If you try and stop 2 illegals from stealing your property you go to jail

[Devilpapaya]

Those illegal immigrant thieves are not as bad of people as you are. And they're bad.

Piece serves the propaganda line - get people to hate illegal immigrants and dehumanize them.

<reduced for size>.

+1

I think people are getting too caught up in the fact that these are illegal immigrants. Lets break this down.

Two guys stealing a trailer - Clearly illegal, agree its ridiculous they haven't been charged, but no consideration should be given one way or the other what country they came from.

Man shooting another man - Also illegal except in very specific cases. Unless he cane prove that the shooting was to prevent reasonably foreseeable harm to himself I don't think he has much of a defense for using lethal force. The fact he made the shot while they were "speeding away" makes me doubt he has much defense here. I will agree the exact charge against him needs to be reviewed, 2nd/3rd degree or involuntary manslaughter makes more sense to me.

It may be angering to think about, but someone taking your stuff doesn't give you the right (attempt) to kill them. Stop them, detain them, I'm not a lawyer, but a certain level of assault may be forgiven even. However shooting (at) someone implies attempt to kill, and killing over physical property can't be condoned.

Consider the implications. Store owners would be allowed to shoot-to-kill shoplifters even for petty offenses. Also, since theft and irreparable damage are one in the same (theft almost less so, since it could be returned) Vandals, from graffiti to pranksters to aggressive anarchists, would be aloud to be shot on site, regardless of amount of harm to property or person.

Now you may say that the amount being stolen should be considered, obviously shooting someone over a loaf of bread makes a lot less sense than shooting someone over a $50,000 trailer; yet it doesn't if you think about it. The problem is the gray area between the two. It comes down to what dollar number do you put on a persons life, which isn't a number anyone has a right to set.

 

[OutHouse]

man shooting another man - also illegal except in very specific cases. Unless he cane prove that the shooting was to prevent reasonably foreseeable harm to himself i don't think he has much of a defense for using lethal force. The fact he made the shot while they were "speeding away" makes me doubt he has much defense here. I will agree the exact charge against him needs to be reviewed, 2nd/3rd degree or involuntary manslaughter makes more sense to me.

they tried to run him over and the bullet hole through the passenger window and the guys face (not the back of his head) proves it along with them admitting to the cops they tried to run him over.

 

[Devilpapaya]

they tried to run him over and the bullet hole through the passenger window and the guys face (not the back of his head) proves it along with them admitting to the cops they tried to run him over.

Through the passenger side windows implies he was beside the car, with enough breadth to take a shot. The car had missed / he had gotten out of the way, meaning the shot was done in retaliation. He would need to prove that he was in reasonable danger of them coming back and trying to hit him again; seeing as they were stealing from him, and thus trying to get away, that seems unlikely.

If they were in a fight and they were obviously intent on hurting/killing him, it would be a different story.

 

[ModestGamer]

Not true. 16 states you can be shot dead for stealing stuff on peoples property and many more have similar statutes in the works.

Then for the others - I'm sure many of times it has come down to the homeowners word versus the dead guy... Chose wisely or better yet say nothing till you talk with attorney.

If you shoot someone on your property. Make sure you kill them dead. Also don't say a word and call your attorney. A cops jobs is to get convictions along with the DA. the cops and the DA are not on your side. shut your mouth, call your attorney. Say nothing.

 

[ModestGamer]

+1

I think people are getting too caught up in the fact that these are illegal immigrants. Lets break this down.

Invading forgien nationals are over running our country. What the fuck are you smoking.

Secondly someone commit a B&E gets what has has comming to him. If thats a few bullets. So be it.

 

[Devilpapaya]

Invading forgien nationals are over running our country. What the fuck are you smoking.

Clearly something far less potent than you.

Secondly someone commit a B&E gets what has has comming to him. If thats a few bullets. So be it.

Assuming that's breaking and entering; there was not breaking and entering, was on the old dudes property, but not in his house.

I agree though, if they had broken into the house the guy would have had a reasonable assumption of danger and could have let fly the bullets.

Also, I'm probably being trolled, but I'll get by somehow.

 

[ModestGamer]

Clearly something far less potent than you.



