Skip

A 17-year-old is killed for his Cartier sunglasses.
August 20, 2001 7:55 PM   Subscribe

A 17-year-old is killed for his Cartier sunglasses. When you were a teen, if you had $600 to spend, would you blow it all on a pair of sunglasses? (Yeah, I know this should be about what little value kids put on human life, etc, but I want to know where do kids get this kind of disposable income?)
posted by Oriole Adams (26 comments total)

 
Actually what I found interesting is the legal terminology in the article... The sunglasses were owned by a "teen"; the perpetrator was a "man" -- one was aged 17, the other 18. They could have been from the same high school class! He should have committed the crime a few weeks earlier when he could have been tried as a juvenile (Note: I don't condone those actions AT ALL, and this is not a criticism of our legal system; I'm just sayin'). As for where he got the money... well, it's all about the bling bling these days, right? He probably ran an internet startup.
posted by bcwinters at 8:16 PM on August 20, 2001


If you saw someone with an attitude problem walking down the street with a $600 pair of sunglasses, would you want to shoot them?

Usually, I despise people with Armani sunglasses, and hold those with anything more expensive utterly below contempt.

Note: what that kid did was stupid, illegal, and fully deserving of the 15-flat sentence he'll probably get. But that doesn't mean I don't sympathize with him, or that I do sympathize with the victim.
posted by Ptrin at 8:28 PM on August 20, 2001


If you saw someone with an attitude problem walking down the street with a $600 pair of sunglasses, would you want to shoot them?

Of course not.

But that doesn't mean I don't sympathize with him, or that I do sympathize with the victim.

Take it easy with the gross-out gags, willya? I'm trying to eat dinner here.
posted by kindall at 8:44 PM on August 20, 2001


I bought a Movado SE watch about a year ago, when I was 17. It set me back around $900; it is the perfect timepiece. Most important to me, though, was the dial, and its impeccable design ideology, and just how flawlessly that was executed.

It was my money, earned by working as a visual designer. And even though I've since gone through the same economic downturn (and financial hardship) the rest of us have, I don't regret making the purchase. I saw something unique and perfect in the watch, and decided that it was a reflection of something I wanted to be.

What I'm trying to say is: don't ridicule people based on your view of their age group and accepted practice therein, and instead let their actions and choices hint at what they're all about.
posted by aphelion at 8:45 PM on August 20, 2001


i was going to buy a fake cartier watch ($400) for a friend for kicks (seriously, though i know i don't have the money to blow on it but it would kick ass) while in Asia next week but maybe i'll change my plans...*grin* *choochoo*
posted by wantwit at 8:58 PM on August 20, 2001


The fact that the kid bought a pair of expensive sunglasses isn't really the issue here. Maybe you should be more concerned at the fact that people kill for sunglasses.
posted by Mark at 9:05 PM on August 20, 2001


I could buy a computer better than this one for $600, so I believe the killing is justified if the 'man' planned on selling the sunglasses and buying a computer for me.

More importantly, how do you shoot someone without damaging their expensive sunglasses? (People fall over when they get shot, right?)
posted by gleemax at 9:10 PM on August 20, 2001


Actually what I found interesting is the legal terminology in the article...

That's standard AP style: Eighteen is the cutoff point between kid and adult. It does tend to highlight the inherent sillyness of arbitrary laws about the age of majority, no?

If you saw someone with an attitude problem walking down the street with a $600 pair of sunglasses, would you want to shoot them?

I'm still trying to figure out what about a pair of sunglasses would make them look like they're "worth $600" in the first place, as opposed to looking like they came off a Wal-Mart rack (as all sunglasses do to me).
posted by aaron at 9:12 PM on August 20, 2001



You're right, aphelion, paying hundreds of dollars for sunglasses is stupid for any age group.

People get killed for much less than 600 dollars every day. If people put value on a thing, somebody will kill for it.
posted by Doug at 9:15 PM on August 20, 2001


When you were a teen, if you had $600 to spend, would you blow it all on a pair of sunglasses?

Nah, I would've spent it on beer.

Sheesh, kids today... I just don't understand 'em.
posted by spilon at 9:34 PM on August 20, 2001


Caffey started to hand the glasses over, but Watkins shot him anyway, police said.

