to rape and murder in the future, or maybe he would run for president, or maybe in a land of unicorns and rainbows he would be elected supreme leader and lead to harmony for the universe and all in it. The bottom line is that in the here and now the asshole was threatening life and property. In doing so he forfeited the other ends to his life at that split second.
|8.14.09 @ 7:33PM|#
I personally feel that the value of a human life in itself can never be non-positive, but circumstances can make it very very negative, if the continued existence of that life threatens other innocents. And the second kind of value is the one that matters when you are given the choice to kill or not.
anarch|8.14.09 @ 7:33PM|#
Remember the old Superman episode when Jimmy Olsen by some fluke
suddenly becomes a millionaire and then has to burn all his cash in
a furnace, bill by bill, in order to stay warm and alive when he's
trapped in a freezing cellar?
One of you logicians can surely distinguish between relative and
absolute values.
Elemenope|8.14.09 @ 7:36PM|#
Anyway, I'm somewhat surprised to see commentary sympathetic
to the robbers on here.
It is not sympathy for them being robbers. If you rob someone and
use force, and someone kills you in self-defense, then as you say
"play the game, win the prize".
But sympathy for them as human beings? You have to be a pretty cold
cynical guy for human deaths to not matter, regardless of how
"deserving" you think it was. I am of the mind that there are very
few mistakes a person can normally make that *ought* to earn
someone a death sentence. And while robbery is bad for certain, it
doesn't make the list.
hmm|8.14.09 @ 7:40PM|#
This is not a sentence. A sentence implies a trial. This is two people surviving. One willing to use force to rob and one willing to use force to survive.
The Libertarian Guy|8.14.09 @ 7:40PM|#
El, 99.999tonighinfinity, I'd agree with you... but, for instance, take child molesters. How can one NOT attribute negative worth to someone who would have sex with a child?
Elemenope|8.14.09 @ 7:41PM|#
Wouldn't you have to "see all ends" to declare such an
action a tragedy?
The potential is enough. This is why we don't, you know, kill
children if they start acting like shits around adolescence. Some
of them may yet turn out to be productive members of society! We
need no guarantees to easily make the allowance for the future
subjunctive.
The bottom line is that in the here and now the asshole was
threatening life and property. In doing so he forfeited the other
ends to his life at that split second.
As I said, the right to kill in self-defense is unassailable. I
still don't think it follows that all ends necessarily proximately
terminate simply because one "becomes a threat" to life or (esp.!)
property. That's a pretty wild claim.
anarch|8.14.09 @ 7:41PM|#
The indeterminate nature of individuals' moral potential is what
makes the value of human life unassessable and provides perhaps the
chief principled argument against capital punishment.
Which doesn't compromise the justifiability of certain cases of
homicide, such as, from the facts we know, apparently this
one.
Still tragic, imho.
ellipsis|8.14.09 @ 7:42PM|#
anarch,
If your point is that human life is worth more than money, you are
without a doubt correct.
The point of self defense shootings such as old "Gus" is that the
robbers made of choice of your life or mine. In that position,
compliance may still get you killed. Gus refused to be a
victim.
Elemenope|8.14.09 @ 7:45PM|#
This is not a sentence. A sentence implies a trial. This is
two people surviving. One willing to use force to rob and one
willing to use force to survive.
Metaphor parsing fail. But if you like, my overly literal
interlocutor, there are few mistakes a person can make that
ought (as in the normative sense) lead to death. The
"sentence" part I added because people not involved in the
situation (that is, you and I and others) are "passing sentence"
retroactively by arguing normatively about what should or should
not have occurred and how we should or should not feel about the
situation. When we say "that person ought to have died" or "that
person's death was not a tragedy" we are *passing judgment*, you
see, much like a sentence.
crayfish mccallister|8.14.09 @ 7:46PM|#
Any word on what Obama thinks of this incident? Doubtless the store owner acted rashly and stupidly and probably with racist intent. This was, after all, a white man who shot four black men.
|8.14.09 @ 7:47PM|#
You value that little bit of money more highly than two
human lives? The world has gone mad.
They had no way of knowing that the men who came weren't planning
to kill them. If someone violently assaults you, it would be
foolish not to assume the worst intentions.
hmm|8.14.09 @ 7:48PM|#
There's a reason one man drug a dead body across a street and
kicked and yelled at it. As human and almighty as everyone wants to
be at the end of the day people react to life threatening
situations instinctually, either trained or inherent. Some will
kill some, will cower, some will run, no matter what is done it's a
base reaction. Not some thinking high and mighty enlightened action
at which you weigh the pros and cons or the logic and
philosophy.
The children argument is a strawman and a wee bit hyperbolic.
ellipsis|8.14.09 @ 7:49PM|#
Elemenope,
I guess you hit the nail on the head. I am a cold
cynical bastard, I freely admit it. I guess that's what comes from
being from a family of soldiers.
|8.14.09 @ 7:51PM|#
I can't say it with lots of big words and parsingsand metaphor
or even metaphysics.
Some folks just need killin. Yes elemenope, their are people in my
world that are not worth the air they breath. Not every human life
is valuable.
Elemenope|8.14.09 @ 8:06PM|#
The children argument is a strawman and a wee bit
hyperbolic.
It really isn't; it actually illustrates the main fucking point:
what a person *is* is not what they are *destined always to be*.
Most armed robbers aren't exactly old timers, and as such, there is
plenty of time, if they survive, to become something else, to make
something else of their lives. If they're dead, that cannot
happen.
Your analysis of how the way people react in fight or flight
situations is basically hard-wired, I think, is absolutely correct.
I fail to see how it's relevant; I have said (I think, now, three
times) that in the moment, the right of self-defense *is fucking
absolute*. You don't have to think about it, you need not weigh
metaphysics or ethics or philosophy in general. If a person is
trying to kill you, you kill them right back.
My point has been, throughout the whole conversation, that the
armchair crap about how it's right and proper that human beings got
offed in the situation because they were criminals, is seriously
ethically deficient. You have an excuse to not think about the
potential value of another life if that life is holding a gun to
your head. Commentators on a website have no such excuse.
anarch|8.14.09 @ 8:12PM|#
ellipsis @ 7:42pm, I don't see that you and I disagree. It's
only that had someone in the proprietor's position consented to
bein a victim, I wouldn't fault him either.
SIV @ 8:00pm, wouldn't "credible threat of force" count too?
