Sounds like self defense to me. It appears DA and cops came to the same conclusion.

Reminds me of the stories of the old days when everyone carried a Derringer or a .38 special. I guess there were no bad manners back then because you didnt know who was packing so everyone was polite to everyone. Too bad this kid paid with his young life but it sounds like self defense and more than likely, he got what was coming to him. I feel bad for all parties involved though.

He should've shot all of them.

In Southern California, teenagers' attacking and robbing the elderly on bicycles have become the norm. Crime in Southern California has reached epidemic proportion. Gangsterism. Drug turf wars. Burglary. Robbery. Corruption in local and State government. California's jails are over-flowing to the point where inmates are released early than sentenced. Recidivism is rampant.

Someone has to introduce some deterrence.

Live by the sword- get shot by someone who doesn't.

Calling them teens minimizes their image. Call them assailants.

Never pick a fight with an old man

He won't beat you, he'll kill you

Little punks got what they needed. A good life long reminder to walk the straight and narrow.

Fatcat. I agree with you 100%. I am in the South end of Orange County and the L.A. crap is happening here. Has been for years.

Boom Boom . . . Out Go The Lights . . .

@FatCat, agree with you & Dave that crime in Southern California has reached epidemic proportions. Have you heard the reports recently that L.A.'s idiot mayor & the LAPD say that crime in L.A. is the lowest it's been since the 1950's?? HUH??!!? I couldn't believe my ears when I heard that! Where do they come up with those statistics? The numbers must have been fudged. But fudged numbers or not, you just have to look around Southern California to see how bad it is. Anybody with a dose of common sense living in So Cal knows that crime is still pretty rampant. At least to you and I & others living in the real world. The mayor & police chief do not live in the real world.

bet dem kids wont do dat no mo´.

I just love a good DRT story.

Just glad that the old man had a firearm on him! Good for him!

FatCat and davefromdanapointca, that's impossible. California has very strict gun laws! I'm sure you're mistaken, because gun laws make us all safer dontcha know... ;-P

The man instigated the teens. This is commonly referred to as 'big gun syndrome'.

If everybody was packing a weapon, we will start seeing men with puffed up chests passive aggressively instigating other people, itching for a fight.

Collect 'em and smelt 'em I say.

He was assaulted--what part of it don't you understand?

I'm just waiting to hear from the dead teens mom. "sniff, sniff,)...but....he was a goooooooood boy! (sniff.)" Yea mom, not so much. Your teen gangsta wannabe might not have been quite so "good". A little more discipline as a younger man might have saved his life. If you love your children, teach them, spend time with them, mentor them, love them. If you don't, someone else very well might named Gangsta, usually with unfavorable results.

Self defense? I missed the part where his life was in imminent danger.

The man instigated the teens. This is commonly referred to as 'big gun syndrome'.

Yes...How dare he ride his bicycle on their turf.

Feel free to leave yourself unarmed but please do not pretend to speak for the rest of us who have the common sense to know that self protection is our best line of defense against an ever growing wave of unprovoked violence by those who would commit criminal acts.

Sad as it is ... he probably saved two of their lives.

That's rich Jean... now crawl back under your rock.

Sam Adams,

Anytime a single person is the victim of a violent unprovoked attack by three thugs, his life IS in imminent danger.

You missed that?

When is your next "blame the victim" seminar?

Well Jean,

If they were young black men they should have known better than to assault an elderly white man with a gun. That was REALLY dumb! Anyone that stupid deserves a bullet for being an idiot. Apart from it being horribly wrong, it shows a great lack of intelligence and heart to do such a thing.

it's not always about race - it's about a bunch of punk bullies, I'll bet it's not the first time they did that to someone. They should have been being productive at jobs. 3 against one? you think they needed weapons? wake up! Too bad he didn't get them all and save the taxpayers some money. You don't think that's gonna stop the other two for long - do you think weeping mommy and daddy will sue the 65 year old for hurting their no -good offspring. Maybe you should sign up to be their punching bag

His life was in imminent danger when

1) He was knocked off of his bike and attacked by the 3 (2 now) little thugs! If he had not defended himself, no doubt he would either be dead, or on a ventilator!!

BLS is an idiot. If this guy had instigated the teens to knock him off the bike I highly doubt the cops would have let him go. But then again I did hear something about this new fad: senior citizens picking fights with teens out in the middle of the woods. Get a clue, teenagers today are desensitized to violence. To many of these undereducated overstimulated youth beating someone to a pulp or shooting an unarmed person carries the same weight as pressing the power button on their X-Box. I bet they had their cameraphones ready to upload the vid to you tube. I pray that the day you realize that when an assailant confronts you don't have time to call the cops you will have had the common sense to have purchased a firearm by then.

"JeanValjean"There is no report in the article of the ethnicity of either the 65yo man or the teenagers but I tend to believe the police and the DA refused to prosecute because the children were of a minority race and the trigger happy man was not.

In the commonwealth of Pennsylvania you are permitted to use lethal force if you feel your life is in danger. While there are missing details I am curious about - if the 3 kids knocked him off his bike and were assaulting him - he probably feared for his life. I know I would if confronted by 3 people who wanted to harm me.

In the end its a loss of life and very sad. Very tough life lesson for those kids.

Good.

DARWIN would be pleased!!!!!

BLS, Sam Adams, JeanValjean,

What was the man supposed to do, ask the assailants how badly they intended to beat him? Was he supposed to ask how old they were? Maybe he should have asked if a bullet in the chest would be inconvenient to their plans for the weekend.

F**k 'em. They acted like predators, and he reacted like a wounded animal. Too bad he didn't kill all three of them. They assaulted him... period. Anyone splitting hairs as to the degree to which his life may have been threatened is an ass.

This incident was just another example of the Darwin Theory coming to fruition and, as in past examples, the human race is better for it.

trigger happy man

Trigger happy man?! He was minding his own business riding his bike when three punk teenagers knocked him off his bike and began assaulting him, for crying out loud! (that's a fancy word for beating the sh_t out of him!).... I'd have shot them too! If more law abiding citizens were carrying concealed weapons like this man was, punks like this would think twice about committing these kinds of senseless crimes.

I bet the incidence of convenience store robberies in places like Arizona and Texas (where lots of people carry guns) is much lower than in places like New York City and Chicago, where only the crooks are allowed to have them. Thugs in Texas know that if they bust into a convenience store, bank, or fast food place to rob it, there is a very real possibility that they will be killed by someone who is a much better shot than they are.

I personally plan to get a firearm this spring and get licensed to carry it to protect myself and my family. It's clear that our society is no longer able to protect its citizens.

There is something odd about this story.

1. Reading PA is hardly a hotbed of "thug" activity. 2. Anecdotally, I put in over 60 miles a week on my bike. The last thing I would think about would be to carry a gun. I am too busy rolling along at twenty miles per hour.3. The sight of a gun puts the fear of God into most people. Are you telling me that after he shot one kid the other one kept coming?

More details are needed before judgement should be rendered. A life was taken, a formal hearing should be convened to ascertain whether the use of deadly force was just or not.

I think that all of you hot shots that have posted above that are cheering this man's actions without knowing complete details should be ashamed of yourselves. Life is precious, this isn't a remake of Bronson's 'Deathwish". What if it were your son that died?

I'm with the majority of posters - when assaulted by a group of people, in an isolated area, your life is indeed in danger and you have the right to protect yourself.

Now if it was just one unarmed assailant - using a firearm would have been highly questionable and would require a lot more justification. But three teens beating on an old man, probably to rob him, he could have ended up dead or in a coma himself. Good for him.

It's a damn shame all around, kids are notoriously stupid. Good kids can indeed get caught up in bad crowds (I was one of them at one time)... but by no means does that lessen this man's right to defend himself.

As for the 'deadly force vs deadly force' argument - that's really for police, who have a much higher threshold for how they are allowed to react to various threats. A victim only needs to be capable of justifying that he felt his life was in danger - and in this case it's pretty apparent that he was justified.

Doesn't need to be a "hotbed", all it takes is 1 time.

If it were a spawn of mine and he attacked an senior citizen, he deserves what he gets. Would I be upset? Yes. However, I wouldn't have raised him that way. If you do these crimes, be prepared for the consequences.

If it was my son I would have failed as a father and would blame myself not the man in fear for his life

Self-defense. Glad the good guy is okay.

A rider who loves this story..

I too miss the part where his life was in imminent danger.

Dear Silver Flyer, Im assuming your from the Reading area??? Im glad to hear the man was armed. Reading is a sh*thole of a city. I appologize to all that live there, but come on... almost every night the news stats... today in Reading another man was shot, or stabbed. Check out CityRating.com

I love my son with all my heart and will stand behind him when he needed me, BUT if my son did that I wouldn't go to his funeral. If he was one of the survivors I would support him while he paid restitution. I'd expect him to do time.

I have expectations of my children, I hold them accountable - no actually they hold themselves accountable for their own actions.

And to use your "if it was your son" - the man on the bike is someone's son too! I hope and pray that my kids never get put in a situation where they have to defend themselves from thugs like the three in the story.

I too miss the part where his life was in imminent danger.

You're an old man - in an isolated area - three people assault you (aka are beating the crap out of you)...

Should the old man be like 'hey, just beat me within inches of my life, not all the way there.. hopefully someone will come along and help me as I lay here bleeding.... I mean, my life is not in imminent danger or anything while your feet are kicking in my skull."

Should the old man wait until the assailants pick up a big rock to hit him over the head with while he is barely conscious on the ground? Or do you think it might be a bit too late by then?

*facepalm*

BUT if my son did that I wouldn't go to his funeral.

That's cold man, I'd still go to mine. He would still be my son, and kids are dumb. The dead hurt noone.

In a society that has, in many states, allowed its citizens to carry guns to protect themselves, it seems only right that this 65 year old man, who likely feared for his life against 3 guys one fourth his age, use any means possible to protect himself. If he had been the one killed, for no apparent reason it seems, these punks would be going to juvie, parents would be protesting that their kids didn't mean any harm, but let the old man protect himself and suddenly there are bleeding hearts everywhere. Good for the 65 year old, my age. It has come to this because our children are not being raised with any respect for anyone else, and because our court system has failed us miserably.

I too miss the part where his life was in imminent danger.

OK, let's see if I can help you.

Three "teens" intentionally knock a 65 year old man off of his bile and assault him. They didn't knock him off of the bike to give him a lifetime acheivement award, or offer him coupons to McDonalds. Their intent was manifested the moment they touched him, and THAT is where imminent danger began. Go to youtube and view some beat downs caught on tape. A fist or foot can be lethal weapons.

The "teens" are responsible for the death, not the victim.

Don't screw with old guys ! We don't have much patience !

Sorry it ended this way, but he did not stop them, they stopped him. Seems when he pulled the gun that should have stopped the incident, but I was not there.

it's a shame they collapsed this...oh well...

it's a shame they collapsed this...oh well...

Yeah, wtf... the first post wasn't really even offensive in the least - for either side of this argument. It spoke the unfortunate truth.

3 youths attacking and beating a 65 yr old man(how much danger does someone have to be in,its not like he could just fight them ) - if your 65 yr old grandfather was being beaten by three youths - what would you recommend?

I agree with others that this is just natural selection at work and that race has nothing at all to do with this.

I am curious to know the race as well, but regardless those punks got what they deserved. But trust me if they are black, I think we would have heard about it. I don't know where you live, but black folks would have been all over the local news. I am thinking they are white teens who thought this would be funny. I guess it's not.

Yeah nothing funny about it. Kids are supposed to respect elders, not attack them while they are riding their bike in the park.

My family regularly uses rails to trails bike paths. Most are very nice with gradual hills and some spectacular scenery. Some take you through isolated areas and some through cities and towns. We have met a number of fine people on the trail, and one or two groups who seemed to have been dirt bags looking for a "good time." I am well over six foot and my sons aren't far behind, so the miscreants take a look at us and keep moving, or watch us go by. I worry about the lone woman or elderly couple that may be behind us. I also think about the day when my sons are off on their own and my wife and I are the elderly couple isolated and stalked. I am surprised that the trails don't have more incidents, really. Especially the trails that are near or through urban areas like the one in this story.

I have a CCW due to activities in a "previous life." I have no problem carrying anywhere, even on the trails. I feel sorry for those who let themselves be dependent on the good will of hostiles for their safety.

By the way, the laws in PA are pretty specific about how and when deadly force may be used. A person must be in fear of "death or serious bodily injury." Serious bodily injury means an injury that would compromise the function of a body part or process permanently or for an extended period of time. That means broken bones, internal injuries, blindness, brain damage and all the other things that could be expected if three people put you on the the ground and started in on you. The fact that you are outnumbered, disabled, elderly, injured, exhausted or various other factors are also included in the law, as they should be. The use of force laws are written to let the good guy win. You are permitted to use a weapon against an unarmed person or group if the factors above would likely prevent you from prevailing.

Cowards with guns?? What do you call two sixteen year olds attacking a 65 year old man? Brave?? Give me a break Jean. The guy is 65 F***ing years old! He could have had a heart condition for all you know. They probably scared him to death making him fear for his life. And furthermore, Jean, MY forefathers established MY right to bear arms in the Constitution. Who do think you are to say otherwise??? I can tell you live in a bubble posting idiotic, accusatory comments like that. And for every other smart ass saying things like: "I missed the part where his life was in imminent danger." Put yourselfe in a position of being violently assaulted by a group of guys, then let me know how you feel.

My Dad is 58; he would, could and will handle the same situation in the same manner. He's a better shot so the results would be different but the intent and action would be the same.

I have no sympathy for the young men; their intent was to cause harm, they had no idea if knocking this guy off of his bike and beating him would cause death, a heart attack or permanent damage and they didn't care. One of them got away with less than he deserved, one with more and the third- well I hope the bullet lodged in his arse.

