Posted on 03/21/2010 3:59:52 PM PDT by Red in Blue PA
Edited on 03/21/2010 4:55:24 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
He tried to save a life, and paid with his own. A hardworking father of two, who was about to get engaged to his girlfriend, was stabbed to death trying to rescue a young family friend from a pack of bloodthirsty teenage thugs on a Bronx street, cops said.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
not only that, but the govt will provide marksmanship lessons so that they can kill their enemies and innocent people aren’t killed.
That kid will be dead within a few weeks anyway, so this adult probably died for nothing in the end.
Whether the kid will be dead or alive in a few weeks -- doesn't make up for the fact that the guy left his two kids fatherless and his wife-to-be without a future husband and breadwinner for the family.
That turns out to be a bigger loss to more people than if the kid got killed in the first place.
This has to do with looking out for your own family as a top priority... you see ...
Glad somebody else noticed this. It's interesting to see how far the media will stretch to suggest that victims of street crime are exemplars of traditional "family values." Usually it's something like "Father of 6 Killed in Shooting" - but you have to read deep into the article to find out the six kids are each living with their different mamas.
How is that failing?
He failed his family, which is his first priority, over anyone else who is not in his immediate family.
Yes, that’s possible. Or a previous non-marriage.
It’s irrelevant to the gentleman’s being killed, of course, while defending someone who needed help. It’s just that the article included this family information in such an odd way.
You are wrong on this one.
It’s admirable that he defended the victim of the attack (even if he and the intended victim were in a rival gang). However, the additional information about his personal life is rather weird.
You are wrong on this one.
Sorry, I take a wife and kids as first priority, in the things I do in society, and fhen, other things come secondary.
And I'm sure that the wife-to-be and the two kids left fatherless would prefer 1,000 times over again, that he had not stepped into something that he could get killed at doing, when he could have been there for them, for their own family.
Perhaps you think differently about that, but most people I know take their own families as a top priority in all these kinds of matters, and they don't endanger themselves to the point of leaving their own families husbandless and fatherless.
There are those who take risks in our society, but they minimize them and take adequate precautions and do things in a safe manner.
So he should have watched from a safe distance? Not sure what would happen in your world.
by your logic we would be unable to field an army
everyone would hide behind wifey and kids...
A guy died who had kids. The purpose of writing it is to convey how many people - kids in this instance - are affected.
197th Street is Manhattan, not the Bronx.
In my world, my 16-year-old isn’t standing around on a street corner where he had a fight earlier with rival gang members. He’s in our house, doing schoolwork, playing a computer game or (ideally) in his bed.
Guns don’t kill people knives kill people! Fools! If he had a gun he would be alive today, think of the indiana Jones scene.... sword, whip... sword gun....have a nice day! Take them away from the law abiding people and allow the thugs free riegn
So he should have watched from a safe distance? Not sure what would happen in your world.
I would have to know the particulars of the situation to devise a strategy that wouldn't get one killed in the process, especially if one is outnumbered and you're there without any weapons.
I can think of things that would get people to back off (again, depending on the particulars of the situation) and wouldn't give others with weapons a chance against another person without weapons.
I would want to know various things, like how many other people were around, was it in a highly public place or a hidden-away place, what did the guy have on him, and what exactly was going on at the exact point in time he came across this, and then one could figure out a way to intervene without getting oneself killed in the process.
The bottom line here is that the guy has a higher responsibility to his own two kids, his own wife-to-be and their secure futures with him, than he does to a friend of the family.
The immediate family always has to take the top priority.
How many here would have gone Bernie Goetz on these thugs if you were in this situation?
vaudine
by your logic we would be unable to field an army
everyone would hide behind wifey and kids...
No, because the military services takes many precautions to keeping their men safe. They train well, they give them good equipment, they teach them strategies to give them advantages, and they minimize risks any way that they are able to do so, by whatever means and by whatever expense is needed to do so.
When they have a choice in being able to engage the enemy and keep their people safe, they will do it and do it to the best of their ability. They will never waste their manpower.
And likewise, the guy would also take adequate precautions, make sure that he did everything that he could to minimize his risks, and deal in strategies that would accomplish the goals without putting his life at the maximum risk, do whatever was necessary to make sure he was as safe as possible and be able to achieve a goal that he intended.
Whether it's a civilian or in the military, they would be thinking the same way.
In both situations (military or civilian), you do the necessary thing to come home when you're finished, because your family is the first priority.
Another reminder of how our civilization is in crisis.
A few years ago - there would have been admiration for this man’s assisting a neighbor and shock for the circumstances of his death.
Today, we note that he is an unmarried father of two and his death is just another common misfortune.
There is so much truth in your post.
Today, we note that he is an unmarried father of two and his death is just another common misfortune.
It's not a common misfortune... it's plain reckless to leave your wife-to-be and your two kids, husbandless and fatherless, by the choice of your own actions...
That's just plain irresponsible to your future wife and your own children.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.