LMN @ 8:06pm, well roared, Lion (to coin a phrase).
|8.14.09 @ 8:14PM|#
If a person is trying to kill you, you kill them right
back.
Holy shit, LMNOP is Malcolm Reynolds!
|8.14.09 @ 8:15PM|#
Sotre owner without gun --> One pistol whipped, some
money stolen.
If, and only if, the robber is a "nice guy". There are plenty of
examples out there where "do what the bad man says' was proven to
be a losing survival strategy.
I hope you never have occasion to regret being unequipped to deal
with an emergency. Mr. Augusto did the right thing.
-jcr
SIV|8.14.09 @ 8:15PM|#
Shorter Ellie: "while it is ethical to respond to violence against oneself with violence,believing that violence is the appropriate response is unethical" or something like that.
Elemenope|8.14.09 @ 8:17PM|#
Holy shit, LMNOP is Malcolm Reynolds!
"Kill you? That's a dumb planet!"
hmm|8.14.09 @ 8:21PM|#
It really isn't; it actually illustrates the main fucking
point: what a person *is* is not what they are *destined always to
be*
Children generally aren't capable of making life and death
decisions very well. Now you could argue that the death of a young
child, age would be useless to argue as it is not consistent among
all, due to a poor decision is tragic. But to argue an adult who
chose to violate someone's civil liberties did not deserve what
they received, in the moment (no death penalty argument from me),
is some how tragic is to assume they had the same right to live at
that moment as the person that defended their self. Rationalize it
however you want, at that moment their life was worth nothing to
the person they were threatening. They chose to risk reducing their
life's worth to zero. The risk didn't pay off.
hmm|8.14.09 @ 8:26PM|#
I fail to see how it's relevant; I have said (I think, now,
three times) that in the moment, the right of self-defense *is
fucking absolute*.
My point has been, throughout the whole conversation, that the
armchair crap about how it's right and proper that human beings got
offed in the situation because they were criminals, is seriously
ethically deficient
I guess I just view these two statements or ideas as irreconcilably
different. If in the moment a criminal is trying to kill me (or
even do significant damage to my property:another argument), I will
do everything in my power to kill him. After the fact he is still a
criminal and he still deserved his death.
Elemenope|8.14.09 @ 8:33PM|#
well roared, Lion (to coin a phrase).
Thanks. :)
Shorter Ellie: "while it is ethical to respond to violence
against oneself with violence,believing that violence is the
appropriate response is unethical" or something like
that.
Not quite. I tend actually not to think about self-defense as
resting in an ethical domain. It just exists, as a necessary
adjoint to the brute fact that one human may initiate force against
another. Killing someone is never, I think, ethically "right", but
it can, as in self-defense or defense of another, be *absolutely
justified* as a consequence of the unfortunate brute fact.
I do, on the other hand, think it is *unethical* to adjudge the
violent death of a person as an ethical "good", especially when not
being the guy in the situation at hand (where such a feeling, after
the fact, is at least excusable).
Rationalize it however you want, at that moment their life was
worth nothing to the person they were threatening.
My point is that the person who was being threatened is *the only
person on Earth* for whom that could possibly be true. You are not
that person, are you?
BakedPenguin|8.14.09 @ 8:38PM|#
I once saw an HBO special on parolees. They followed this one
parole officer around, and showed a bunch of offenders on parole.
The most sympathetic one of the bunch was a ~50 year old ex-heroin
addict who used to do strong arm robbery. He'd learned machining in
prison, got a job, made some friends at a local bar, basically
becoming a decent person. By the end of the six months, he was the
only one of the parole officer's cases who hadn't re-offended or
violated parole.
If someone had shot him when he was robbing them, they would have
fully been within their rights. But while it may be rare, it is
possible for people to rehabilitate themselves.
|8.14.09 @ 8:42PM|#
President Obama needs to intervene here. He needs to invite the surviving robbers, Mr. Augusto and the police who responded for a beer summit. I do not know much about the way the police responded but clearly the acted stupidly.
|8.14.09 @ 8:44PM|#
One could say Augusto didn't kill over the money, he killed over the threat of violence to him and his employees and that in general people agree that violence is necessary to ensure a peaceful society, hence why we accept standing armies and police agencies even though they are not inherently productive to society. Augusto and those like him provide an effective deterrent to crime in society that police often can't. I just hope he isn't trampled by the reaction of the boys in blue tribe.
|8.14.09 @ 8:47PM|#
If someone had shot him when he was robbing them, they would have
fully been within their rights. But while it may be rare, it is
possible for people to rehabilitate themselves.
Touching story, but if he originally found the risk of dieing in a
strong arm robbery to be too high for his blood back before he
started it, he may have avoided it altogether, thus reducing the
loss of wealth by his would be victims.
BakedPenguin|8.14.09 @ 8:52PM|#
L_I_T - It's possible. Another point is that if we didn't have a War on Drugs, he might have been able to fund his habit with earned money.
Elemenope|8.14.09 @ 8:55PM|#
Touching story, but if he originally found the risk of
dieing in a strong arm robbery to be too high for his blood back
before he started it, he may have avoided it altogether, thus
reducing the loss of wealth by his would be victims.
It is certainly true that if people didn't make mistakes of
judgement, everything would be better.
Elemenope|8.14.09 @ 8:59PM|#
One could say Augusto didn't kill over the money, he killed
over the threat of violence to him and his employees and that in
general people agree that violence is necessary to ensure a
peaceful society...
I tend to think this is a far more reasonable interpretation than
that Augusto was killing "over the money". If I'm reading the
article right, it was the robbers pistol-whipping his employee that
flipped the switch.
I just hope he isn't trampled by the reaction of the boys in
blue tribe.
Word.
|8.14.09 @ 9:07PM|#
It is certainly true that if people didn't make mistakes of
judgement, everything would be better.
We can only hope that people in general reduce mistakes in
judgement if a libertarian utopia is ever to be...
|8.14.09 @ 9:10PM|#
Libertarian utopia can't happen without people first reducing mistakes in judgement. Voters, I'm looking at you.
MNG|8.14.09 @ 9:17PM|#
"I read that this morning. I laughed out loud. I'm a sick
fuck."
You're not sick, you are a good man. The robbers were evil cretins,
their killings are not just "excused" by the law imo, they are
"justified." The right thing was done. Fuck those punk asses.