Pretty good shooting there, Pops! Way to keep your wits about you.

Silver Flyer,

Since when does an area have to be designated a 'hotbed of crime' before a man can protect himself. Are you saying I shoudn't be able to defend myself on Park Avenue?

If the police are satisfied the man was protecting himself, I am satisfied. Apparently he didn't shoot anyone in the back so they were both facing him.

Since you're scratching your head, just put yourself in the place of the wounded attacker. Three of you are beating someone to the ground but the guy quickly whips out a gun and smokes your homie before he can say, "Oh @!$%#!"

It's perfectly understandable for you to pucker in your pants and freeze up for a split second, long enough for the guy to cap off a round in your direction. In the time takes you to say, "My Bad!" you hit the ground and your other bro is off and running...

If you've never been in a life threatening situation involving a gun... I have and I can tell you it is very strange. As people often say time seems to stand still. Sometimes they don't even hear the shots.

I read of a man who woke up one day not knowing why he had blood in his hair. He went the hospital complaining of a headache and xrays revealed six small caliber bullets under his scalp. Amazingly none had pierced his skull and he had no memory of what had happened.

The fact the man got off two shots before two of the thugs were able to react makes you suspicious of him?? Your (lack of) reasoning is ridiculous.

Speaking of minorities, how do all you bed wetting anti-gunners out there like being in one? The MAJORITY of Americans are pro-gun ownership. Sit down, wash your sheets, and move on. You people can't and won't change that fact!

Oh, please by all means feel free to stick a "THIS HOME IS GUN FREE!" sign in your yard or apartment door as well as a "THIS CAR IS GUN FREE!" bumper sticker on your bumper.

I carry a Springfield XP .45 when I bike on trails and I have a C&C permit. It will stop a bear in its tracks, let alone a worthless thug. You anti-gun liberals can go pound sand.

Guns are good!

Guns are bad!

Yay, pontificating!

Interesting why all these comments were collapsed- when obviously most people agreed these thugs got what they deserved- and we are glad to be reading this story as opposed to a story looking for three thugs who put an old man in the hospital or grave.

We need more stories like these to spread the message:

Don't @!$%# with seniors!

We recently had a situation here in Florida where two teenagers were going around and beating homeless people to death for kicks. Sounds like this gentleman was in imminent danger. And before you race baiters get started, they were skinny little white kids who got what they deserved (by law) and went to prison. To bad the homeless guys (also senior citizens) weren't armed. It doesn't matter if they are big, small, young, or old; if two or more people attack you, shoot them. I say good for the guy on the bike and the high hard one to you anti-gunners who think we live in civilzed times. It is probably your kids doing crap like this, anyway.

My guess is these "teens" were part of a growing subculture that values senseless violence. Just do a google search for it. You will find videos made by these people showing them beating elderly and other helpless people for no reason. You will also find a lot of videos of people getting knocked off bikes and skateboards and then beaten senselessly.

I can't believe the stupidity of some people commenting on here that they "fail to see the imminent danger" the man was in - 3 teens against 1 senior citizen. You are an idiot if you don't understand how the man could have feared for his life when he was facing 3 teens who had already knocked him off of his bike and assaulted him.

And why is it that all the comments saying the man did the right thing are collapsed? Are there that many people out there offended by him doing the right thing and protecting himself? Seriously people - would you rather him have laid there and taken the beating, and possibly been killed by the thugs?

BTW, just love how you anti-gunners collapsed Barbara's remark simply because you disagree with her; I can see you have no respect for the 1st amendment just as you have none for the second.

I'll never cheer for the death of a teenager, or anyone for that matter, but it sounds like the man had little choice. Sad story.

One can only hope that the two that didn't die will see the death of their friend as a wake up call and change their lives. That said, they will both probably end up dead young as well or spend the better part of their lives behind bars.

When was his life in imminent danger? Are you serious? I don't know how fast he was riding his bike, but a bad spill can break bones, cause concussions and can be life threatening in-and-of itself. Now add on an assault by three young men immediately after that and factor in that the victim is 65 years old. Yeah, his life was being threatened. Don't think so? Then maybe you missed this news item a few weeks ago:

'Knockout King': New brand of street violence targets random victims

This kind of random assault on seniors HAS killed people and has hospitalized many more. Don't be daft. This was a violent assault-- one that was counteracted by a powerful defense. These thugs got exactly what was coming to them.

"JeanValjean"

It seems to me deadly force can only be used legally when deadly force is being used against someone.

Don't you think that three teenage boys are capable of ganging up and killing a 65-year-old man? I've seen many 15- and 16-year-olds who are mighty big and strong. I would call that potentially deadly force. The man was protecting himself, it was self defense.

Guess what parents. Maybe you should try to teach your kids a little more respect than to try and beat up some old guy on a bike. If you can't do you job, when your @!$%#brick kids cross the line, society will do it for you. Don't blame anyone but yourself for your kids actions.

You only have to feel or believe that your life is in imminent danger to justify using deadly force.

A bad guy doesn't really have to have a gun in his pocket to be convicted of armed robber, he simply has to make the victim believe he does, by pointing a finger in his pocket as if it were a gun, for example, or stating he has gun.

JeanValjean, to you and those agreeing with you, pleas look up the story of the 66 yr old recently retired man in Camden, NJ. He was also a Viet Nam veteran. He accidentally hit a 16 yr old pregnant girl with his car at an intersection. He stopped to check on the girl (her injuries, if any were minor) and was immediately punched in his face by her 18 yr old boyfriend. He fell, striking his head and died within hours. Too bad he didn't hit and run. like so many do these days. Too bad NJ makes it impossible to protect yourself from violent criminals. Still think there was no imminent danger???

Thats my home town and it has been on the 25 most dangerous cities in America a few times in the past decade. This is hardly even news there at this point. Sad.

Good for gramps...

Punk-ass kids...

To those of you who question whether or not the man was in immanent danger and may or may not have needed to use of deadly force, tell me what is he supposed to do, let them punch, kick, club, pulverize the poor guy to within an inch of his life? Oh I know he was supposed to ask them, how much of a beating will you be administering today? Beatings take on a life of their own. Regardless of what the 3 punks intended when they picked this fight, it can escalate way beyond that regardless if the victim resists or not. The guy did the only thing he could. And remember when seconds count, the police are minutes away.

JEAN WROTE "I tend to believe the police and the DA refused to prosecute because the children were of a minority race and the trigger happy man was not"

OR

PA does not force you to be a victim and these "children" were going to hurt him so he acted within the law that allows you to use force to protect yourself and did exactly the right thing. Too bad his aim wasn't better.

I love your use of "kids" maybe someday you will meet kids like these and you can remember how disadvantaged they are as they hurt you.

This is a good thing. Less scum out there.

Wow 3 punks attack a 65 year old guy and people are saying guns are bad? Are y'all @!$%#ing joking?

The first thing that came to my mind was, why would anyone think an old man riding a bike had money on him? Then I thought, regarding the mother of the deceased kid who didn't want his name released, "Well, YOU RAISED him!"

Someone said something about mommy and daddy suing, odds are that "mommy" is a crackwhore working the corner, and "daddy", if they even know who he is, is in prison, again. This whole gangbanger situation is completely out of hand and they should be exterminated immediately.

Since we're on the subject, I live in Philly too. They'll shoot you for a pair of sunglasses or an Ipod in my neighborhood. Flash mobs beat people up for sport and stray dogs roam the streets.

Last summer two girls started fist fighting in the street at the end of my block. Their friends started calling and texting and within five minutes there were over 100 people acting up and more arriving every minute before the police could even get there.

Last week a young man was beaten to death by three other young men (in a ritzy Old City neighborhood too) because they thought he shouted at them... He was cussing out a cab driver who wouldn't take him because he only needed to go a few blocks.

A permit and a piece would have come in handy for him. I'm no NRA zealot, but I do have a concealed weapons permit and I carry a 25 cal. Barretta in my pocket most of the time. In the house, or if the neighbors are misbehaving, I reach for something bigger.

When I don't have the gun, I carry a knife. Life can turn in the blink of an eye. I feel you have to stay alert and be prepared to defend youself.

"JeanValjean" Comment collapsed by the community

There is no report in the article of the ethnicity of either the 65yo man or the teenagers but I tend to believe the police and the DA refused to prosecute because the children were of a minority race and the trigger happy man was not. If the races were reversed there is no doubt prosecution would be to the maximum of the law

and you, my friend, are a racist idiot who feels that it's ok for a pack of young blacks to attack an elderly white person (again)

It's incidents like these which are precisely why you see an increase in people who carry concealed weapons

I'm glad I don't live in this situation, but have been in some really bad areas (in country and out) - I will tell you this, if the man was carrying a gun, he had either had issues before or was aware of some form of danger. From the posts above from locals - it sounds like this is a common issue. He sounded prepared and reacted properly. The problem now is - "will there be retribution from the dead teen's friends? I teach 5th graders and help out with 8th and 9th football players and will tell you - these kids today are bigger than in my day (80's). And the kids I work with are "good kids" but they don't have the same courtesy which we had- so hate to think about what the bad kids do-

Gran Torino with a better ending!

The juvenile delinquents are/were thugs and cowardly ganged up on a vulnerable senior citizen. I have little doubt that this wasn't their first crime, but for the deceased, it sure is the last one.

Some hard earned lessons will kill you.

The 65 yr old man was attacked. What was he supposed to do, wait until the first knife went into his chest? Three young thugs attack a 65 yr old man. He had a right to defend himself and trying to punch his way out against three much younger men was not an option. Too bad he didn't kill all three of them. I guarantee all of you that the two that survive, if they survive, will do this again. That's who they are. People who are 65 yrs old have very few options when being attacked, so a gun was a wise choice. If not for the gun he might be dead now. Those fine young men would not want any witnesses.

Those people who talked about So California, I lived there before it became a sewer of illegals and gang bangers. It's not safe for people of any age, armed or not.

Stories like these are why I picked up a brand new Springfield 1911 Range Officer.

http://www.springfield-armory.com/1911RO/1911RangeOfficer.htm

Teenagers often aren't the brightest lights in the room, so-to-speak....

They should train all seniors in self defense and give weapons to the ones that have the savvy to use them. You don't pull out the gun and wave it around. As soon as it's visible, it should be firing, with the idea of permanently taking out the idiots who make it necessary to be armed in the first place. Any teen who would attack an elderly person needs to be deleted from the gene pool.

Calling these brutal thugs "teenagers" is giving them way too much credit. Where I come from, teenagers' stupid things include toilet papering their friends' houses and getting caught drinking on a Saturday night. Assaulting the elderly and robbing them goes way beyond "stupid things that teens do". They deserved what they got.

Right on! What color is the sky in Jeanworld? Must be all butterfly and unicorns floating around.

Reminds me of the movie Harry Brown

its sad that a teen lost his life, but to attack an elderly person who is just out for a bike ride is inexcusable. If he hadn't had the gun then we may have been reading a story about a 65 year old man out for a bike ride was beaten to death and the cops requesting tips to try and find his attackers. No one is really the winner in this and i hope the families and the elderly gentleman can come to terms with this.

Maybe now people will give some second thought to attacking another if there is a possibility that person has a gun. Nah, who am I kidding? If these kids had been brighter, they would have been some sort of school oriented program learning and being productive, not knocking people to the ground. At least one was weeded out of the herd!

Many of you who do not live in Philly should read some local news on-line. There has been a rash of teen assaults against older people just walking down the street. There has been a curfew since the summer when "flash mobs" of teens would rush into a departmentt store, take everything they wanted and run out since they knew there was no way for the security guard to catch more than one.

A 65 year old man accidentally hit a 16 year old pregnant teen crossing the intersection at the light so he got out of his car to make sure she was ok and her 18 year old boyfriend hit him in the head so hard it killed him. He tried to do the right thing instead of just driving away and he was killed!!

A young store owner who had previously witnessed a murder was killed when a young gang member just walked into her store pulled out a gun and shot her then walked out.

Believe me when I tell you even if the guy who shot these kids never carried before he would after seeing the news for two days.

I don't think this is sad. I think he just eliminated a person that was on his way to a life of crime anyway. Get the creeps out of society as soon as possible.

Society is the big winner!

Senior citizens should at least get a discount buying ammo... where is AARP when you need them?

News terminology:

Anytime a young criminal thug does anything he is a ..."teenager".

Anytime an adult criminal thug does anything he is the...."accused"

Any weapons at all are refered to as ..."AK-47"

If a white is to blame its always...."racism".

If anyone else is to blame its....."societies fault."

getting the picture yet.

Thats why if you want entertainment, read the modern media.

If you want real news you have to get it from more reliable sources than media, like gossip, little kids talking or bathroom walls........:)

the gentleman should bill the teenagers for the cost of the ammo.

Mighty fine shooting, sir....excellent job!

NO sympathy for his attackers - they got what they deserved

and I agree with Badger - the teenager's families should be made to pay for costs incurred by the medical personnel who tried to save their little "babies" as well as to reimburse the man for bullets expended in defending his life

...ammo is expensive these days

Natural selection.

Even though I am a so called "liberal", I own guns and am getting my concealed weapons permit. I have no problem with gun laws and proposed gun laws. Most of them are couched in common sense. Now as for the cyclist...too bad you didn't maim the third one as well. Although, maiming them is not a deterrent (see Goetz' attackers) giving them a mobility problem for the rest of their lives, smacks of justice.

I am a bicyclist and I would need a lot of ammo to retaliate every time a vehicle operator ran red lights, took my right of way, threw things at me, hit me with their side mirror, or otherwise endangered my life. There is a war on bicyclists in America. Rand Paul spent a lot of time recently trying to remove bike lane funding from the budget. I am glad this man fought back. As a bicyclist, i have scars on my body from drivers who harmed me, and they got away with no pain at all. And the police don't care.