Assuming that's breaking and entering; there was not breaking and entering, was on the old dudes property, but not in his house.

I agree though, if they had broken into the house the guy would have had a reasonable assumption of danger and could have let fly the bullets.

Also, I'm probably being trolled, but I'll get by somehow.

Ah no.

someone is on my property "with the intention to comit a B&E most likely" that is enough of a threat for me to open fire.

Illegal aliens should be shot on site.

for all intensive purposes. they have become a invasion force and should be treated with that level of prejudice.

We don't owe them shit.

 

[Devilpapaya]

Ah no.

someone is on my property "with the intention to comit a B&E most likely" that is enough of a threat for me to open fire.

Illegal aliens should be shot on site.

for all intensive purposes. they have become a invasion force and should be treated with that level of prejudice.

We don't owe them shit.

Yep, getting bigotted and or trolled.

 

[ModestGamer]

Yep, getting bigotted and or trolled.

No one owes illegal aliens anything but a bullet in the head at the boarder.

If they would do the paper work and the due diligence to get here using the proper channels. I would have no problem with it. I have lots of

LEGAL IMMIGRANT FRIENDS !

 

[woolfe9999]

woolfe9999

Prosecutors will often argue that the act of firing the weapon in the direction of a person is sufficient to assume harmful intent (they often presume to be mind readers anyway). This then burdens the defendant with convincing the jury that this assumption is incorrect. A new class of of "defense of property" crimes might make it clear that the defendant may have pursued any of several avenues of thought before concluding to use a firearm. The prosecutor would have to present compelling evidence instead of mere assumptions as to the intent. Too many jurors (particularly those with little experience with firearms) are too willing to believe that the only use for a firearm is to kill. A law that recognizes in writing that there might be several intended uses during an attempt to prevent obvious property theft could be quite instructive to such people.

Good post and good point. It doesn't actually shift the burden to the defendant, but in way it sort of does in de facto sense, assuming the jury will buy into the notion that any use of a firearm comes with it an intent to kill. At very least, this makes it impractical for the defendant to not testify and just rest on the prosecution not having met its burden. Still, it's tough to rebut what could be the defendant's contention that he was trying to fire over their heads to make them stop the vehicle, and because they were in a moving vehicle where it was difficult to target accurately, he accidently hit one of them. If they had been stationary and nearby, then he'd have a tougher time getting out of it.

- wolf

 

[werepossum]

The burden of proof of mens rea is not on the defendant. It is on the prosecution. If they want to prove attempted murder here, it is a specific intent crime. The prosecution would have to prove the intent to kill. The man could argue that he only wanted to scare them, injure them, or disable their vehicle, and it would be tough for the prosecution to meet its burden. And if they want to prove pre-meditation and deliberation, it's going to be a lot tougher.

Your point about prosecutorial discretion is a good one. Prosecutors can and do often overcharge, the purpose being to gain leverage in a plea bargain process. Under our system, prosecutors have virtually unchecked charging discretion.

My guess here is that this guy will plead to some kind of felony endangerment plus an aggravated battery, and will receive 3-5 years and do 2. I would also bet that the thieves will get charged, if for no other reason because the case has received publicity.

- wolf

The thieves will serve no time, nor will they be deported. They will be effectively given amnesty and immunity in return for their testimony. They'll probably sue the old man and end up owning his home, which will make a dandy base for their future crimes, whilst the old man ends up penniless and probably dies in jail or awaiting trial. If by chance he escapes the law via jury nullification, Eric Holder is waiting around the corner to bring felony charges, for these two thieves are triple liberal constituencies - Latinos, illegals, and criminals.

Thus we see that one can truly only own what one can fit inside one's home. One can buy insurance, but insurance operates at a profit; for insurance to reimburse us, it must take even more from us as a whole.

This is why western civilization will die. And frankly, why it deserves to die.

 

[hal2kilo]

Sitll nothing on Jefferson Co, Colorado DA's website news section.

 

[MotF Bane]

The old guy should be treated leniently, but the idea of using lethal force to stop a theft is ridiculous and inherently unjust. How many of you have stolen music from the RIAA? Should they be able to shoot you in the face?

Self defense and property defense are two different things.

No comparison between property theft and copyright infringement, anybody with half a brain can figure that out.