I haven't read the thread, but if anyone defends these robbers,
well, you are f*cking nuts. The guy should not just be excused, he
should be patted on the back. Well done!
alan|8.14.09 @ 9:19PM|#
Balko hasn't conditioned me to expect the shooter to be
arrested, living within 10 miles of manhattan all of my life has.
The Second Amendment doesn't really apply around these
parts.
Like the deepest part of Mississippi,
or a number of mostly rural states, who refuse to abide by no
mixing of church and state in the public schools, that island is
one tough constitutionaly resistant nut to crack.
Elemenope|8.14.09 @ 9:23PM|#
I haven't read the thread, but if anyone defends these
robbers, well, you are f*cking nuts.
You can rest easy, dude. Nobody's done that.
|8.14.09 @ 9:54PM|#
I am of the mind that there are very few
mistakes a person can normally make that *ought*
to earn someone a death sentence.
Yeah, that's one heck of a "mistake". Like the robbers walked into
the store intending to order some spinach alfredo and just had a
brainfart and pulled a gun and demanded money instead.
what a person *is* is not what they are *destined always to
be*
True. But it is the best indicator available of what they will
be.
|8.14.09 @ 9:56PM|#
Any reading of an ideology that can drive a person to
consider the value of another human being to actually be negative
is fucked up.
LMNOP, a vast majority of people in our society have a positve net
value. But there are a few who are a constant drain and therefore
have a negative value.
I know it may be hard to believe, but some people never change. I
know we could play woulda, coulda, shouda and hypothesize that
these scumbags would see the light and reform, thereby becoming
model citizens with a positive contribution to society.
You can hope this will happen.
You can also hope into one hand and sh!t into the other. Guess
which one is going to fill up first?
As a wise man said upthread: "Some people just need killing".
|8.14.09 @ 9:58PM|#
BTW, does anyone know the exact model of shotgun Mr. Agusto
used?
A weapon that is used succesfully after sitting around for 20 years
untouched is one I want to own!
Elemenope|8.14.09 @ 10:14PM|#
Yeah, that's one heck of a "mistake". Like the robbers
walked into the store intending to order some spinach alfredo and
just had a brainfart and pulled a gun and demanded money
instead.
I assumed it was clear in what sense I meant the word "mistake", as
in, "a failure of moral judgment". As in "it was a mistake for me
to lie to my mother about breaking the china bowl".
I think it pretty clear that when a person has turned to property
crime, they are making a moral error. I did not mean to imply that
the robbers tripped and fell into robbing the store, or something
like that.
True. But it is the best indicator available of what they will
be.
When the best indicator available is basically ineffective and
untrustworthy, one has to abandon the notion that the thing being
indicated is really knowable at all.
I know it may be hard to believe, but some people never
change.
I absolutely agree, and if you can come up with a fool-proof way of
determining who will change and who won't, by all means let the
world know.
A weapon that is used successfully after sitting around for 20
years untouched is one I want to own!
No shit!
|8.14.09 @ 10:23PM|#
LMNOP, forgive me if I misunderstood your statement above. It
sounds like you are saying that acts performed "in the heat of
battle" fall under a different set of ethical rules due to the
difficulty applying reason when the actor is in an agitated state
of mind. If the act is willful (not accidental) I don't think the
state of mind is exculpatory.
Also, if there are only two categories in ethics - "good" and
"evil" - then killing in self-defense would have to be "good" since
it certainly isn't "evil". Regrettable maybe, but not evil.
anarch, eternal optimist|8.14.09 @ 10:29PM|#
You can also hope into one hand and sh!t into the other. Guess which one is going to fill up first?
No shit!
|8.14.09 @ 10:31PM|#
When you intentionally take the life of another person, whether in self-defense, war or some other circumstance, regret is an emotion best left unfelt. It is the most important consideration when arming yourself. You have to know that you will take life if necessary and that you have to get over it. If you harbor regret, it will eat you alive.
Tricky Prickears |8.14.09 @ 10:33PM|#
A shotgun, huh? I live in Jersey. Jersey has about the strictest handgun laws in the Union. But, rifles and shotguns only require a one time permit for life, for however many you want, basically a small fee and a background check. Shotguns are the best defense against intruders, in my opinion. Just thought I'd throw that out there.
|8.14.09 @ 10:35PM|#
Shotguns are a great home defense weapon. They don't require pinpoint accuracy, deliver horrific damage and don't have as much wall penetratng power as a handgun.
Patriot Henry|8.14.09 @ 10:35PM|#
Dear Jeffersonian,
"I love these feel-good stories when they have a happy ending like
this."
There was no happy ending. Killing in legitimate self defense is a
traumatic event that often psychologically harms the person who is
forced to defend themselves. In addition there is the cost of the
interruption of business. While the defender may have win the
battle, he still loses time and probably more than a bit of sleep
over it in addition to the loss of the sense of security and
normalcy. The robbers may not have gotten the cash, but they did
deprive the owner and others of intangible things of great
value.
Regards,
Patriot Henry
Elemenope|8.14.09 @ 10:37PM|#
It sounds like you are saying that acts performed "in the
heat of battle" fall under a different set of ethical rules due to
the difficulty applying reason when the actor is in an agitated
state of mind.
Yes, that's a decent way of putting it. The relevant willful
decision is whether or not to act to preserve either your life or
another (or both); beyond that, in the heat of the battle I tend to
think it basically unreasonable to expect complex ethical reasoning
to take place.
If the act is willful (not accidental) I don't think the state
of mind is exculpatory.
You don't think self-defense is exculpatory? (This might be me
misunderstanding you, here...)
Also, if there are only two categories in ethics - "good" and
"evil"...
There aren't. Though moral philosophers will argue around the
edges, there are at least:
Good acts (which can themselves be broken into two categories:
obligatory acts, and supererogatory acts)
Bad acts (of which there are several types)
Adiaphoric acts (acts which have no moral valence, such as
selecting a fork instead of chopsticks in order to eat a
meal)
Extra-ethical acts (the best example being Kierkegaard's
teleological suspension of the ethical, in order to explain certain
types of religious and existential behavior)
------
I tend to place self-defense in the category of suspended ethics
(an extra-ethical act) because of the existential extremity of
being under physical attack.