Karl, I hope you are more responsible than the bicyclists in Indiana. Those are rude, run red lights, stop signs and generally diaobey every traffic ordinance desighed to keep them and others safe. Probably their worst issue is riding three, or more, abreast on two lane roads and highways. Motorists go out of our way to avoid hurting them and they take advantage by being even more obnoxious. Then...they wail about "Share the Road". What they mean by that is, "Get out of my way or I'll whine" about life, and automobile drivers being unfair. Indiana has hundreds of "Rails to Trails" bike paths, but if they use those they can't annoy people trying to get to work.

This in no way condones what these thugs did. This is only a comment on your post.

@Bebop... It's illegal for bicyclists to ride on sidewalks (some of us do it anyways). It is the law that requires us to ride on the street.

@Bebop obviously you are one of the motorist who don't know the rule of the road. In most places a bike is illegal on the sidewalk. Please go back and read the rule of the road manual seems you've missed a bit. That is why you if you don't have bike lanes you should be asking for them.

Bebop - read your local Vehicle and Traffic Laws. Bicycles are allowed a lane of traffic. I ride 22 miles a day back and forth from work round trip. I beat the bus and the subway. I drive cars and a motorcycle and I know all sides. Bicycles are not supposed to be ridden on sidewalks. How the fcuk are you supposed to do 20+ mph on the sidewalk for miles at a time. All you have to do is go around. How hard is that??? What the fcuk are you whining about?
I stay out of car drivers' way as much as possible. I yield to everybody because I know they have their entitled heads up their asses. Open your closed mind and try it. Who knows you might even self improve.
vsk

@Bebop

For your info. When you see a cyclist on the road he has the same right that any person in a vehicle, same laws apply to them also. Read the laws and you will be ashame as what you said.

Great story with a happy ending!! Punks lose and old guy goes home, it doesn't get any better.

This 65 year old needs glasses or he needs to go back to the range to learn how to be a better shot!!! The only problem that I have here is that there should'a been THREE in the morgue!!!

Bebop do you know the rules of the road? Bikes are not supposed to ride on the sidewalk, as a matter of fact bikes have every right to the road that you have in a car. So before you make youself look foolish educate yourself. Be courteous and share the road with all vehicles. Roads were not originally designed for cars, read up sometime.

Thanks to all the people who support bicyclists in this thread. Those of you who made the anti-bicyclist comments, you are part of the reason so many bicyclists and pedestrians are killed every year. I ride as far over to the right and as carefully as I can. It is drivers who are the problem. They are the ones in the huge machines going 60 mph. Those of you who have made anti-bicycle comments here are likely fat-ass losers who couldn't ride a bike if you tried. Children ride bikes too. Have a conscience, you a**holes.

Leave it to MSNBC to trvialize the headline to make the shooting sound less warrented.

"Man, 65, kills teen who knocks him off bicycle"

"Police said two teens then assaulted the man,"

This was an ambush and assault by several punks against one man... not some accidental bump on a busy sidewalk.

I guess "Elderly man shoots 2 of 3 assailants" wouldn't sound "bleeding heart" enough?

If there is not enough room, a cyclist can legally use the entire lane. You are one of the reasons it's dangerous to ride.

Then make up your mind... If you are a vehicle - act like it. If you are a mechanize pedestrian then act like. Don't claim which ever supports your self assumed morph super powers. "Bikeman". super villain!

Bicyclist claim the right to be treated as vehicles - then a second later, complain they are not and can split lanes, instead of waiting at the light as other vehicles do. If you have the right to the entire lane, OK - I can deal with it... the so does the vehicle in front of you - fall in line!

I don't see it as car drivers - whose taxes pay for the road, have any natural animosity towards bicyclist.... its a learned trait, based on the more frequent encounters where after stopping, looking both ways and proceeding across an intersection, some bicyclist whizzes by, inched in front of your bumper... running the 4-way stop signs every other vehicle obeyed. Killing someone, who is doing something stupid, is not supposed to be the highlight of your day. Don't make someone kill you because you think your 30lb bicycle is an impregnable tank or stealth time machine.

If thats not enough... I've been knocked to the ground or grazed, startled by any number of cyclist invading walking paths... barreling through walkers at 30 MPH , giving no regard to age, sex, baby carriages, toddlers or pets on leashes.

If you claim rights .... what about the responsibilities that go along with them?

I can accept an occasional 7, 8, 12 year old being a little careless... but, with the growing number of post - pubescent - Fratboy/Peter Pan's invading the road, I find less and less compassion for any claim they have for being unfairly victimized as they moralisticly claim that "everyone" should ride bick... Like the do in Europe. News flash, if Europe had built roads before the narrow cow paths they used to get around in, as an historic legacy - they would have more cars too.

You aren't in Asia or Europe ... get used to it, enjoy it and most importantly ... enhance the public peace, instead of claiming rights you have no intention (based on common observation) of doing anything to deserve.

At 65, an assault by 2 or 3 teenagers IS life threatening. Self defense.

Those aren't "teenagers," they're THUGS. If more people rode bikes, we'd have a cleaner environment and healthier people. If people would discipline their children and teach them respect for other living creatures (old, young, 2 legs, 4 legs, whatever), we'd have a kindler, gentler society. Very sad that as a 65-year old, you'd feel compelled to go around carrying a gun. I hate guns and I hate the fact that I said to myself, "good for him." I, too, am getting callous in my later years. Too sad.

Well, to the comments regarding the rules of the roads for bikes, not the actual topic of this news article.... I have no problem sharing the road. HOWEVER, for all you bicyclists that say, "I have just as much right as you in your car to be on the road", well, guess what? You are supposed to follow the same rules the cars do. That means stopping at red lights and stop signs and signaling your turns, etc.

I live near roads with bike lanes. And every freaking Spring-Fall, I have to slow down to a crawl while the bicyclists are not riding in their special lane and then they cross the busy intersections without so much as a head turn to make sure those big deadly cars are going to just let them on through.

As for going around, sure, I can do that and am happy to...WHEN THERE ISN'T ONCOMING TRAFFIC IN THE OTHER LANE!!!! Bike lane = ride your bike in that lane. There is even cute little pictures of bikes painted in it.

The summer months are the worst, because there will be packs of 5-15 bikes and they do NOT get out of the way.

Badger and Robopaloopbob: blame the parents? Really? There are plenty of good parents out there suffering along with everyone else at the stupid actions of their children, who were taught better and didn't listen. Do you actually think that all good people only come from good parents and all bad people only come from bad parents? Hurtful and uninformed comments. Wake up.

give weapons to the ones that have the savvy to use them

I appreciate the sentiment and I completely side with the fellow in this article. He did what he had to and I just can't find sympathy for the teens who were shot. But man. Taking the keys from grandpa when you realize he's gotten too senile to drive's got nothing on trying to take his gun when he is.

There's a guy who goes to a restaurant I frequent who's in his early 80s. Nice guy but he's gotten really forgetful. The other day he came in with his revolver hanging between his legs on a belt so loose the holster was literally swaying between his knees. The manager had to go over and tell him to tighten his belt because the gun was in danger of falling out. There were lots of people in the restaurant too, mostly seniors but several kids as well.

Not saying that responsible seniors shouldn't have guns but arming old people comes with its own issues for sure.

Az Racher, a few things I've commented on:

News terminology:

Anytime a young white criminal thug does anything he is a ..."teenager". and didn’t mean to do it and they don’t know why it happened,
because the teenager comes from a good family.

Anytime an adult white male/female criminal thug does anything he is the...."accused"

Any weapons at all are referred to as ..."AK-47" (agree)

If a white is to blame its always...."racism". Not necessarily true. Most white folks are “mentally insane”, white women usually have postpartum depression

If anyone else is to blame its....."societies fault." Not if you are black.

getting the picture yet.

Thats why if you want entertainment, read the modern media.

If you want real news you have to get it from more reliable sources than media, like gossip, little kids talking or bathroom walls........:)

For everyone saying bikes have every right to use the street, laws, yadda, yadda, yadda. I think it is a stupid law!! So if I can't go past a group of bikes on the street, I'm supposed to go 15mph indefinitely? GTFO here!! Go share the sidewalk. If you hit a person that's walking they will not be killed. If a car hits a bike, there's a very good chance the rider will die. I mean, why would you guys even want to be inches away from big chunks of metal moving past you when it is inevitable that someone makes a mistake and nails you? Idiots!!!

Steve, I think that the "Carry" laws are different in Philly than the rest of the state of PA. More strict, I think.

I also ride a lot, and see some really idiotic drivers out there. I wear screaming loud and bright colors, so if someone hits me, it would have to be intentional, or else a blind person!

With cell phones and texting, it's a lot different riding now than 30 years ago. Be aware, wear a helmet, and use a mirror to see what's coming up behind you.

And carrying a weapon: it may be in my future.

but they piss me off!! GET OFF THE STREET. YOU'RE NOT AN AUTOMOBILE!!!

Oh look! An ignorant self absorbed american thinking the term 'right of way' only applies to them, and that the law is always on their side.

Then they go so far as to suggest that the person in their way should break the law and ride on the sidewalk because cars are obviously so much more important.

Run over someone and see how far that line of thinking gets you with the judge:
"Yes your honor, I DID run over that cyclist, but in my defense I was in a hurry and they were in my way!"

I am a bicyclist and I would need a lot of ammo to retaliate every time a vehicle operator ran red lights, took my right of way, threw things at me, hit me with their side mirror, or otherwise endangered my life.

I'm sorry, but that does not make a valid case for using a firearm in self defense, if that statement was anything more than mere sarcasm.

'Retaliate' is not something you are allowed to do under the law. If someone is in the process of doing something that you are certain is about to result in your serious injury or death, you may do what is necessary to prevent that. You cannot do anything after they have done it. That's what we have a legal system for!

As a bicyclist, the only option you have is to try to physically avoid traffic hazards.

Police officers occasionally find themselves trying to be run down by a motorist and there's no place they can reasonably retreat to in order to avoid being hit by the rushing vehicle, so they'll draw and fire a shot at the driver using the vehicle as a deadly weapon. This does not happen very often, and some departments outright ban their officers from firing at motor vehicles, period. In all cases, officers are generally not supposed to fire at a fleeing vehicle, although when an officer is shot by a driver at a traffic stop he probably won't be given too much grief if he returns fire at the driver speeding away from the scene. That does not mean that it's the right thing to do, however.

On a bicycle, the threat you can defend yourself against with a firearm is pretty much going to be on legs, not on wheels.

Uhm Bebop. Yes, you are supposed to go 15mph until you can safely pass the bicycle (even if the people behind you are being jerks and cutting you off and you can't get around safely). The bicycle cannot legally ride on the sidewalk, in case you weren't paying attention to previous rebuttals to your original post. They are required to ride in the street (although in our area we have a lot of bike riders who not only ride on the sidewalk, but do it against traffic and don't necessarily stop when crossing streets and outlets (you really don't expect something doing that kind of speed coming from your right when you are turning and watching traffic to your left)). And I really don't agree with them riding as far to the right as possible, that is just begging for someone to try to squeeze past them without giving enough room (bikes do tend to sidewind a bit, depending on the skill of the rider). Own the lane, bikers, you will be safer that way.

Find a bikepath. The rules of the road might allow you to ride, but the laws of physics dictate that in an accident, you will lose. The road was not originally meant for cars. They were built for horsedrawn buggies. Yet you don't see too many of those around anymore.

I've seen more bikers create dangerous situations than cars. If it's too much trouble to find a bikepath, maybe this evolutionary trimming that everyone is talking about needs to be applied to you.

As for you karl, go felate yourself.

Cops: Man, 65, kills teen who knocks him off bicycle

Good for him. this will teach these teen thugs not to mess with people on their bikes. what was the man suppose to do. wait for them to beat him to death and rob him of his bike.

If they had minded their own business, the one kid would still be alive.

I really cannot believe the comments here! You are all advocating that this was a justifiable shooting? Give me a break, a young man was murdered here, and I hope this old guy goes to jail for this. This is NOT a justifiable shooting by any stretch of the imagination.

Wow you people are incredible.......

Justified if they had a gun but no, this man over reacted and killed a teenager and would have killed all three if he could have.

Of course we do not know all of the facts, but he better be able to prove he felt his life was in danger, if he can not then I hope the full extend of the law is used to decide his fate.

Three young MEN on one old man IS DEADLY FORCE. People of all ages die from spills everyday. Being 65 and knocked off a bike in motion is no little deal. I'm suprised he was able to pull his gun. Stunned I'd be if it happened to me.

Meanwhile the military is diving over Los Angeles last night. Society is breaking down at a rapid rate, and the police state is coming. Pretty soon no one will be riding a bike anywhere so we can all stop worrying and move along.

The squeeze is coming.

As far as the comments about bicyclists are concerned. I ride a bike quite a lot-on the very edge of the road and when riding with others they are always behind me on the edge of the road. I am never in a Car lane because I do not think I am an Automobile and am surprised to see bicyclists riding in the middle of the road with cars right behind them.

Ok Bebop, then how do you explain the trouble that motorcyclists have with car drivers? They are motor vehicles. They pay taxes for roads as do most cyclists. Yet they have the same problem with car drivers. Ch!ckensh!t drivers that are real brave when rapped up in 3 tons of metal but P@ssies when not. My friend was riding his bike once and a J3RK in a car thought it would be funny and hit him in the head with a full milk shake. Ten miles later the car was stopped by a train. The guy (front seat passenger) did not see that my friend caught up with him. My friend dragged the punk out of the car and laid a good old fashion @ss whooping on him. Remember cyclists have cell phones and might just get your license plate. Some of us are armed. As far as cyclists signaling their turns I always do. It would be nice if any drivers under 75 years of age actually knew what the signal for a right hand turn is! I am a cyclist and I pay taxes for the roads too!!!