I bet this wasn't about the glasses. But Doug's right; people get killed over nothing, a couple bucks, the contents of a wallet. How much is in your wallet or purse right now? Might as be the price of your life, you just never know.
posted by UncleFes at 9:46 PM on August 20, 2001


hmm, i dont know about you people, but i think your joking about the fact that he got shot is kind of sad.
the guy has sunglasses.
as was stated, maybe to him they were a good buy.
me, i think spending over 25 bucks is a waste of money.

but getting shot over them?
come on, someone should analyze why shooting is such an accepted practice.
posted by JackthaStripper at 9:58 PM on August 20, 2001


Some people are greedy and amoral, and care not the slightest bit about the lives and property of anyone not themselves. It's not significant that the crime was committed with a gun instead of a knife or some other weapon--it's just a means to an end, that being the efficient extraction of property (and occasionally lives) from other people.
posted by darukaru at 3:13 AM on August 21, 2001


in the wise words of mos def, "the harder you flash, the harder you get flashed on."
posted by lotsofno at 5:24 AM on August 21, 2001


what i want to know is why is every kooky story like this originated in detroit where i grew up? i like the city, but cheese-n-rice, wtf is up with the residents lately?
posted by adampsyche at 5:53 AM on August 21, 2001


Lately? When has Detroit not been insane?
posted by dagnyscott at 6:46 AM on August 21, 2001


true. just seems like they have gone nucking futs lately. especially with devil's night.
posted by adampsyche at 6:50 AM on August 21, 2001


come on, someone should analyze why shooting is such an accepted practice.

We've discussed to death why "shooting is becoming accepted practice" (it isn't). We haven't had a sunglasses thread in a long, long time.
posted by jpoulos at 7:48 AM on August 21, 2001


I feel cool now that I go to clubs in Detroit and have survived for quite some time.
posted by fusinski at 8:43 AM on August 21, 2001


"But that doesn't mean I don't sympathize with him, or that I do sympathize with the victim."

A joke, surely? Sympathising with someone who kills someone else for financial gain is extremely unwise.

Is it more 'right' to kill a show off than a more humble person? Of course not. No-one deserves to be killed because they wear some expensive sunglasses.

And what's wrong with a kid having $600 glasses? Jeez, some of you really seem to signify money with importance. I pay $1500 a year in car insurance. I'm not into fashion, but if I didn't have a car, perhaps I'd buy a $1500 set of speakers.. so would I deserve to be shot? Seems so :-)
posted by wackybrit at 10:08 AM on August 21, 2001


I may shoot you for your car insurance
posted by fusinski at 11:05 AM on August 21, 2001


Sorry, that's all the hours of violent video games talking.
posted by fusinski at 11:07 AM on August 21, 2001


Wackybrit, you should definitely call Geico. Just be sure not to call that Gecko. :)

And as far as spending $600 on Cartier sunglasses at age 17, it may be legal, but it's certainly not 'ok'. What the fuck was he thinking? $600, invested wisely at age 17, could buy you a hip transplant at age 70. You know what I'm talking about, here. Very unwise, very shallow. Yeah, he's dead, but that doesn't mean he doesn't come off as an asshole in the article.
posted by Hildago at 11:44 AM on August 21, 2001


Cartier!!!????? I mean REALLY!!! The kid deserved it for showing a complete absence of taste. I wonder if the gunman was actually a member of the fashion police on an undercover assignment.

In fact, taking Hildago's logic a step further, maybe the $600 would have been better spent as a down payment on an asshole transplant.
posted by Option1 at 12:09 PM on August 21, 2001


At age 17, are people supposed to be deep? A kid got shot for an article of clothing... who the F--- cares if it cost $600 or $6?

Or are some of you saying that if he was 17 and had $600 to blow, and was from Detroit that he had to have gotten the money suspiciously?
posted by tj at 12:25 PM on August 21, 2001


Maybe you should be more concerned at the fact that people kill for sunglasses.

why? and why do we place value on life at all? the fact that we assume that life *is* valuable doesn't mean that it's not an arbitrary decision. since it's arbitrary, deciding that clothing or an accessory is worth someone's life isn't so unthinkable.
posted by tolkhan at 2:18 PM on August 22, 2001


« Older Another benefit of globalization: Third...   |   Michael Schumacher Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments



Post