Chink in the Wall|8.14.09 @ 10:45PM|#
Adiaphoric acts (acts which have no moral valence, such as
selecting a fork instead of chopsticks in order to eat a
meal)
Them's fightin' words.
|8.14.09 @ 11:04PM|#
I do see self defense as exculpatory, but not because of the
state of mind of the defender. Rather because it's not an
initiation of force.
I also have a rather simplistic view of ethics that ties in neatly
to the non-aggression axiom. So adiaphoric acts don't really apply
in my world. Nor do I cut anyone any slack for ethical
responsibility due to the existential extremity of physical attack.
It doesn't excuse other immoral behavior (raping and pillaging, for
instance) so I don't think you can use itt o excuse murder. So, I
don't think it's the state of mind that's important, but rather who
started it.
|8.14.09 @ 11:06PM|#
It's refreshing to read the comments on the NYTimes article Moynihan linked to. There are a couple of "magic gun" people who have poor reading comprehension, but the majority and lots of them saying they are liberals who live in NY, are damn proud of Gus and are all calling for him NOT to be cited with a misdemeanor, many even saying he should be giving shooting lessons to the cops, who all have noted were no where to be found.
P Dier|8.14.09 @ 11:15PM|#
FUCK that one guy was just about to have a breakthrough on a new battery technology that would have ushered in a new era in portable renewable power... he was just committing armed robbery to make ends meet and support his gimp step daughter and paraplegic wife. such a sad story, obama really needs to weigh in
hotsauce|8.14.09 @ 11:33PM|#
According to folks like Chris Matthews, there is no reason to
carry a gun unless you intend to shoot and kill someone. So it's a
legitimate use of self defense to shoot the gun-toting
thieves.
Eat a dick Chris Matthews.
P Dier|8.14.09 @ 11:39PM|#
there is no reason to carry a gun unless you intend to shoot and kill someone
well no fucking shit... that's the point
i'd rather have it and not need it... you know the rest
The Libertarian Guy|8.14.09 @ 11:50PM|#
"My point has been, throughout the whole conversation, that the
armchair crap about how it's right and proper that human beings got
offed in the situation because they were criminals, is seriously
ethically deficient. You have an excuse to not think about the
potential value of another life if that life is holding a gun to
your head. Commentators on a website have no such excuse."
You have good points here, El, but IMO if someone is willing to
cock the trigger or pull the slide or unsheath a knife while
robbing or attempting to commit rape, they've crossed the line, and
that's a BIG line. Therefore, it's not so much "armchairing" as it
is assessing what kind of scumbag would threaten another human
being with criminal intent, thus breaking through the mental safety
barriers that decent, ordinary people don't breach.
The Libertarian Guy|8.14.09 @ 11:53PM|#
"My point has been, throughout the whole conversation, that the
armchair crap about how it's right and proper that human beings got
offed in the situation because they were criminals, is seriously
ethically deficient. You have an excuse to not think about the
potential value of another life if that life is holding a gun to
your head. Commentators on a website have no such excuse."
You have good points here, El, but IMO if someone is willing to
cock the trigger or pull the slide or unsheath a knife while
robbing or attempting to commit rape, they've crossed the line, and
that's a BIG line. Therefore, it's not so much "armchairing" as it
is assessing what kind of scumbag would threaten another human
being with criminal intent, thus breaking through the mental safety
barriers that decent, ordinary people don't breach.
|8.15.09 @ 12:06AM|#
I assumed it was clear in what sense I meant the word
"mistake", as in, "a failure of moral judgment". As in "it was a
mistake for me to lie to my mother about breaking the china
bowl".
Well, that's a silly sense of the word (as is calling this a "moral
error") which all too often is used to try to minimize the
culpability of the offender. A mistake or an error implies that the
divergence from the correct path is unintentional, or due to a lack
of knowledge. These fellas knew exactly what they were doing and
what its moral status was.
When the best indicator available is basically ineffective and
untrustworthy, one has to abandon the notion that the thing being
indicated is really knowable at all.
Assuming you made it out of the crib and are living an independent
life in human society, it's a good bet you follow the principle
that past behavior reliably predicts future behavior all the time.
It would be impossible to deal with human beings otherwise. And
that principle doesn't suddenly go out the window when dealing with
armed robbers.
Elemenope|8.15.09 @ 12:07AM|#
Therefore, it's not so much "armchairing" as it is assessing
what kind of scumbag would threaten another human being with
criminal intent, thus breaking through the mental safety barriers
that decent, ordinary people don't breach.
I tend to believe that for every person there exists a lever (a set
of circumstances or events or beliefs or what-have-you) that would
cause them to *seriously* contemplate killing another person. As
in, seriously enough to brandish a weapon or do something
comparable. Thus, I tend to think that the line between so-called
normal people and despicable criminals is, in practice, so thin as
to be basically non-existent. We exist on a moral continuum which
is dependent in a larger part than we like to admit on our needs as
compared to our resources.
Elemenope|8.15.09 @ 12:19AM|#
Assuming you made it out of the crib and are living an
independent life in human society, it's a good bet you follow the
principle that past behavior reliably predicts future behavior all
the time. It would be impossible to deal with human beings
otherwise. And that principle doesn't suddenly go out the window
when dealing with armed robbers.
Considering that I generally discount the notion that past human
behavior accurately predicts future behavior in different
circumstances, and I function just fine, I think you have
overdetermined your assumptions.
A mistake or an error implies that the divergence from the
correct path is unintentional, or due to a lack of
knowledge.
Only if it was intended in the normative sense, which I didn't, but
I understand how you could read it that way. Generally, when a
person is supposed to do something, but instead does something
else, that act is *described* as an error. There is no intended
implication as to motive or intentionality. The word is *often*
used normatively, to have the additional implication that you name.
Sorry about the confusion.
The Libertarian Guy|8.15.09 @ 12:23AM|#
El, it comes down to - mental problems aside - making the choice
to go over to the dark sector of the human mind.
Years ago, a little meth-head piece of shit got pissy because his
ex and I were still good friends (not THAT friendly, wink), and was
so convinced that we were carrying on, that he filed a false
child-abuse claim against me.
Don't think I didn't contemplate putting my fist through his head
over that. Came damned close to it, too. But... I never did,
because karma bit his ass fiercely FOR me.
Point is, though I could have justified pounding him into chum, I
a) would've felt like hell afterwards, and 2) would've done jail
time. I made the choice to not debase myself in such a fashion,
though he clearly deserved SOME punishment.