Slinger, you are out of touch with reality. This man didn't go out bike riding with the intent to shoot anyone, he was prepared and was defending himself against thugs. I don't think you understand what that means.

Perhaps you live in a place with low crime rates, where you don't even have to lock your doors? If that's the case, I can see how you would not comprehend what a big problem crime is in some communities.

Every punk teenager in the country should read this article.

Slinger:

I really cannot believe the comments here! You are all advocating that this was a justifiable shooting?

The old man had a right to protect himself. These were not small boys, they were in their mid-teens. There were three of them, and one of this old man. I'm sure we're not getting the whole story with this article. The story headline says the man was "knocked off" his bike, but the next line says he was "assaulted." Those are two different things. So if this guy was in fear of his life being assaulted by these teens, I would say defending himself with a gun is justified. If they just pushed him over and laughed about it (which it doesn't look like happened), then I would say it is not justified.

Give me a break, a young man was murdered here, and I hope this old guy goes to jail for this.

If these boys really did assault this guy, I hope he doesn't. Because that sets a nasty precedent to say that we don't even have the right to protect ourselves anymore. Three on one, or even two on one, are not good odds, especially when it's two young men versus one old man. The old man will assuredly lose. Is he just supposed to take the assault at the risk of his own life, just because he might injure the kids attacking him?

The old man is the victim in this story. He didn't set out to kill someone that day. He defended himself against some kids that attacked him (at least that's what I read in the story). Do I think it's tragic that someone lost his life? Absolutely. But it was the teen's own fault.

I really cannot believe the comments here! You are all advocating that this was a justifiable shooting? Give me a break, a young man was murdered here, and I hope this old guy goes to jail for this. This is NOT a justifiable shooting by any stretch of the imagination.

Wow you people are incredible.......

^^^^^

Slinger, the kid would be alive today if he had kept his hands to himself and not assaulted this 65 yo man.

A 65 year old man is not physically capable of fighting off three teenagers. Surely a 15 year old should know not to attack a person. It is tragic that a kid died. It is equally tragic that a mindset would exist among three teenage boys that it is okay to attack a senior citizen. Everyone loses here - the elderly man who felt he had to shoot a kid in self defense, the boys who lived and will pay the price for their deeds, and the parents who will have to live with the realization of the deeds of their sons.

KarlStevens-2597445 let me address this both as a bicyclist and as an Emergency Services provider. The last 5 bicycle crashes I have responded to - not one was the fault of the auto driver. One involved a rider one a bike meant for the velodrome. It had no business on the road. Rider shot across the intersection running the red light. Another was two riders riding abreast instead of in line as this states law require. The two were horsing around and one crossed into the other lane and into the oncoming vehicle. Yet another was a rider who crossed before the intersection right into the path of the slow following car. Another was texting while riding and rode into the back of a stopped car - on a racer bike made for the track not the street.

It is people like that -and you that make things bad for bike people. You are far more entitle minded than many car and truck drivers. You are also required to obey traffic laws. You must stop at stop signs, you must yield to motor vehicles when yielding is required. And plain common sense means sometimes you have to yield when the other driver is aggressive or just not paying attention - just like cars do. That half second you might wait is not worth demanding the right of way unless you are happy about meeting my EMS colleagues and their large needles.

Give me a break, a young man was murdered here, and I hope this old guy goes to jail for this.

I am very very liberal, but based on this story it's pretty obvious that this shooting was justified.

We had a case a few years ago in downtown Seattle where a tourist was assaulted by a homeless guy in broad daylight. The tourist shot him dead. The police checked his weapons permit and let him go about his business.

Don't assault people. You'll live longer.

@SEIU: Let me address this as a person who has a brain, who rides a bike, and who sees what happens to bicyclists, pedestrians and motorcyclists. Cars pollute, they kill, many drivers believe nobody has a right to be on the roads but them. I don't believe the accuracy of your report, and it is obvious you are against bikes. i hope that if I am ever hit by a car again, that a person like you does not show up as an emergency services provider. I would rather walk home bleeding than deal with someone like you. What's funny is that when there were problems with drivers killing police and other emergency responders, car drivers blamed it on the police and emergency responders, just like you blame bicyclists. Think about it.

Why don't you guys get a chat room for your discussion of whether bicycles belong on the road or the sidewalk?! It has nothing to do with this story or the discussion (unless of course you get attacked on the road or the sidewalk).

KarlStevens -

In essence, I think you're right. I have also seen a lot of motorists tailgating and failing to yield to bicyclists where required. It points to irresponsible drivers.

That said, I have also seen a lot of bicyclists who fail to signal turns and do not observe stop signs or stoplights. This behavior also leads to dangerous situations.

Safety is everyone's concern - and we're getting a little off topic.

"Steve, I think that the "Carry" laws are different in Philly than the rest of the state of PA. More strict, I think."-Incorrect. The State of PA has the Law of Preemption. A CCP issued by the Sheriff of my county in PA is valid in the entire state with the same rules and responsibilities.

GOD BLESS PA and our sensible gun laws and GOD BLESS this man for making us all safer.

Karl...this thread is NOT about bike rules...it's about an elderly man who defended himself...he had every right to.

Slinger and Krestov...are you both serious? THEY attacked him...three against one...three younger, most likely in better shape, against an older man who may ormay not have been strong enough to fight back.When would it have been justifiable? When they killed him?

have you ever been attacked? Assaulted? It's not a good time...and it's WRONG...and if you attack someone with intent other than self-defense, you deserve what you get.

If they were old enough to do the crime they were old enough to get the punishment.

I say good for him!!!! The death penalty doesn't detour these THUGS....perhaps a smith and wesson will!!!!!

All you people who are arguing with the cyclists about rules and rights of the road and safety issues...don't waste your breath! Anyone who is fool enough to regularly pit themselves against 6,000 pounds of steel running at 35 to 65 miles an hour without an exoskeleton to protect them has absolutely no sense of self preservation whatsover and they are lobbying for their own right to an eccelerated rate of mortality anyway...... which apparently is their right ,right along with impedeing the flow of traffic as they see fit.

I say let them have at it...its only a matter of time before the ranks are thinned by their own stupidity! Yet all motorists are forced into wearing seat belts at all times while they are peddling around out there with nothing but a plastic helmet to defend themselves from a migration of steel. Doesn't make a hell of a lot of sense to me...nor does actually wanting to turn your back on that steel migration just for egual rights of road ownership and have the traffic come barreling up your ass rather than being able to see what is coming!

Point is you can argue with them till you are blue in the face and it will make not a tinkers damn because apparently they all suffer from some deeply ingrained suicidal tendancies anyway and you can't win with someone who doesn't care if they die or not!

Senior citizens should at least get a discount buying ammo... where is AARP when you need them?

The AARP is out campaigning for more gun control and telling seniors they shouldn't depend on guns cause guns are bad just call the police.

On with the derail.

In my state the law works like this. Pedestrians have the right of way over horses. Horseback riders have the right of way over bicycles. Bicycles have the right of way over automobiles. And yes, when the other person has the right of way, you must stop, go slower, or go around. If you don't you can be charged, and/or sued for damages. Just because you're in an auto does not mean you own the road. Just the opposite. You are not first in line, you are last. If you're late for work, it's just too bad. Suck it up. It's the law.

And good shooting, old dude. Good call, DA. The two survivors should be charged with murder, for a death caused during commission of a crime.

Give me a break, a young man was murdered here, and I hope this old guy goes to jail for this.

If the young man was murdered, the police would have arrested and charged the man on the bicycle with murder. They didn't, because they immediately determined that it was a justifiable homicide, which is legally treated similarly to an accidental death. In other words, the man did not intend to kill his attacker, although that was definitely a foreseeable outcome, but to stop the assault in order to save his own life as his death was also definitely foreseeable at the time!

I would not be at all surprised if the wounded teenage assailant and the uninjured thug who fled the scene are charged with murder for the death of their accomplice while committing felony assault and attempted robbery.

Bicycles have the right of way over automobiles.

A lot of dead bicyclists out there who had the right of way! It may be perfectly legal to ride in the middle of the lane and make everyone slow down and go around you single file, but it's not very safe or smart. I'd rather be alive than right.

Bruce, you make a good point.

But you can also apply the same line of thinking to driving anywhere after 10pm. Plenty of people were within their rights to be driving after 10, and have also been killed by drunk drivers.

The real solution is pretty simple, more bike lanes.

Though apparently some places in PA you can be on a bike path in a park, completely within your rights, and still get robbed an beaten by teenagers.

Unfortunately, bike lanes are expensive to build and municipalities are looking for things to cut, not spend on. But it would be nice.

Hmmm, irrelevant to who or whom has the right of way, or whether or not the guy had a right to self preservation. There is something called "common sense" that should dictate ones actions.

1. cars should stay out of a large truck's way
2. bicyclists should stay out of both a car's way and the large truck's way
3. thugs should stay out of an armed person's way

Of course two out of those three might have "laws" that say otherwise, but tell me how that law worked for you the next time you step into that pedestrian crosswalk in front of a bus trying to make the light...

Dirty Harry, alive, well and still carrying his .357! AWESOME.

They were harrassing this ELDERLY person. One could question the use of deadly force, but three young bucks against one ELDERLY man spells self defense to me.

Dirty Harry was carrying a .44 Mag, my friend... way too much gun IMHO... I also carry .357 ...with a 6 inch barrel for better aim...

In the first movie DH carried the Model 57 in .41 mag

In the interview portion of the special features in the Dirty Harry DVD, John Milius says that there were two .44's used for Dirty Harry and Magnum Force. Perhaps there were others used for The Enforcer, but the barrel in the first three movies were 6 1/2".

My wife and I both, carry a weapon produced and sold in our state, that is chambered to accept either a 45 round or a 410 shotgun round.
The right to carry laws passed three years ago, those kind of crimes are almost non existent here

@Bennie I have seen those "hand" guns in the store. I hope you are one hell of a shot as you'll probably only get one shot off before breaking your wrist. They do look cool though.

Bennie... make sure you guys get some practice shooting your weapons. Most 410 shells kick pretty hard when fired from a revolver and it takes a bit of getting used to. If it was my choice of a weapon I would load it with 00 buck shot or sabot slugs. 45 Long Colt hollow point ammo is an excellent choice as well, giving the lowest recoil of the three.

Obviously, I donno much about guns and it's clear I have ricocheted this topic completely off target. The point of my post was that the elderly person had the right to shoot, since he was being ganged up on. I hope the courts see it that way, too.

Happy to hear the gentleman successfully defended himself. Will the assumption that their victim may be armed deter the criminals, or simply prompt them to take it to the next violent level and shoot first before finding out?

Sparty..............maybe but being armed at least gives you a chance.

The police and the prosecutor already saw it that way. I'm sure they took one look at the beat up old man, a look at the "teenagers", heard his story, heard their story and decided not to bother trying to prosecute the older man. I find it telling that the one teen who was not injured was put into juvenile detention.

I have a license to carry but cannot imagine carrying the kind of artillery (i.e., .40 caliber or larger, long barrel) you are recommending for bicycle riding. A nice 9 mm. subcompact would be just as effective and way more comfortable. It would be interesting to know what this man had.

This sounds like an acceptable way of ending the "game" of Knockout King.

I strongly believe in the 'right to carry' laws, but I'm conflicted by the 'concealed carry' idea. I often think the old 'wild west' days were best, where most anybody could carry a gun, and wore it in a holster on the hip. There was no doubt then who had a gun and who probably didn't. Might that idea alone help deter crime? Obviously, these three punks didn't suspect that this old guy was carrying, and just figured he was easy prey. Would they have done what they did if the old guy was riding his bike with a .45 strapped to his hip where it could be seen? I know I damned well wouldn't! If it was common knowledge that there was a sawed off shotgun beneath every checkout counter in every 7/11, would any of these punks try to rob the lone cashier in the middle of the night? Once again, I'd think twice. Perhaps we're thinking about this the wrong way. Maybe the idea of a 'concealed' weapon is not so much of a deterrent as is wearing one out in the open for all to see. 'Old West gunfights' are common staples in Western movies, but most common gun carriers back then were not 'gunslingers', and never had to draw their weapons in self defense. Maybe THAT is the deterrent we need.

Steel Toed Boot. Unless you in a law enforcement uniform, open carry just makes you the first victim in a robbery. Some time even being in uniform makes you the first victim.

I prefer to carry concealed, I do not want the bad person to know I am armed until I need it. Carrying open also makes you a target for everyone who had been indoctrinated by the Brady Bunch. They are usually afraid of any "gun" and will call the law. You will most likely be out of you car with your hands on the roof at every intersection.

You, and every one around you are safer and more comfortable when you carry concealed.

Charles Bronson on a bike.

steel toed... it is really a matter of current law and social bias that makes so many people carry a concealed weapon as opposed to open carry. Also a criminal can relatively easily wrestle an open carry gun from an unsuspecting victim. Concealed carry gives a person better chance for defense. These three punks would not have attacked a guy with a pistol sticking out of his belt, but they would have jumped the next guy without a visible weapon. When criminals don't know who carries a gun and who does not, they are playing a Russian roulette and at least some of them get shot, which they ALL truly deserve.

bennie, they do make some nice items in Springfield, don't they? Theirs are $100 or so more than the ones from Brazil (I think), but guess which one I'd buy? USA, I put my money where my mouth is: buy American whenever possible.

Dirty Harry, alive, well and still carrying his .357! AWESOME.

Dirty Harry was carrying a .44 Mag, my friend..