Your thin-line theory is interesting, but if that were the case,
wouldn't there be a LOT more criminals out and about?
B|8.15.09 @ 12:31AM|#
And what would a story like this be without grieving family members insisting that their now dearly departed were actually good people, aside from the fact they were trying to rob someone at gunpoint.
Mad Max|8.15.09 @ 12:41AM|#
'A law enforcement official said that the district attorney was
considering a possible misdemeanor weapons charge against Mr.
Augusto, indicating that he did not have a permit for the
shotgun.'
The district attorney is a vile sack of the foulest excrement for
even considering such a possibility.
'Excuse me, sir, do you have a permit for defending yourself?'
Elemenope|8.15.09 @ 12:42AM|#
Your thin-line theory is interesting, but if that were the
case, wouldn't there be a LOT more criminals out and
about?
In a generally prosperous society, the types of situation that
inspire the conditions that are fertile for evil acts are rarer.
People have more to lose by crossing the legal lines and to the
weighing process that can interrupt people like you who *almost* do
it but decide against it is weighed more heavily in that
direction.
It is no accident that the vast majority of criminals are poor; not
having shared in the bounty of prosperity, they have less to lose,
and then the equation becomes only about desperation and whatever
moral code countervails it. Honestly, prosperity is generally more
effective ballast.
Elemenope|8.15.09 @ 12:46AM|#
'Excuse me, sir, do you have a permit for defending
yourself?'
Yeah, that's fucked up.
On the other hand, the D.A. is supposed to enforce the law as
written. When the law sucks, isn't the proper remedy to change the
law?
Mad Max|8.15.09 @ 12:49AM|#
From the article:
'Venus Singleton, 51, said she hoped that Mr. Augusto would not get
into trouble over the shootings. "I hope that the gun was licensed
and that he was in his rights," she said.'
The Peoples' Republic of New York - the abortion capital of the
country, where a person who specializes in the murder of unborn
children need not fear so much as a citation, while a person who
defends the life of himself and others against armed robbers risks
arrest and a criminal record.
The Libertarian Guy|8.15.09 @ 12:51AM|#
You're only talking economic factors in your last post, El,
though you again make a good case.
However, SOME crimes aren't dependent on ones' financial state. How
many rapists get into the raping biz due to poor stock-portfolio
performance, for instance? Why would anyone become a serial killer,
if there's no way to profit from it? (By the time they're in
prison, they're forbidden to make money, and they can't prevent
Steve Buscemi from playing the title role in the movie
version.)
There's also what I call "little crimes" - not retrieving
out-of-date yard-sale signs in a timely fashion, letting the
parking meter expire, driving fifteen miles over the limit, et
cetera. How many of those are due to economic forces?
Good thoughts, but a narrow slice of the crime pie.
Mmm... pie.
hmm|8.15.09 @ 12:52AM|#
Shotguns are a great home defense weapon. They don't require
pinpoint accuracy, deliver horrific damage and don't have as much
wall penetratng power as a handgun.
That's a bit of a myth. If you search around there are two studies
dealing with ballistic gel tests and actual wall materials done by
reputable members of the "gun" community. I don't want to turn this
into a gun thread sine the philosophers are having so much fun. You
can find the studies on most major gun sites.
Elemenope|8.15.09 @ 1:13AM|#
Good thoughts, but a narrow slice of the crime
pie.
Well, true, I was only intending to address the subject of violent
property crime. I imagine the dynamics that lead to criminal
behavior are very different depending on the type of act
involved.
Logfile|8.15.09 @ 1:16AM|#
The Libertarian Guy -
The "little crimes" aren't nearly as important. The only one you
mentioned that can be serious is speeding, and that's only serious
if you speed and also drive in a manner that makes you a danger to
others.
The horrible criminals (rapists, serial killers) are much more
rare.
In reality land, the majority of crime that has an impact on lots
of people is committed by people who are poor and have little to
lose.
So, its a huge slice of the crime pie. Its also something that can
be fixed. A prosperous market economy can help make crime such as
that go away. The "little crimes" and serial killing is much more
difficult to deal with.
|8.15.09 @ 2:46AM|#
"Joe_D | August 14, 2009, 6:37pm | #
Store owner has a gun --> Two dead, two shot but alive, one
pistol whipped.
Sotre owner without gun --> One pistol whipped, some money
stolen.
"
wrong joe d
They had duct tape and a gun, would you simply allow them to tie up
yourself and your employees and then trustthem to steal and walk
away? No way in hell you would. As soon as you're all tied up
you're all likely dead to eliminate witnesses. THat's how it
happens.
Never ever allow someone with a gun to tie you up, just like you
should never get in a car with someone with a gun. If you do that
you will die. The Police themselves give out that advice, even the
anti gun ones.
|8.15.09 @ 3:16AM|#
Sotre owner without gun --> One pistol whipped, some
money stolen.
Or --> 2 dead, some money stolen.
Are you saying the two who might be dead can't try to prevent
themselves from being dead?
|8.15.09 @ 3:27AM|#
Or --> 2 dead, some money stolen.
Are you saying the two who might be dead can't try to prevent
themselves from being dead?
and least we forget
The police said he had a record of arrests for weapons
possession and robbery.
More dead the following week.
|8.15.09 @ 4:16AM|#
El, the moment some criminal schmuck draws a gun to pull off
a robbery, his/her value DOES go into negative territory. Quickly.
Which is how said criminal schmuck needs to be put down by, say, a
law-abiding shopkeep.
That a person has the right to defend themselves, even to the
extent of killing another, this is unassailable. But it does not
follow that the one being killed is of negative value. A life cut
short is, without exception, a tragedy. Human beings lack the
capacity or the wisdom to see all ends.
"Without exception?"
Rebuttal: Hitler. Mussolini. Stalin. Mao. Pol Pot. Mugabe. The
people in charge of running the Cambodian killing fields. The
commandants of concentration camps like Auschwitz. Mafia hitmen.
Woodrow Wilson. FDR.
And so on.
|8.15.09 @ 4:18AM|#
Frickin' close tags button. Take two:
El, the moment some criminal schmuck draws a gun to pull off a
robbery, his/her value DOES go into negative territory. Quickly.
Which is how said criminal schmuck needs to be put down by, say, a
law-abiding shopkeep.