In the first movie DH carried the Model 57 in .41 mag

Interesting that the Dirty Harry movies would come up here...

...my 2c on this is that in one of the earlier movies, Inspector Callahan explained that he used light loads in his .44 Smith and Wesson Model 29 and the reason he liked that model of handgun was that its size and weight made it easy to hit what he was aiming at.

He explained at another time that the .357 was 'a fine weapon', but the insinuation was that he used what fit him.

Really, this approach is valid. The FBI adopted a light load in the 10mm automatic cartridge back in the late 80's, and ultimately the cartridge was just shortened to create the .40 Smith and Wesson, which is nearly universally in service with law enforcement everywhere in the US now.

In the case of Dirty Harry, that worked for him because he was a big guy. A Model 29 would be a real bear at the end of a long day for anyone less than 6' and 200 pounds, and even then one would end up with back problems after a career of carrying a heavy handgun under their left arm day in and day out.

@ car31jou and Max^108; you both have very valid points. My shortcoming was thinking as an honest, law abiding person. Now that I think about it, three punks attacking an elderly man wearing a gun would simply shoot him in the back, wouldn't they?

"Carrying open also makes you a target for everyone who had been indoctrinated by the Brady Bunch. They are usually afraid of any "gun" and will call the law. You will most likely be out of you car with your hands on the roof at every intersection."

As things are now, you're right. I was imagining it as if wearing a gun was the norm, as it was in the old West. Obviously, everyone would have to be on-board with it, including the police. And I can't see that happening.

I have to admit, i have never heard of a .45/.410 before, so I looked it up. Taurus makes one called "The Judge" as in, you be the judge. LOL. Love it!

As for me, the carry weapon of choice for cycling is going to have be James Bond's own Walther PPK. Hell, a .380 just gonna sting a little. I don't want you dead, I want you to suffer the rest of your days for being a moron.

WTF is wrong with all you people. This thread reminds me of an NRA convention. Explain how this is not an exact parralell to Bernie Goetz shotting up his "attackers". I'm pretty sure he at least did time over the gun possesion charge. This old man killed a boy and he should be charged as anyone else would be. He obviously did not instigate the matter but he exacerbated it by shooting to kill. If this was my child who had perished, that old man would be following close behind. Shame on you all for discounting the fact this man took a child's life. He could have shot to wound, it worked on one of the kids he retaliated on, sadly not the other. Let's not make this old coot into some kind of hero when he is in fatc a murderer of a child, however it happened to play out.

DOM-The old man should be charged? Charged with what? Failing to let some scumbag kill him? What law did this man break? What did he do wrong? You are an ass. The Commonwealth (a term that means nothing today but sounds good) of Pennsylvania allows for its citizens to protect themselves even in public.

I suppose you feel the 65 year-old should have just shut up and been killed-in a law abiding way. This "child" was a criminal bent on hurting this man and for that he gets to forfeit his life-AWESOME!!!!!!!

This old man killed a boy and he should be charged as anyone else would be. He obviously did not instigate the matter but he exacerbated it by shooting to kill.

I'm hardly an NRA supporter, but...

When you are using a gun to defend yourself, you are shooting to kill. I rather suspect that the wounded teen survived because the old man's aim was off.

Shooting to wound is a good way to lose the fight. You have to aim more carefully and take more time, and you stand a better chance of missing.

That said, there are some circumstances of the fight that are not clear. It is possible that the teens tried to run away as soon as the gun came out. If that is the case - and he was firing on them as they fled - you would have a point. I'd be a little surprised if that were the case though - more likely that the shots were fired during the actual assault.

Dom

You obviously have never fired a weapon, there is no such thing as shooting to wound, you shoot to hit what youre shooting at. That elderly man didnt set out to shoot anybody, the punks who tried to rob him made the decision to go out and rob somebody, it turned out to be a bad decision.

Explain how this is not an exact parralell to Bernie Goetz shotting up his "attackers". I'm pretty sure he at least did time over the gun possesion charge.

Okay, here it is. Bernie Goetz was carrying an unregistered revolver without a valid permit to do so in New York City, where both conditions must be met to possess a handgun, let alone carry on upon one's person in public. Further, no one pushed Bernie Goetz to the ground and I don't believe there was any overt attempt to beat Goetz on the part of his attackers. They sat down next to him and asked for five dollars. He responded by drawing a gun and emptying six rounds into the five of them. Realistically, if what Goetz perceived was happening was in fact the real situation, he could have potentially been within his rights...and probably why most of the charges against him were dismissed. The reality of the situation was quite ambiguous and very difficult to collaborate with witnesses. In any case, he was violating the law by illegally possessing the handgun. That didn't do much to help his cause in court.

This old man killed a boy and he should be charged as anyone else would be.

The adolescent was probably no little boy. He was sixteen. The way kids are now, at sixteen he could have easily been 6' or more and easily 200 pounds. If you were in that situation, would you be able to tell a sixteen year old attacker from one who was nineteen or twenty one? Hardly, and it's all rather academic at that point as either one could overpower and kill you just as easily. The police didn't see fit to charge him with murder, so what does that tell you?

He obviously did not instigate the matter but he exacerbated it by shooting to kill.

The fact that one of the assailants died does not mean the man was shooting to kill. A firearm is considered to be 'lethal force', meaning that the death of a person shot with one is a likely and expected outcome, even though there is no guarantee of that. A knife or a bat are considered deadly weapons for the very same reason. As for exacerbating the situation by shooting the assailants, that's highly questionable because it sounds like that ended the assault...they didn't exactly regroup and attack him again with greater force.

If this was my child who had perished, that old man would be following close behind.

Nice. Speaks volumes. Go ahead and do that...I guarantee that you absolutely WOULD be charged with murder, and the police would consider you suspect #1 from the get-go. Pretty much anything you would do would probably result in your being charged with harassment. A civil lawsuit would be your only legal recourse, and the odds of prevailing in that don't look to good in this case.

Dom:

This thread reminds me of an NRA convention.

I'm by no means a NRA supporter. I'm not a fan of guns, I don't own any. But I support people's right to have them, and I think this old man was in the right here. He had a right to protect himself.

This old man killed a boy and he should be charged as anyone else would be.

If you kill someone while they are attacking you, odds are you won't be charged with murder. Like the young woman who shot the man who was breaking into her house to protect herself and her baby. This sounds like a similar situation to that.

He obviously did not instigate the matter but he exacerbated it by shooting to kill.

Like tiGOR said above, it did not exacerbate it, it stopped the assault.

If this was my child who had perished, that old man would be following close behind.

And you would most likely be charged with murder.

Shame on you all for discounting the fact this man took a child's life.

He took a teenager's life. This was not some poor defenseless little kid. This was a 16 year old, who could be the size of an adult. Had this teen kept his hands to himself and hadn't assaulted this man, he wouldn't have been killed. It's not like this man went out that day anticipating killing someone. He protected himself.

He could have shot to wound, it worked on one of the kids he retaliated on, sadly not the other.

You don't "shoot to wound." They only do that on TV. It's most likely that the other kid was lucky that his shot was off. In the heat of the moment, do you really think this guy had the time to carefully place his shots? According to the article, he was being assaulted. Do you think he could ask the teens to back off so he could carefully place his shots? He fired to get them away from him, and he hit his target. When you shoot a gun, a lethal outcome is always possible, and is likely possible. If you don't understand that, you shouldn't own a gun.

Let's not make this old coot into some kind of hero when he is in fatc a murderer of a child, however it happened to play out.

You should look up the legal definition of murder. If the police find that he was acting in self defense, he is not a murderer. These teens set this in motion. They are the cause of this, they are the aggressors. The old man is the victim in this circumstance.

magnolia --

I agree with everything you said, and thank you for the measured tone in which you stated it. I think what worries me is the frothing-at-the-mouth tone of so many of the posts. "Kid down, rah! rah!" This was a tragedy all the way around -- the gentleman in question will be living with his split-second decision the rest of his life, as will the surviving attackers. And the parents of the slain attacker. The incident is over, the nighmares now begin. A life has been lost, due to the kid's own arrogance and stupidity. I would just like everyone to cool down a little and stop their victory dances over an unnecessary tragedy -- unnecessary in that, if the kids had been taught things like ethics, citizenship, and compassion to begin with, this wouldn't have happened. 12 years now of "No Child Left Behind," and I see every day the brutish and incurious effects on a bored generation of kids who are not taught to imagine anything beyond their own needs -- imagination and compassion don't score on tests. And the majority of posters emphasize that attitude. So are we just stuck in this dystopian hell? What will change it? Kill 'em all? Yeah, my 62-year-old husband carries when he goes out in the hills. Yeah, we have registered guns in the house for protection, and yeah, I would shoot to kill, because that's what you do when in that situation. But celebrating afterward? Not so much, guys. Can we tone it down just a little?

misfit,

the only ones celebrating here are the ones who didn't do the shooting. Its a safe bet the old man is not celebrating one bit or walking around thumping his chest at having to kill a boy who likely will remind him of his grandson time and again in the sweated dreams of his future. The only ones doing that are those who've not been in a position of having to kill for their own lives.

He did what he figured he had to do to protect his life and I'm sure he will not apologize for that or ever should....but i can guarantee you he's not walking around exclaiming himself a hero and lobbying to Be the next NRA poster candidate for the right to carry and use firearms. The only ones doing that are the ones who have never found themselves in a position of having to kill someone in protection of their own lives and its a far more complicated range of emotions than just the black and white..."joy or remorse"

He needs ti sue the parents. Any jury would award him the money. Open and shut. Clean em out. they will learn. I am sure the parents were straight. Bad reflection on that too.

"And here come the homosexuals trying to shift the blame to "straight" people, while screaming I WAS BORN THAT WAY."

Better go back and think about that again Sister. What he meant by straight, was that he figured they were good people, not homosexuals. Try not ranting about something that you clearly didn't understand from the beginning. Also, how about telling Kevin that your sorry for bashing him like that?

Oh, one more thing Sister. How about getting to know someone first before you go off half cocked and call them a homosexual? Calling someone that when you don't even know them, is as foolish as one could ever get in life. Your lack of humanity really shows, as does your religious hypocrisy.

My post 4.3, "not homosexuals" should have read, "not straight as in the opposite of homosexuals".

Sorry, I got no sexual inference from Kevin's post and I too think you took that the wrong way. Straight can mean alot of things, and I think he meant that they are law-abiding citizens. That's how I took it anyway. Why in the world would he bring up any sexual orientation re this story? That makes no sense at all. Maybe he should add another post to set you "straight"! Even so, they should have taught their son to be a law-abiding citizen as well. Glad the man was carrying his piece. The kids got what was coming to them.

Sister Anita, you need to get settled down a bit there girl.

What you got there you old fart .... oh shiiiit ..............

#4.2 -Your rant is enough to gag a maggot.

Penn. has a Castle Doctrine, a person can use any force to protect themselves or their property. Furthermore the Governor just signed a modification "including not in one home, but out of doors. Family has no ground for action.

"And here come the homosexuals trying to shift the blame to "straight" people"

HUH? What are you talking about?

You want to see someone who is confused Sister, go look in a mirror. Also notice the hypocrite that is starring back at you.

Sister(Drag Queen)Anita, please go take your meds. Your wig and press on nails have obviously taken a toxic toll on your "brain"

RNDiane

They may no bill him but the family might decide to sue him anyway. You can't win.

In PA I am pretty sure that the assailants family may not seek civil penalties if it was deemed that the victim acted in self defense. PA is backwards and full of hicks but we did get some of the legislation right.

Sister Anita, I don't think I've ever seen such an obvious case of closet homosexuality. It must be awful living with the guilt you must have. Being a homosexual and so afraid to admit it. It's a shame that your religion is so condeming of people like yourself (GAY). Drop the church and come out already. It's OK....really.

Whoa Sister! I don't know what definitions you ladies in the convent apply to the language but the referenced word, "straight" (in this instance) to most people in the real world means, "okay" or "alright" as in "Are with straight on that?" or "Let me get this straight." Your harangue is very telling. Usually the word "homophobe" is attributed to males but just to be sure I looked it up in Webster's and, surprise, surprise, there was your picture!

Just so you know, I'm not a fan of the "unnaturals" but your posts are waaaay out of bounds. Now, put your best habit on and go save some little boy from your favorite priest.

Oh, so now all of us are homosexuals? I don't believe it's a bright thing to call anyone homosexual, when you don't even know the person. You must enjoy the taste of your foot, because you just keep sticking it in your mouth a little deeper each time you do that.

Sister Anita, please, for god's sake, go meet your maker.

It's anal seepage that's the real issue here.

Straight

There are multiple meanings for straight-
1. Traditional meaning: Without a bend or curve, evenly formed or set, not crooked.
2. Traditional meaning: Figurative; a) frank, honest, upright, b) right, correct
3. Traditional meaning: in proper order (numeric, chronologic, alphabetic, etc...),
4. Traditional meaning: without interruption or break; continuous, in an unbroken series, without reservations or exceptions,
5. Traditional meaning: unmixed, undiluted (reference to alcohol, or other substances, without qualification, unmodified,
6. Traditional meaning: showing no emotion or humor, serious rather than comic, natural rather than eccentric,
7. Traditional meaning: reliable, sure, authoritative,
8. Traditional meaning: behaving in a conventional manner, holding orthodox views, conventional, standard, normal,
9. Traditional meaning: made up of a set of five cards, as in poker,
10. Slang: term used in agreement, approval,
11. Slang: term used to qualify one's sexual preference,
12. Slang: term used to denote the validity of a statement or claim,
13. Slang: term used to describe a manner of frank communication, i.e.- straight talk,
14. Slang: term used to determine level of understanding, agreement, or otherwise mutual understanding and agreement

14 different meanings, and only 1 refers to sexual preference. Get off your homophobic high horse.

PA is backwards and full of hicks

I am from PA and yes it may be backwards and in some parts full of hicks, especially where I am from. Reading is definately not one of those places. Harrisburg, Reading, Philadelphia, York, Lancaster, all the "cities" are becoming more and more dangerous every month. It is really disgusting to see such beautiful places go down hill so fast. There is only one thing to blame for this problem.....any guesses?

I simply responded to a negative comment which was directed toward heterosexual parents.

Sister, it obviously wasn't meant that way.

He meant 'straight' as in 'on the straight and narrow' aka law-abiding... the term 'straight' can be used in a lot of ways, and in this context it is PRETTY FRIGGIN OBVIOUS it was not in any way referring to sexuality.

learn to read.

I am sick and tired of groups hyjacking good words. It used to be that gay meant happy and straight meant honest. Now you can't use them in the original way without offending someone. These people need to GET A LIFE.

@AllAmericanGirl1

Yep, I live in the suburbs outside of Reading. It used to be that most of the crime and filth stayed in the city, but it's really starting to spill out in the surrounding areas now. It's a shame.

Look at the bright side of this......people in the area will probably be able to get their cars washed now. The family of the deceased idiot will hold a car wash so that can afford the cardboard coffin they will plant this refuse in.

At least thats how it works out west. Dirtbag killed=clean truck $5.00.

Win-Win.

Straight can also mean leading a "law abiding life" ... geesh where is the common sense SISTER ACT???

I am sick and tired of groups hyjacking good words. It used to be that gay meant happy and straight meant honest. Now you can't use them in the original way without offending someone. These people need to GET A LIFE.

There are tons of words that vary in definition depending on context, not just those two.

That's why context is important.

Knowing context is an integral part of literacy, something some people are apparently not very proficient at doing.

Does the "sister" in sister anita stand for nun, or the sister hood of lesbians?

Just curious.

They may no bill him but the family might decide to sue him anyway. You can't win

well...the scumbag who tried to steal my brother's car - and got a headfull of birdshot (OK, my brother is a nice guy - 00 buck would've killed the bastard) - is now enjoying life in the joint for the next twenty years

and as he pulled a gun and fired on my brother first - his family cannot file a civil suit here in Florida

Have courage and do not fear....you have a right to defend your life

Anita, You are out of your mind! I am a major opponent to the homosexual issue. I will not argue my points here; it is not the topic of this conversation. What I will tell you is that you are way off course. It is obvious to anyone with a basic ability to understand the English language in written form that he was referring to the parents as "probably" honest people, not non-homosexuals.

I would think that you would have re-read your post and in conjunction with the other posters' comments, realized that you took the word the wrong way. Do you have a valid point? I believe in many instances you do. However, do not dilute the legitimacy of that argument by using the knee-jerk reaction to every topic that mentions a multi-definition word.

When they referred to the "Gay Twenties" in American history, do you think it was because homosexuals were prancing all over the place? When they talk about a queer occurance, would you think it had to do with two men regardless of the topic? When you see a rainbow in the sky, do you automatically think God is advertising his support for homosexuality? There is a time and a place to address various concerns, but keep proper perspective when reading something; determine which definition of a word applies to that topic. There is a difference between being a supporter/opponent to a topic and being such a zealot that everything you encounter turns back to the topic you hate.

I would tell you to have a nice day, but I don't know if there is a meaning to "nice" that I don't know. Please refer to the smiley-face version in case there is.

Wow that sister anita character is bat$hit crazy ... at least she sticks to her guns.

Wow, Sister Anita, seems to me you know a lot about homosexuals. Pssst...your latent homosexuality is showing.....

Sister Anita??? Oh Anita Bryant, got it...

I remember her rant back in the seventies. What a hater and she seemed to really get off on the hate...

Sister you are in need of a big old O...You went rogue on us...?? A 65 year old guy gets knocked off his bike and kills a kid and wounds another, and now we are talking about Homosexuals >>> LOL

WTF does an older man shooting some teenagers who were attacking him have to do with homosexuals ?

Are all homosexual people that friggin oversensative that if anyone says anything that could possibly have any type of bizarrely twisted conotation indicating anything to do with sexual orientation that they jump all over it, or is it just you ?

The "Sister" doesn't sound like a Catholic Sister, but rather one of those Westboro Baptist Church knotheads who disrupt the funerals of servicemen killed to protect her right to be stupid. They believe those heroes are killed as punishment for the nation's "tolerance" of homosexuality. That kind of knee-jerk reaction to a word is typical of them.

Damn, you really are a moron in the closet.

Um, "Sister" Anita. You are gross. I don't want to read about anal seepage while reading comments on an article about a Grandpa defending himself against a bunch of thugs. Oh and by the way, non homosexuals have anal intercourse too. Maybe you should direct your rant against sodomy in general. It is very interesting that you know more about sodomy than the average person, what are you reading or rather, what kind of porn are you watching in the convent?

AllAmericanGirl1, you've probably heard the expression: PA, it's Philly on one end, Pittsburgh on the other, and Alabama in between!

And I'm from PA! But not in the middle.

We shouldn't generalize or stereotype though. I've met some real redlecks from the 'Burgh, and some pretty liberal folks from out in the boondocks.

Men,meh - then by all means, I beg you, please refrain from Googling "Santorum". LOL.

"Unfortunately, I'm discovering that this site has a disproportionate number of extremely bitter people", says Sister Anita, troll of the day. Perhaps all that frothy santorum coming out of your mouth-hole is supposed to project some sort of religious faith, but nothing you have said here indicates you actually understand anything about your religion, whatever it may be.

"They may no bill him but the family might decide to sue him anyway. You can't win"

The PA "Stand Your Ground Law 2010" provides "Civil Immunity" for the use of deadly force. Meaning the family of the scumbag doesn't get to sue the only real victim here. Thank God for thr free thinking people of PA!!!!!

Mann, make that 15, you missed "hasn't smoked pot".

Finally, one of these kinds of stories has a happy ending. Tired of seeing these kinds of stories ending badly.

Grammar Nazi's unite!!

Wow when I was a teenager, the thought never entered my mind to hurt an old person. I thought they deserved the respect that a person living in to old age gets by virtue of just being old and wise. Not today though!!!! These kids are off the hook.

Oh, also it's, "respect their elders". I guess that may be more forgivable than the apostrophe since you have a 50/50 chance of getting that wrong and a two in three chance of getting the "their, there and they're" words confused.

ChrisInGuam: The irony is that you are a grammar Nazi? I don't like it when folks have so little to add to a topic they would rather pick apart grammar. So you have proven my point well. If you had something solid to add you would worry less about others grammar and actually add something worth reading. Which you cannot. Spelling and grammar errors happen when we type quickly and with passion only to be belittled by the likes of you so don't be a jerk and find your passion about the topic. Leave the spell check and grammar policing for another time.

Punctuation is our friend.

Also consider this when you go after someones grammar with such ferver and are being a grammar nazi you are also being a bully. So grammar nazi = cyber bully. So let that sink in and I bet you are in real life too you enjoy picking on people maybe not physically beating them like the bullies in this article but a bully all the same. So ChrisInGuam and lokay5 you are bullies just like the youth in this article.

This is the entitlement generation.......some one has money and I am entitled to it. Respect has never been taught in them, its al ME ME ME ME ME.

Kinda like the bad wiring in the assailants brains. The old guy was just trying to educate them and fix the problem. Kudos to him for being so compassionate.

Dale, ... AMEN to that! Should have wiped all 3 scum-bags from the face of this earth or at least put'tum all in a w/c for life.

FROM <> a SURVIVOR!!!

Lefty (and all others making comments to "Grammar Nazis"): when you make an intelligent post which contains spelling and grammatical errors, this makes you look LESS intelligent. People who correct your grammar/spelling are on your side and are trying to help you be taken seriously as an intelligent person who knows how to spell and punctuate. Don't be so touchy - just accept their help!

I believe lefty should have made his irony a little less subtle. Next time, perhaps he can post something like:

Graammar Nazi's Untie!!

@ Lefty; I am also a stickler for grammar and punctuation and spelling...mostly because I am a professional writer. As such, I believe it's important in getting your point across. For instance, I once got into it with a proponent of 'freeflow writing' who argued that having to stop and think about spelling and punctuation and capitalization impeded the 'flow' of his 'thought process'. I gave him some words to decipher. 'I'll' without punctuation becomes 'ill'...'we'll' becomes 'well'...'she'll' becomes 'shell'. Without proper punctuation and grammar and spelling, people can't understand exactly what you're trying to say. If people can't understand what you're trying to say, then they think YOU'RE the idiot. So you see, these people you call 'grammar nazis' are actually doing you a favor by trying to keep you from looking like an idiot. "I'm not insane...it's the rest of the world that's insane." is actually sarcasm, and was never truth.

"Grammar Nazi's unite!!" is the most unintentionally hilarious thing I am going to see today. I guess I'm done here, taking the rest of the day off.

OK, I lied, let the fun continue:

"worry less about others grammar and actually add something worth reading. Which you cannot."

should read

"worry less about other's grammar and actually add something worth reading, which you cannot."

You really are dumb as a box of rocks.

Well we may as well pick apart Dale's spelling too then - it's Bicycle (not bycicle) - :) I'm just picking on you Dale hope you have a good sense of humour

I am really amazed at the article you come to a forum to discuss about bullying then watch a few turn into complete bullies. "dumb as a box of rocks" where is the education in that? I believe I have heard that bullying excuse before I pick on him to make him tougher. So that's what it is you are rude to someone and LOL at them to make them a better more educated person. Got it...??... doubt it.

the freight train: u mad?

It's not just America by any means it's world wide.

Ya think!?!

Yes I do believe that an affect of violence on each other is a global issue not one of just American youth. Look at Norway massacre for example a country who rarely has a murder to have such a rampage is unheard of. Overpopulation and too much all about me attitude leads to these types of actions.

Gilligan

We are not allowed to own and carry. It is OUR RIGHT to own and carry, and unless we stand together we will soon find that right and innumerable others stripped away.

Those rotten scumbag punks got what they deserved!!! Its about time we start taking back our streets from these low lifes! Kuddo's to the elderly gentlemen who was just minding his own business when he was attacked!

Maingear - it depends on where you live. The State of New Jersey sees it as an allowance granted by them, and not a right. and makes every legal effort to prevent people from purchasing firearms, especially handguns. We have to pay the state to get a permit authorizing us to purchase any type of gun which includes a complete background check and verification of mental health and you must provide references which will be vetted by your local Sheriff's department. Then you can purchase and pay for a handgun. once the handgun is purchased THEN you apply for a license (And ccp which is pretty much never granted unless you're PI or a Cop) and you wait.....then you get your firearm after your permit is approved. This entire process took me close to 6 weeks start to finish. See there are many many roadblocks to owning a firearm here in NJ, and any one of them could stop the process cold. And what is the process for the criminals? a back room exchange of cash for your weapon of choice and the deal is done. 5 minutes tops.

NJ needs to do something about that. You have the power to vote in officials who will honor and obey the entire Constitution, not just the parts they like.

I wish the article would give better details. You can only guess at intentions. Was it a narrow spot on the trail and the boys were jogging together... not noticing the bike coming from behind??? And the old man crashes trying to avoid hitting them??? or were the kids hiding behind a bush waiting for someone to mug??? We really got NO clear details. Were there any witnesses?

The above article stated that the teenagers started to beat the elderly man while he was on the ground before he shot them in self defense.

Wow Denton - a narrow spot on the trail where they were jogging? I'm sure that's what they told the officer.

What an imagination. The article didn't say three joggers ran down by cyclist.

I guess that's why the third one ran away - he didn't knotice the other two were shot.

I may have had my moments of teenage stupidity, but none of them ever included assault and battery.

Good shooting. I need to get to the range and practice more....

He did care for his Life, he may not have survived the intended "Assault".

We have all been stupid teenagers.

Speak for yourself. I was born 30 years of age.

(My poor mother ...)

Simple??

No doubt this guy will be the focus of death threats from every media. He will go through a Grand Jury and no doubt the parents will file a suit. successful or not, he will be forced to defend himself. And for the rest of his life he will live with what he was forced to do?

That would come from someone who has at best engaged a paper target. Ity is far from SIMPLE.

Amen! I'm sure he did the citizens of PA a huge favor.

Now if we could only get him to privatize the liquor stores and get beer sold in grocery stores, I believe we'd have a new candidate for governor.

i think the outcome will create more fear as the young learn! oh to carry guns before attacking. they learn fast and grandpa knew his trek in them there woods wasn't safe without his bear killer! if the two survive, i think the whole story should come out and if it was their intent to robb. then all senors should be given government issued arms when they reach 62. part of the GOLDEN years promised by so many! what a scam and really the young see it for what it is! slow death and stripped of everything to survive!

One less street punk. Oblama's food-stamp record just decreased by one.

Acutally, I feel very sorry for the man. Not only does he have to continually relive the assault, but he will live and remember killing a person for the rest of his life. If you have spoken to or read accounts from any veterans or police who have had to kill, you would know that to take a human life is not an easy thing, at least if you have any empathy. I hope he gets some counseling.

I say 1.5 cheers, as one of the kids was unharmed and the other still clings to life. Dude needs to get to the range, clean up that accuracy.

Sweet Jesus! Pray for these blood lusts!! The man KILLED, breaking one of YOUR commandments - not some "political man-made law", and they cheer like the pharisees!

Jehovah

What commandment were the three thugs breaking, maybe the one that says Thou Shalt Not Steal?

@ Jehovah's Servant:

The Commandment is "Thou shall not commit MURDER". There is a difference between murdering and killing, and it is important to recognize the distinction.