That a person has the right to defend themselves, even to the
extent of killing another, this is unassailable. But it does not
follow that the one being killed is of negative value. A life cut
short is, without exception, a tragedy. Human beings lack the
capacity or the wisdom to see all ends.
"Without exception?"
Rebuttal: Hitler. Mussolini. Stalin. Mao. Pol Pot. Mugabe. The
people in charge of running the Cambodian killing fields. The
commandants of concentration camps like Auschwitz. Mafia hitmen.
Woodrow Wilson. FDR.
And so on.
Elemenope|8.15.09 @ 5:03AM|#
prolefeed --
The simple fact that there are a great number of people who would
object to some you listed being on that list should clue you into
how subjective your absolute judgment really is.
But the most important point is that, even with the more unanimous
on that list (the first three-quarters or so), it was only knowable
that they "deserved" to die *in retrospect*. Especially the
commandants and the hitmen; most of those people literally were
basically normal for a good part of their lives; their sociopathic
evil was only revealed by circumstances. If normal people can be so
easily twisted into monsters, and we know that it is possible for
the process to work in reverse (rare though it may be), all our
judgment of this sort should be suspect. We cannot claim we know
with certainty that a person deserves to relinquish all their
remaining potential. Hence, my opposition to the death penalty. If
you must, lock them away forever; at least then there is a slight
chance of regret and change.
The main point is that future potentials are unknowable, and the
records in general are mixed, even at the extremes. Take Alexander
for example. Killed millions conquering to the East. But, also
reshaped the world, established great libraries and other wonders,
and so forth. Should Alexander have been killed? How about Caesar
Augustus? The Emperor of Xin? Andrew Jackson? We need not call
these people good, and I have no discomfort calling them in large
part evil. But deserving to die?
edna|8.15.09 @ 6:39AM|#
Most armed robbers aren't exactly old timers, and as such,
there is plenty of time, if they survive, to become something else,
to make something else of their lives.
what's more likely:
a. he survives and becomes a skilled machinist
b. he survives and develops the cure for cancer
c. he survives, kills a few innocent people
you're just here for an argument, aren't you?
MNG|8.15.09 @ 6:58AM|#
"the majority and lots of them saying they are liberals who live
in NY, are damn proud of Gus and are all calling for him NOT to be
cited with a misdemeanor, many even saying he should be giving
shooting lessons to the cops, who all have noted were no where to
be found."
Most liberals are not the caricatures frequently invoked from right
wing news sources...Neither are most conservatives the caricatures
invoked from left wing sources, for that matter...
anarch, eternal optimist|8.15.09 @ 7:01AM|#
what's more likely of someone who writes
"you're just here for an argument, aren't you?"
a. s/he is here to learn something new, so worth engaging
b. s/he her/himself is just here for argument, so not worth
engaging
c. s/he is just here for argument but may learn and/or at least
teach something new anyway, so worth engaging
Louis L\'Amour|8.15.09 @ 7:03AM|#
"Mad Max rode his hobby horse into the fray; drawing his weapon to defend two-celled beings everywhere he fired a warning shot as directed by the latest papal encyclical. Satisfied that brainless, nerve-less, limbless human beings everywhere were now more safe he wheeled his mighty steed around and charged off in the direction of the local Rite-Aid to fight the scourge of birth control pills..."
robc|8.15.09 @ 8:11AM|#
I was waiting the entire article for the other shoe to drop.
Balko has me conditioned.
I kept expecting the robbers to turn out to be police officers,
robbing as a side benefit of the job. Thats how conditioned I
am.
robc|8.15.09 @ 8:12AM|#
Most liberals are not the caricatures frequently invoked
from right wing news sources...Neither are most conservatives the
caricatures invoked from left wing sources, for that
matter...
But what about libertarians?
Art-P.O.G.|8.15.09 @ 8:37AM|#
But what about libertarians?
I think Sugarfree covered that back in the day. Tophats, monocles, and mustaches to twirl for all libertarians. And gray flannel waistcoats with gold pocketwatches.
|8.15.09 @ 9:41AM|#
That a person has the right to defend themselves, even to
the extent of killing another, this is unassailable. But it does
not follow that the one being killed is of negative value. A life
cut short is, without exception, a tragedy. Human beings lack the
capacity or the wisdom to see all ends.
I've often thought about what a tragedy it was that there weren't
any suicide hot line counselors to help Hitler realize how much he
had to live for, and how much he still had to contribute to this
big, beautiful world.
|8.15.09 @ 9:43AM|#
But I take consolation at the fact that at least Abdul Hamid II, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and Idi Amin got to die in their beds at the end of long and productive lives.
|8.15.09 @ 9:45AM|#
you're just here for an argument, aren't you?
In that case, you want room 12A, just along the corridor. This is
abuse.
|8.15.09 @ 10:13AM|#
On the other hand, the D.A. is supposed to enforce the law
as written. When the law sucks, isn't the proper remedy to change
the law?
Oh, please. There isn't a prosecutor in the land who enforces the
law across the board as written. It's called "prosecutorial
discretion."
Patriot Henry|8.15.09 @ 10:21AM|#
Dear Edna,
what's more likely:
a. he survives and becomes a skilled machinist
b. he survives and develops the cure for cancer
c. he survives, kills a few innocent people
Individuals are not probabilities. We can only speculate. However,
all human life is precious for the potential for good each one
contains. If we had a system of justice based upon rehabilitation
then the first two would be more likely.
What are the odds of an armed robber surviving, serving a prison
term, and then becoming a boxer, entertainer, race car driver, oil
man, merchant marine, AND criminal rehabilitation counselor? For an
interesting illustration of the potential of a low life armed
robber to turn his life around, read "My Shadow Ran Fast" by Bill
Sands. Fascinating life story and unusual example of rehabilitation
at work, albeit with an absolutely terrible prescription for
rehabilitating the prison system.
Punishment is designed to destroy the criminal. Rehabilitation is
designed to produce a citizen from the criminal. Production always
pays off more in the long run than the short lived thrill of
destruction.
Regards,
Patriot Henry
edna|8.15.09 @ 10:58AM|#
However, all human life is precious for the potential for
good each one contains.
bullshit. there are evil, worthless creatures among us, humans with
no redeeming value whatever. to deny that takes a peculiar sort of
pollyanna outlook coupled with a sheltered life.
gus played the odds.
|8.15.09 @ 11:26AM|#
Considering that I generally discount the notion that past
human behavior accurately predicts future behavior in
different circumstances, and I function just fine, I think
you have overdetermined your assumptions.