Murder is cold blooded. Were I to murder a man so that his wife would be available, or so that I might take his wallet, or obtain his car, etc., that would be wrong. Were I to murder a man for sheer sport, that too, is wrong.

However, should a man threaten my life, or the life of my family, and I end his life, that is not murder. Killing a man to protect myself or a loved one is not cold blooded at all.

As has been written thousands of times already, the man was attacked by multiple young men. He shot in self defense.

Another important distinction to be made here:

We're not exactly cheering for the death of someone. We are cheering for justice being served. We are cheering for one less strain on an already overly strained society. We are cheering for a man who was willing to stand up for himself. Forgive us if we don't mourn the death of someone who was probably going to absorb thousands of tax payers dollars, anyway.

It was stated that the other two would likely end up dead in the future, anyway. Certainly, I would pray that they would take this as a life lesson, and change their ways. It would delight me to learn that the surviving two grew up to be productive, Christian pillars of the community. I would rather that outcome become the reality,as opposed to having them die on account of more stupid decision making. But, should they pull the same stunt and die as a result, there will be no tears from me. At least, not on their behalf.

What could they have done? Chained these "children" to the basement floor? If you think that you can force a fifteen-year-old who is determined to rebel against authority to behave himself, you probably are not a parent. When you have a kid someday, you will see that the parents are not to blame for what a young adult chooses to do.

Shandril -OH Please! I am a mother of five. Every single parent has a responsibility to control their children. You should know where your children are in general ( after school activities, friends house, working etc) even when they are teens ( especially teens) They should help with dinner, have daily chores and be expected to do homework every single night. Between jobs, sports, homework there shouldn't be a lot of free roaming time to get into trouble. Parents pay the bills, parents set the rules, don't be afraid to do your JOB!

Stop reading: I am going off subject for Sister Anita.

I agree with Sister Anita's view but I am a little confused on the liberal thing. People I would call liberal in my experience tend to be people that are well educated, two parent households, good incomes, pay attention to their childrens education and are good role models and disciplined parents. They tend to eat healthier, run in marathons and support clean air, water and earth for our future generations.

They believe in things like the government should regulate the food coming into our country so it isn't poisoned ( see melamine China infant formula) but shouldn't tread on peoples individual rights and privacy. They believe in saving their own money for retirement. They believe in the right to bare arms. The "conservative" people I know tend to be ignorant, bible thumping ( the teenage daughter is pregnant) and the mother is a racist. I know this is all sterotyping but in my experience this is how it lines up. The conservative politicians all seem to be closeted gay or cheating hypocrits. They are selling a smoke and mirrors game of lets pretend to be good christians and if you sit down and look at what their agenda is doing to the AMerican family it is sick and disgusting. If some of their bills pass ( especially health care) I will have to go back to work won't be able to stay home with my children. How is that family values? They want to work both parents to death so no one is home with the kids. I just don't get it at all. I would say Sister Anita's view of parenting is just good sense--it has nothing to do with liberal or conservative politics. Please, before you call yourself a conservative and you are a middle class family--follow the money trail. Most of the things you say are "liberal" are simply not.

Too many parents have subscribed to the liberal belief that every problem can be solved by more laws and bigger government.

This should get voted up if only for using so many talking points in one short sentence. Bravo!

Shandril....."What could the parents do?" How about starting by showing them this article......and ALL the comments!

Kevin-747617

I agree that these children need to be punished to the furthest extent of the law, but to say that the parents are criminally liable is naive. What if "Timmy's" mom works three jobs to support her family and could not be there with her son 100% of the time? How can you make these judgement calls when you know nothing about this particular situation. Sure "Timmy's" mom "could" be a bad mother and not care where he is...but you do not know that and to make a blanket statement that parents should be punished is ridiculous. I can only hope that you have a child with troubles and let's see where you stand then. Until then, get all of the facts prior to standing on your pulpit and judging.

What if timmys mom is sitting home doing nothing but wait for the mail man? we are all responsible to raise our own children to be responsible adults!

What parents? The article only mentioned a mother of the deceased. Where are their fathers?

No one said anything about not being responsible. I am merely pointing out that not all parents of troubled teens are neglectful. These children are old enough to know what right and wrong is. Jailing a parent is NOT the only answer.

Shandril - what could the parents have done? Abortion is the first thing that comes to my mind.

@ Kallie:

It's interesting; most of what you proposed to be "liberal", are actually conservative viewpoints. For example, virtually every "whole" family that I have met are conservative families. Likewise, virtually every split family that I've met, especially the ones missing fathers, are quite "liberal".

The bearing of arms is another issue that championed much more by the conservatives. Most often, when you hear talk of denying the 2nd Amendment, it is coming from a liberal.

Ones income and the quality of their food has nothing to do with conservatism or liberalism, and I fail to see the moral value in marathon running.

The whole environmental thing? That's something that conservative, hunting "Bible-thumpers" have been doing for ages. They want to be good stewards of what God has provided them.

You see, Kallie, the root of the word "Conservative" is "Conserve". It means the same thing as "Preserve" does. As in, "Let's preserve this great nation that our Founding Fathers founded for us", or "Let's preserve this Earth that our Father in Heaven has created for us".

What you have been looking at is politicians. Professional politicians. Professional politicians that started out as lawyers. I will grant that, today, there is very little difference between the Republican and Democrat politicians.

However, it appears that you have grasped onto the CNN and MSNBC depiction of the average conservative, which is very inaccurate. I take a personal offense to the insinuation that my conservative, college educated grandparents are ignorant. My grandfather took an airport that consisted of two hangers and a dirt runway and turned it into a major international hub. Those grandparents, by the way, have been married for 70 years.

My parents, who are also conservative, have been married for 34 years. They are both college educated. My father is an ordained minister and has also taught college courses in history, religion, and ethics. In fact, virtually every member of my family is conservative, educated, and an esteemed pillar of their communities. The same can be said for many of the people that I associate with.

As to the government regulations, well that's something else. The regulation of foods imported from other countries; that's something that should be left to the companies that import the foods. They are capable of self regulation. It's in their interest to effectively do so. In fact, the Founding Fathers had no intentions of the federal government regulating much of anything. The federal government was to be little more than a protective umbrella over the sovereign states. And by that, I mean protection from outside invading forces. There was also the intent that the states not violate any of our God given rights. Conservatives have noticed a failure in the federal government in regard to that; in fact, conservatives have noticed that the federal government has become quite active in violating those rights, as well.

Of course, none of this is on the current topic, at all. The current topic is that a gentlemen defended himself from a violent attack from three young men, and he did so with the aid of a firearm. As a conservative, I applaud him for taking responsibility for his own safety, and for making the streets just a little bit safer for myself and for those that I love.

It looks like the pro-gun fanatics finally have ONE example of a gun being used justifiably in self-defense.

Nevertheless, pepper spray would have done the job just as well without anyone getting killed.

pepper spray are you kidding me?? its would have just mad them angrier!

A gun will do just FINE!!

How many years has it taken you to become so ignorant and judgmental?

Hey, I'm one of those anti-gun nuts you were looking for. Sorry to dissappoint you, I may be anti-gun, but I'm not stupid. Sounds like a clean shot to me.

As a 65 year old who rides a bicycle I do have my predjuices here, but they aren't quite as bloodthirsty as all the brave armchair generals who show their ignorance with comments like 'kill them all' and the like. It sounds like this man was in fear for his safety and protected himself. If he is any kind of human being, he is now sick inside with having taken a 16 year old life. The whole thing is tragic for everyone involved. I neither think this man should be subjected to bullying by three teens nor do I think the penalty for assault should be death. If it was the only way for this man to be safe, which his non-prosecution implies, it is still no less a tragedy.

Why are you people so blood thirsty? Is it just that it's so easy to have that sort of bravado on the net? I certainly hope so. i'd hate to think all my fellow citizens are so without compassion. The kid is dead! His mother is bereft while she informs realatives. I don't care what he did, can you imagine losing your child? I don't begrudge this man his self defense in any way, but why do you need to be so happy about a tragedy?

At 64 I traveled cross country by car last year. I wondered about my protection and bought a can of pepper spray. I never had to use it, but I was in Montana camping just after the bear attacks there and the ranger told me pepper spray was more effective on a bear than bullets. If it fends off a grizzly, I'll trust it against teenagers.

I choose life over deadly force when there is an alternitave. This man legally chose a gun. I don't say he was wrong, only that there were other choices. Maybe not, I wasn't there.

GAdude you know it isn't that we hide when a gun is used properly, it's simply that there isn't much to say other than what I've said here. Unlike the gun lobby, we are capeable of seeing what is right and wrong on a case by case basis as opposed to defending saturday night specials and assault weapons blanketly as something the founding fathers envisioned. I'm not against all guns, just guns being available to idiots and madmen. if the gun nuts could stop supporting absurd positions and fighting background checks maybe we could have a realistic discussion of what is appropriate and what isn't.

In the meantime, whatever his sins were, the kid is dead before his life really started, is that truely not enough for your sense of vengance? Who is the animal?

Sorry about the typos above, I have bad vision and the spellcheck froze

Shandril you are very wrong about pepper spray doing just fine. My husband is a corrections officer, recently they had an issue with one, single inmate at his facility. With law enforcement grade pepper spray which is far stronger than civilians are allowed to carry it still took 4 officers to subdue that one inmate. An elderly man armed with civilian grade pepper spray facing three teenaged thugs would most likely be the one dead right now instead of one of the thugs that assaulted him. I'm no fan of firearms, I personally can't stand them but I would rather the innocent senior citizen be the one alive than the assailant thug.

Thanks David. Those are my sentiments exactly. I have a son, and I did some stupid things when I was young. It's sad when anybody has to pay for a "mistake" with their life - especially a young person who may have otherwise lived to become a decent person and contributor to society. I won't look down on anyone that acts to protect their life, but my issue with guns has always centered around that if you carry one, it is likely it will become your first option for self defense. I have never been pepper sprayed, so I don't know how effective it is. Maybe as I get older I will come to accept a gun as a need for protecting oneself, but in this case, it breaks my heart that this couldn't end without a loss of life. Nobody wins :-(

Nice post Dave.

Abadabadoooo,

"it is likely it will become your first option for self defense". Exactly. We are not talking about some person trespassing or letting their dog crap on your lawn. We are talking self defense. I am for gun control but not against guns. I don't see a need for people to own 20-30 guns, but they don't see a need for me to own 10-20 guitars. I did stupid stuff when I was a teenager some 20 years ago but attacking people wasn't one of them. Well, technically I guess I did but it was throwing water balloons at people when we drove by. Did I deserve to get shot over that? I would hope not. If I was physically abusing someone and I got shot, well that's what you get for being a dumb ass.

Gun-control fanatics are mum since they can't argue that this was unjustified. I have to give them credit for not walking into a gun fight with a flower - so to speak!

pepper spray ??? i dont feel sorry for those kids or their parents . they raised them that way , now they can deal with it . the old man was right and smart . had he pepper sprayed them , they would have wanted revenge . now maby the survivers might have learned something . it is a tragedy, but not for the old man , hope he sufferd no injurys. the fault is the parents of the teens . not the gun . sad the old man could not ride his bike without packing . glad he was.

Anti-gun doesn't mean anti-defense. I hate guns but as long as the person who carries one has had a psychological evaluation and does not suffer from anger issues, post traumatic stress, or any other violent issues, I am fine with it. Having a gun requires the carrier to be responsible so if they can handle those very minor prerequisites who can argue with it. Now if you say that a person should have a right to own and bare arms regardless of their mental state, then you are an arse.

GAdude

I'm disappointed; where are all the posts by gun-control fanatics screaming that "guns kill?" I guess stories like this one, where law-abiding citizens use a gun to defend themselves, don't serve their agenda.

Your blather about gun control fanatatics makes you look stupid. Gun control is just that - gun control - not gun seizure or gun removal.

From a democrat - this guy protected himself and was in the right.

Ha Shandril....Pepper Spray. Are you kidding me? Haven't you ever seen the police videos of angry assailant beating the mess out of COPS that tried to use pepper spray? Pepper spray is better suited for seasoning food not for defending yourself. If you want to use chemical means for self defense, your best bet is solid lead.

"Sorry about the typos above, I have bad vision and the spellcheck froze."

Not to worry Dave......It was more like you had bad spellcheck and your vision froze.

I have seen a number of pepper spray proponents in lieu of the firearm. I disagree. Pepper spray can be innefective on perps that are high. PCP users are notorious for shaking off any immediate effect of being sprayed, as well as other drugs.

Bravo to the victim!

abadabadoo what mistake are you saying these kids made , people don't usually plan mistakes , so was it a mistake picking the sixty five year old man , over say the thirty year old man that rode by a little before the victim , these kids made no mistake , they did exactly what they planned , and one died

Yes, but in liberal UTOPIA this would never happen because all children are peaceful, all adults successful and the magic unicorns fly around spreading love and peace and would never allow this to happen. :)

@ azrancher - As opposed to the Lawless Utopia that repubs think is possible? A Lawless Utopia is the biggest oxymoron ever. Man is inherently destructive to others for self gain, its how we got to the top of the food chain, without laws to keep the worst of us in line, our society will break down.

just to be clear, pepper spray works better on a bear than bullets because bears are Bulletproof. they've got so much skin and muscle and gristle that common handgun bullets (.44mag and .50mag excepted) just annoy them. hell, even a decent rifle shot will take a while to kill them, during which time you've got a half-ton of pissed off ursidae to contend with til he finally expires. people are a lot less resilient to damage, and a lot more resistant to annoyances, which is what OC spray is, all told.

pepper spray are you kidding me?? its would have just mad them angrier!

how odd??? What those loser protesters get sprayed, they claim it was equal to deadly force and scream bloody murder.

azrancher: gotta say, you gave me a *chuckle* there. I've been looking for those happy unicorns too, yet haven't found them.