I was about to say you're either deluded or lying, but then I saw
the weasel words emboldened above. The robbers' circumstances
aren't likely to change after making off with oodles of cash
unscathed, at least not in any way that makes them less likely to
rob again.
Generally, when a person is supposed to do something, but
instead does something else, that act is *described* as an error.
There is no intended implication as to motive or
intentionality.
It's kind of silly to argue about semantics, but I don't agree with
this. The only sense in which I've ever seen "mistake" or "error"
applied to an act done with full knowledge and complete consent is
when a bleeding heart is trying to minimize culpability.
It is no accident that the vast majority of criminals are poor;
not having shared in the bounty of prosperity, they have less to
lose, and then the equation becomes only about desperation and
whatever moral code countervails it.
Consider the vast majority of poor people who don't steal, and the
significant proportion of the rich who do (I'm not just talking
about embezzlement and tax fraud, also about the many spoiled
little rich kids I've known who steal for the pleasure of it). It
seems that the moral code component is the weightier factor here.
Not to mention the "fear of consequences" component, which is going
to push the balance towards the non-stealing side the more
potential victims are armed and alert.
|8.15.09 @ 11:38AM|#
I'll second edna's comment, and respond to this:
If we had a system of justice based upon rehabilitation then
the first two would be more likely.
And if we all had oil fields underneath our houses we'd all be
rich. It's extremely difficult to rehabilitate violent criminals
while they are kept away from the rest of society for its
protection. This is going to be an inherent problem for any justice
system, not solvable by wishing it away.
During the Middle Ages it was not uncommon for criminals who
weren't deemed worthy of execution or mutilation or such, to be
sentenced to time in a monastery. The idea being that they would be
both separated from general society, and surrounded by monks who
were presumably good influences; and have a better chance of
turning their lives around.
We don't really have any structure in modern society that matches
monasteries, and certainly not enough to keep the good guy:bad guy
ratio high enough. But I think this illustrates that any attempt to
seriously implement a "rehabilitation" system is going to be
fraught with difficulty.
anarch the antisemantic|8.15.09 @ 12:47PM|#
That the evolution of language has extended the denotatory range
of mistake (77,300,000 google hits) commonly also to
signify misdeed (478,000 google hits) may be symptomatic
of a shift in...
Ah, screw it.
Mad Max|8.15.09 @ 12:57PM|#
'"Mad Max rode his hobby horse into the fray; drawing his weapon
to defend two-celled beings everywhere he fired a warning shot as
directed by the latest papal encyclical. Satisfied that brainless,
nerve-less, limbless human beings everywhere were now more safe he
wheeled his mighty steed around and charged off in the direction of
the local Rite-Aid to fight the scourge of birth control
pills..."'
So you believe that the only unborn children aborted in New York
City are 'two-celled . . . brainless, nerve-less, limbless human
beings?'
Are you actually familiar with the abortion industry in New
York?
Mad Max|8.15.09 @ 12:59PM|#
And anyway:
Paraplegics can be described as 'limbless human beings.'
Bloggers can be described as 'brainless . . . human beings.'
Do bloggers and paraplegics have the right to life?
(At least you use the phrase 'human beings.')
|8.15.09 @ 2:04PM|#
Some of those unborn children are going to turn into armed robbers, Max. You might want to rethink your position.
|8.15.09 @ 3:37PM|#
I'm sympathetic to some crime; e.g. at least a meth dealer, a
bookie, or a ho work for their money, providing a service that
people want.
The actions of a cuckold who shoots his wife and her lover are even
comprehensible to me(if still indefensible).
OTOH, Thieves and robbers are simply worthless parasites of
society. Bag 'em up by the bushel, I say.
Nice shootin' Tex.
Patriot Henry|8.15.09 @ 4:11PM|#
Dear edna,
bullshit. there are evil, worthless creatures among us, humans with
no redeeming value whatever. to deny that takes a peculiar sort of
pollyanna outlook coupled with a sheltered life.
Even predators serve a purpose or purposes. Many of the worst
predators appear to be regular people. Some of the best appear to
be evil, worthless creatures. It is not the role of mortal men to
be judge, jury, and executioner.
MNG|8.15.09 @ 4:26PM|#
Nice try Max. Got any examples of people with no nervous system
or spinal cords? Heck even the trout I had for lunch has
those...
"At least you use the phrase 'human beings.'"
Well yes, but certainly you're aware that human beings and persons
are not necessarily the exact same class of things?
Mad Max|8.15.09 @ 5:38PM|#
'Some of those unborn children are going to turn into armed
robbers, Max. You might want to rethink your position.'
If the Department of Pre-Crime thinks they are at risk of growing
up to be armed robbers, then they should of course be locked up in
Guantanamo for the rest of their lives. A basic precaution.
'Got any examples of people with no nervous system or spinal cords?
Heck even the trout I had for lunch has those...'
Not Nemo! Oh, you sadistic bastard, why did you do it?!?!?!?!
anarch|8.15.09 @ 6:32PM|#
Abortion results in the
death ofclinical intervention in yet anothergood threadmorally uncompelling aggregate of pixels.
|8.15.09 @ 7:05PM|#
Patriot Henry,
When someone pulls a gun on you and demands money, it's pretty
apparent which end of the spectrum they're on. No one here is
claiming the ability to tell whether someone is good or bad merely
by appearances, so lay off the strawmanning.
With patriots like you we'd all be worshipping King George as a god
by now.
|8.15.09 @ 7:07PM|#
MNG, are you saying you ate a spinal cord for lunch? I bet you also eat the chocolate Easter bunny's eyes first too, you sicko.
JB|8.15.09 @ 7:13PM|#
Where was that cowardly cockbag Bloomberg? Why wasn't he there
to stop the robbery?
Fuck Bloomberg and his crusade against law-abiding Americans and
for criminals. I ever get mugged in NYC, I will go after that
fucker.
|8.15.09 @ 7:14PM|#
I love these feel-good stories when they have a happy ending
like this.
A very necessary counterbalance to the stuff that Balko routinely
subjects us to.
|8.15.09 @ 7:30PM|#
It just goes to show that if you leave a gun unsupervised
long enough, somebody will wind up dead as a result.
Oh wayne, that was sweet - teetering right on the edge between
wicked trollery and blistering satire. On behalf of all the
regulars I commend you.