I'm not anti-gun, but I do believe that the Constitution does allow for reasonable laws on the possession and use of guns as well as the type of guns allowed.

As an example, one or more states (AZ ?) allow the open carrying of assault rifles. I personally don't think there is a need for this type of weapon, which has one purpose - assault against human beings, thus its name. However, I also know that some people get joy and happiness from shooting this type of gun at targets and feel safer knowing they own one. I understand that.

I also think the open carrying of this type of weapon is a threat to individuals and to the police. I would also bet that if the shooter in this case had been carrying the assault rifle, the attackers would have ended up with it and he would be dead. But that's just my opinion.

That being said, I'm glad for this older man and sad for him too. He will have to live the rest of his life knowing he killed a young man. He will get solace from the fact that he was defending himself, but he knows he killed someone. Since I don't ever want to put myself in that situation, I don't own a gun.

Ha, I go out running by myself all the time and I would never take pepper spray with me. For what? So I can make somebody angry? I myself don't have a gun but have thought about getting one; having been in the military I am comfortable with them and would have no problem shooting someone that had no regard for my life of safety. I have enough martial arts training to kill someone; whether what would work out I don't know, you learn humility when you study the arts and the decision to take a life would have to be made in that moment. The only thing I personally know for sure is that I would absolutely not carry pepper spray; it might work on a bear because the bear is not out to rob you, he just wants food and may decide that getting pepper sprayed just isn't worth it. Thugs, on the other hand, do not have such reasoning skills.

Yeah that sounds great, people cut you off in traffic..shoot them. Someone pushes you...shoot them. People would be so polite because they would be terrified. Who needs cops to regulate things just take the law in your own hand. These kids were wrong I agree but even killers and child molesters most often dont get the death penalty but this kid was killed on sight. Without more info it doesnt seem warrented, it says they assulted him but there is a difference between a punch and beating someone. In that case every bar and school yard fight could end in a shoot out. Not to mention what if he had missed and killed an innocent bystander? there is a million ways this could have gone wrong because not everyone with a gun is a crack shot or even sane. What if he had shot the kid because he called him a name, would you all still call him a hero....but your right people would be more polite

Stupid1,

I actually got hit in the head by a water balloon being thrown out of a car at me. Was that you? BTW, I agree that whoever it was didn't deserve to be shot, but that is actually the most pain I have felt from being hit with something.

Hey AntiLib,

Maybe I can't see it, maybe I can't spell it but at least I can construct an intelligible sentence.

I think I'm supposed to be insulted but I couldn't make enough sense of it to get mad

SHANDRIL-Would calling you an idiot be redundant?

Stupid 1

I don't see a need for people to own 20-30 guns, but they don't see a need for me to own 10-20 guitars.

Thank god I feel to need to have both!

Really? God? Really?

@ David (and maybe a couple others),

I understand what you are saying, and given your San Fran location, I must really commend you for recognizing a clean shot. I suspect that many of your neighbors would not.

You ask why some of us are out for blood. None of us really are, I think. It's just that we've gotten tired of being victims. No one wants to be a victim; at least no one with any sense. We hear about a guy who breaks into a house, only to be mauled by the dog inside, then we hear that he successfully sues the homeowner for his medical expenses. We hear that someone has been victimized, but the police are unable to rectify the situation. We hear this sort of thing often. In this situation, the good guy won! We are excited about this.

I carry a gun daily. Where I live, I am allowed to openly carry a loaded gun, and I do so. Often, I am asked who I want to shoot. The answer is no one. I have no desire to kill anyone. If I am never forced to shoot someone to defend myself, a loved one, or fellow citizen, I will die a happy man. That said, if I should ever feel it necessary to end a life in order to preserve my own or that of someone else, I will not lose any sleep over it.

I find it tragic that three young men felt that it was OK for them to attack people for sport or financial gain. That's the tragedy. From where I sit, those young men had no concern, whatsoever, for the cyclists health or well-being. Had they killed him, I doubt that they would have felt any remorse. I suspect, too, that they would have repeated the offense on another. And, while I won't go as far as to say that the cyclist should have killed the other two, I cannot blame those that do say that.

Pikey

I honestly don't get why everyone makes these grandiose assumptions about NorCal, but let's not get distracted.

I appreciate your thoughtfulness in your reply and will try to be as coherent. You feel very comfortable with a gun, frankly I do not. I think it makes a statement about my approach to my fellow man that I do not want to make.

I do not see that as a 'right & wrong' issue, I see it as an 'apples and oranges' issue and am not the least abashed to say if three punks attack me on my bicycle, I hope you're around and I haven't offended you. At the same time, I don't want you going for a head shot. While I do from time to time feel less than safe on some streets, particularly now that I am older, and I do fear becoming a victim on occasion, I can't bring myself to make sweeping generalizations of court cases I have no idea of the actual circumstances of, particularly in this era of journalistic sensationalism. What guy where with what dog? Are we talking about the guy with the hook who leaves it on the door handle at lovers lane? That was the Urban legend I heard as a kid. We all hear these stories that no one knows the source of. Even if there were a batsh*t judgement here and there I don't think it justifies an armed response, necessarily.

I actually never said I thought it was a clean shot. I said that we could assume it was a clean shot by the non-prosecution. You see, I'm anti-gun, but I'm willing to accept the interpretations of professionals, in this case, the police and DA's office. You don't seem to have the same faith in the system (probably again a geographical surprise).

At 65 I am aware that I am living in a much more dangerous and worse, accepting of violence, society than the one I grew up in. In my entire time growing up I never owned a key to my parents house, I don't think they did. Why did it get this way? Figure that one, and you'll get a Nobel. But I'm rambling.

I guess my point is two fold. I say you being mad at purps doesn't give you the right to take it out on these kids. If nothing else, honor the rule of law. The penalty for assault is not death on the spot, that's a little too Charles Bronson for me. Why do the people who most cry about law and order never want to follow it when the village torches come out.

My second point is that if we say it is OK to carry and use a gun for MY reason but not YOURS, no matter how reasonable the distinction, That's not how some young punk is going to see it. he's going to say if you can have yours, I can have mine. The minute you say it is OK for anybody to shoot anybody it all becomes degree. I think it sends a wrong message.

In the end, I'm sure we'd both be happier if you didn't feel the need to carry your gun. As a 65 year old with health problems in a major city--I know I am a mark. I do what I can. Carrying a gun won't be one of them. I will admit it could some day prove to be a bad decidion that I'll be lucky to have to live with, but it doesn't change my mind.

For all I know these kids were the lowest of the low, the slimeballs that you want to applaud being bested. I say that feeling is a 'cheap thrill' no more worthy than knocking on old man off a bike. It shows the same contempt for humanity.

If it really was personal and these were really awful kids who raped your sister and you enjoyed shooting him in a 'clean shot'. Fine, I'll give you a high five afterward. But to know as little of the facts as we do and then so unthinkingly condemn all of them to death, without knowing who these boys were? Shame on you!

We have met the enemy and he is us

Dear John and Pikey,

Of the two of you, one of you is definitely the superior writer, and I wonder if your superiority in writing ability also applies to other areas of cognitive abililty?

Modern intellectuals cannot come to terms with the fact that the reason China and the other east-Asian nations are taking over....and the reason Africa is still in the doldrums....has nothing to do with whitey or western civilization, or liberalism or conservatism. It's just Darwinism at work. Asians tend to have higher IQs and be less violent. Africans tend to have lower IQs and be more violent. America should let in more Asians, and fewer Africans. Then America will be more prosperous, and less violent.

It sounds racist, but IT IS TRUE!!! The truth is racist. Sue me.

Sue you? you'd never find the courtroom. You'd read the first article written by someone as uninformed as yourself and think you were both geniuses. I have read long volumes on this very subject, including theories about the cultural necessities of technology in cooler climes etc, etc. i have read texts with the premise of what you say, but nothing that supports your conclusion. Nothing, nada, zero, that wasn't from an easily proved racist source. If you have any document without the word skinhead or KKK on it, I'm sure we'd all love to see it. In the meantime don't assume the rest of us are as easily fooled as you.

No, tell me you didn't just cheer for the death of child.

That the child was assaulting someone who had to shoot to defend themself, yes. I'm sure the shooter is not cheering, how can you.

The definition of 'child' is prepubescent. A 16 year old is no child.

The kid didn't deserve a chance. At 16, you know very well, the difference between right and wrong. Don't want to get shot and killed? Don't go around assaulting people.

You're not a child the moment you swing that fist. You want to play with the big boys, be ready for the result.

Hey drip (yeah but it fits) this was no child I would call him an animal but I like and respect animals too much for that.

I only regret that it wasn't your child. That'd shut you up right quick I bet if it was. ANd if you think a gun is equal to fist your idea of equal is a bit skewed. My question is did he fire a warning shot to scare them off and they kept coming or did he just start blasting away. Kind of makes me think of the Dateline where the old man neighbor murdered his husband and wife neighbors over a land dispute because " he felt threatened". His sorry ass is rotting jail now and deservedly so. So less than amusing how it takes so little for people to think killing someone is justified.

Hey Lame, would you have fired a warning shot? Was there time? Did he have a chance? Nice job of armchair quarterbacking but you weren't there. Having been in real situations I assure you that warning shots are for fools. What you call a warning shot your attacker will likely percieve as hesitation, fear, or a just plain missed shot. Drums are for making loud noises, not guns. Guns are for neutralizing your attacker. I'm sorry to the parents for the loss of their child, but why should this man have potentially given his life to save their little boy? Would you have? Would you blame the victim if the victim was you?

Lame I raised my children not to feel an entitlement to take what they have not earned. I think he did fire a warning shot. He fired it right into that dead kids A$$. And like I said before it's too bad he wasn't quicker he could have gotten 3 for the price of 1.

some lame name here /// no brain their either . guess u have kids just like them .

Some Lame Name Here,,,,

Have you ever been attacked? I'm thinking no. these things go down VERY quickly. Warning shot? are you serious?

I am an "Older American" and partially disabled, If I were attacked by three people, all with indivdually more physical strength than me, I do believe that my "warning shots" would be aimed at cetner of mass.

The man did what he had to do to protect himself.

Some Lame Name HereI only regret that it wasn't your child. That'd shut you up right quick I bet if it was. ANd if you think a gun is equal to fist your idea of equal is a bit skewed. My question is did he fire a warning shot to scare them off and they kept coming or did he just start blasting away.

In PA you dont need to fire a warning shot. If you fear for your life - you can use lethal force.

Warning shots are just for the movies. You don't aim a firearm at a person unless you intend to kill them.

The problems with warning shots is that you do not have any idea where they end up. they could end up a mile down the road in an innocent by standard. Point and shoot where you aim. Warning shots are dangerous and ridiculous. If you have to pull out a gun its too late for warnings.

To #19.1 - Those kids got exactly what they derserved plain and simple! The one kid would still be alive if they were sitting in a library reading, or playing basketball, etc. There is a consequence for every action wether good or bad! Lets hope you are never attacked, and if you are, what do you plan to do......try reasoning with your attacker??? Good luck with that one!

"screw the parents"

And how well do you know the parents of this child? Do you know for a fact that they are oblivious as you so want us all to believe????? get your facts straight before blaming the parents. the child made a choice and it was a wrong one.

No warning shots and no aiming to wound. I hope I never have to pull my Glock, but if I do I will be looking to put at least 2 rounds center mass.

@lame - a warning shot? what for? so these dip@!$%#s can run off only to come back and attack someone else? as you so eloquently used in your logic, this time hopefully it would happen to you. perhaps then you will begin to beleive some actions actually do carry consequences with them. is it right or wrong? who cares??? step out in front of a train and youll probably get killed. no different. knock someone over riding a bike, ok stupid prank maybe get your ass kicked. knock em over and them start to kick them especially when they are elderly? they had it coming.

Ah yes because we all know it's an impossibility of physics to fire a gun into the ground. An dyes I would fire a warning round. I'm not so bloodthirsty that I would take a life for being assaulted. Compassion is definitely lost on this group.

Lame:

Warning shots are for movies. Life is not a movie. If a person is being physically attacked and is armed, they have every right to defend themselves with lethal force. They don't have to - but they have that right.

And it is just that simple.

So if you and I met and I had a gun I could shoot you dead and claim you were attacking me and it would be all good then right? It's my word against yours and you wouldn't be saying much now would you. See where I'm going here? This is 2012 not 1880.

I bow to your rapier-like wit sir. Your absolutely the first to make a jab at my screen name. I can only guess it's the result of an Ivy league education. Money well spent no doubt. Yes I often forget that a warning shot is an impossibility of physics not something that people refuse to do. Now if they had firearms also of course I wouldn't use a warning shot, but to an unarmed person yes yes I would. Just pulling the gun would make most unarmed assailants beat feet. I guess I would be seeing a human being and somebodies child before I pulled the trigger. I know most wouldn't though. They'd just be psyched at being to kill legally.

I can't even imagine how scared that old guy was...I am sure he was thinking really carefully about firing warning shots to scare away the 3 naughty kids after they knocked him from his bicycle and started beating him up. I am sure he had all the time in the world to think about carefully aiming for a tree as they started probably kicking him as he fell to the ground. That said I do feel for the Mom, no matter how she raised the kid that died, losing a child is a horrific thing.

At least the "animal" in front of you would be in the company of one of his own before he died. And some of that smell is your own @!$%#.

And I already figured you didn't go to any Ivy league school. I guess sarcasm is lost in your part of the country. With teh rigth training a man with a spork could kill you or just a thumb. Holy crap I better start shooting everybody I see since they have thumbs and could kill me with them.