And why oh great Zeus, why are we afflicted with Patriot Henry?
What burnt offering will appease you and remove this blight from
our land?
hyphen|8.15.09 @ 8:31PM|#
ellipsis | August 14, 2009, 7:26pm | #
Moynihan says:
Charles "Gus" Augusto Jr., 72, owns Kaplan Brothers Blue Flame Corporation, a restaurant supply company on 125th St. and Amsterdam in Manhattan
That address is in Harlem, according to google maps.
Is there a point to this? Harlem is in Manhattan.
|8.15.09 @ 8:36PM|#
brotherben | August 14, 2009, 7:51pm | #
I can't say it with lots of big words and parsingsand metaphor or
even metaphysics.
"Some folks just need killin. Yes elemenope, their are people in my
world that are not worth the air they breath. Not every human life
is valuable."
agreed. the notion that all human life is intrinsically valuable is
silly. all persons possess "potential", but sometimes they forfeit
that potential before it's ever realized.
too bad.
so sad.
that's the extent of my pity. i'll reserve the rest for actual
victims.
oldtimer: where do you get a 30 round capacity sks? certainly a
custom piece no?
|8.15.09 @ 8:41PM|#
"A youth about 16, crying and pacing at the emergency room
entrance, slammed his fist into a yellow pole." -
compelling evidence for the need to either ban or repaint all
yellow poles. hard hitting journalism. gritty.
anarch|8.15.09 @ 9:01PM|#
juris, fwiw, and likely little or nothing to thee, I like reading Henry's posts.
|8.15.09 @ 9:36PM|#
El, as much as I can relate to your philosophyin' about the value of human life, if I had been ol' Gus I would have the same level of regret as I would have shooting a rabid dog who's attacking someone.
anarch|8.15.09 @ 9:42PM|#
Kant feel, I don't think LM was counseling regret as in remorse,
but regret as in the attitude that would normally accompany
amputating a limb under medical necessity.
Anyway, that's my take.
|8.15.09 @ 10:03PM|#
After having read this entire thread, I am convinced that the
robbers got exactly what was due to them.
And Chris Matthews is truly a dork. But then again, so is
Maddow.
|8.15.09 @ 11:13PM|#
Not a limb, but a cancerous mole on that limb. No regret killing
the tumor cells to save the host.
I guess I have a different take on "human life". To me, once you
take on the characteristics and ethics of a predatory animal, you
have relinquished all right to be considered "human".
|8.15.09 @ 11:16PM|#
Now, that doesn't mean I'm going all Charles Bronson on you. For instance, I think hunting fox is barbaric, but I DO know what to do if I find one in my chicken coop.
Art-P.O.G.|8.16.09 @ 1:59AM|#
Abortion results in the death of yet another good thread.
brotherben for the win.
edna|8.16.09 @ 3:43AM|#
It is not the role of mortal men to be judge, jury, and
executioner.
bullshit. of course it is.
Art-P.O.G.|8.16.09 @ 3:53AM|#
bullshit. of course it is.
Hopefully not all-in-one unless they have a Lawgiver.
anarch|8.16.09 @ 7:26AM|#
Not a limb, but a cancerous mole on that limb. No regret killing the tumor cells to save the host.
The difference between a cancer tumor and a limb is - as the
patient in each case is well aware - amputating a limb permanently
forfeits all potential for good works that the limb holds. That's
why amputation is under all circumstances regrettable and should be
the treatment of last resort, and why a surgeon who doesn't
appreciate the difference is unqualified to make the
decision.
I guess I have a different take on "human life". To me, once you take on the characteristics and ethics of a predatory animal, you have relinquished all right to be considered "human".
Comparing an individual's life to a tumor on a host (qua
that abstractum "society"?) sounds rather
unlibertarian.
And "tak[ing] on the characteristics and ethics of a predatory
animal" is, in the case of human beings, essentially reversible.
Like the integrity of a person's living limb, and unlike a tumor,
an individual's life is morally inviolable, which is why
obliterating either a limb or a person is always tragic even when
necessary, or, as in this case, justifiable.
|8.16.09 @ 10:10AM|#
Store owner has a gun --> Two dead, two shot but alive,
one pistol whipped.
Store owner without gun --> One pistol whipped, some money
stolen.
You value that little bit of money more highly than two human
lives? The world has gone mad.
------------------------
/sissy off
Actually, those sissies have an interesting POV.
Actually the analysis should be:
Store owner has a gun --> Two dead, two shot but alive, one
pistol whipped.
Store owner without gun --> One pistol whipped, some money
stolen OR Store owner and employees tortured and murdered, some
money stolen.
It is very wrong for the government to punish the store owner in
this situation, permit or no permit. Unfortunately is some places
(UK for sure) the store owner will go to jail.
|8.16.09 @ 1:18PM|#
Gah, joe'z law! (unless you're talking about a capital crime, I
guess)
Better tried by 12 than carried by 6.
|8.17.09 @ 3:54AM|#
Well, first...you hardly have to amputate a limb just to excise
a cancerous tumor. And removing the tumor makes the limb and the
patient healthier.
Comparing an individual's life to a tumor on a host
(qua that abstractum "society"?) sounds rather
unlibertarian.
I think my view, while decidedly not pacifistic, is certainly
libertarian. A primary tenet is that initiating force is the
immoral action; and resisting that force, even to the point of
deadly action is the decidedly moral action.
Why would I feel regret for taking the moral action?
Craig|8.17.09 @ 12:36PM|#
Comparing an individual's life to a tumor on a host (qua
that abstractum "society"?) sounds rather unlibertarian.
Unless they are a government employee?
Craig|8.17.09 @ 12:44PM|#
When the four robbers decided to load their guns and go rob
someone's store, they deserved anything that happened to them when
their victims decided to fight back.
Do I feel any human sympathy or sadness when two of them ended up
dead? Yes, I feel sorry that their lives reached a point where they
felt armed robbery was something worth trying, but they brought it
on themselves.
Hopefully more would-be victims will defend their lives and
property with appropriate force, as the store owner did here, to
discourage other young men from making similarly bad
decisions.
He may have saved not only the lives of the attackers' future
victims, but the lives of other potential criminals who don't make
the same mistake.
PR|8.17.09 @ 4:37PM|#
Even predators serve a purpose or purposes.
True dat. With Gus's help, these cats served up a lesson.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245