 

[MotF Bane]

Piece serves the propaganda line - get people to hate illegal immigrants and dehumanize them.

So you support illegal immigrants, breaking the law, et cetera. How unsurprising.

 

[MotF Bane]

this is one of the dumbest things I read on a dialy basis. explain how libertarians cuased this ?

...:\

 

[MotF Bane]

But there's the government for you - defend the criminals who aren't even citizens, and fuck over the citizen trying to defend his property.

 

[dahunan]

But there's the government for you - defend the criminals who aren't even citizens, and fuck over the citizen trying to defend his property.

you just don't get it do you?

There really are laws about shooting to KILL someone...

 

[JSt0rm]

hai guys we needs a revolutions to takes it all back to 1802 ma favorites yer. What do you say. I wanted everyone to grabs der gun and call 911 and tells dem to surrenders or else.

 

[dahunan]

the two illegals tried to run him over so he shot at them. one of the illegals even admited as such to the wheatridge cops.

so tell me why is the victim in jail and the two illegal/theifing/attempted murdering asshats walking free?

Is that in a quote somewhere or a video?

Did they mention how close they came to him or any details whatsoever? He shot one of them in the skull? Do we have any proof of how close they came to even making the old man truly truly think his life was endangered? Sounded like they were leaving and he was still a good shot and tried to murder one of them for theft.. but I don't know the whole story

 

[Perknose]

http://www.kdvr.com/media/acrobat/2010-07/54863431.pdf

It looks and smells like Mr. Wallace knew he did wrong shooting those guys.

He didn't tell the responding/investigating officers about the shooting when describing the theft incident in detail to them.

When the cops linked up his description of the truck and the guy in the hospital with Wallace's descriptions, they went back two days later to re-interview him.

He still explicitly denied to officers that he'd shot anyone during the theft.

Upon further questioning, he finally admitted he had fired two shots in the direction of the departing truck.

The truck had one bullet hole in the passenger side window.

Wallace said that the passenger was running along side of the truck as it was driving away, and that he (the passenger) was able to get into the moving vehicle.

The police also said:

Both suspects were in possession of valid Colorado identification when apprehended; however their exact immigration status was still being investigated.

The reason the two theft suspects weren't immediately charged by the local gendarmes and the Jefferson County DA is that they were advised by MATT, the Metropolitan Auto Theft Task Force, that the theft was part of a larger investigation by the task force.

So, it looks like not only did Mr. Wallace KNOW and try to hide the fact that he'd shot the guys illegall.

It also looks like, from the forensic evidence so far, that he was probably never in any danger of being "run over," something he'd only ever added as an embellishment when prompted:

Wallace did not want to talk on camera, but when we asked him if the two men threatened him he said, "They almost ran me over."

Plus, even though the OP's article only said:

Sources say Torres and Cardona are believed to be in the country illegally

Most here jumped right on the truthiness bandwagon. Yay!

Why wait for the facts to be totally determined, right?

 

[Zebo]

http://www.kdvr.com/media/acrobat/2010-07/54863431.pdf

It looks and smells like Mr. Wallace knew he did wrong shooting those guys.


The police also said:

So, it looks like not only did Mr. Wallace KNOW and try to hide the fact that he'd shot the guys illegall.

It also looks like, from the forensic evidence so far, that he was probably never in any danger of being "run over," something he'd only ever added as an embellishment when prompted:

Plus, even though the OP's article only said:
Most here jumped right on the truthiness bandwagon. Yay!

Why wait for the facts to be totally determined, right?

Nice investigation. Basically you got to abide by law. If you live in a state where deadly force can be used only in face of imminent death like Colorado is you best not go shooting people for stealing. I think prosecutors went way overboard with like 12 felonies but maybe this will help law be changed to be a bit more like Texas in the long run after public outrage.

 

[Zebo]

Hey, I live in Texas. I have a trailer on the back part of the property. Do you want to come and take it? In Texas not only do you NOT have the right to come on my property and take my trailer, or any of the pieces of steel and aluminum stacked next to the container nearby, but I DO have the right to put a bullet in your brain if you try. I would too if I was there at the time.

Seriously? Over a piece of scrap metal? I couldn't do that, actually any property who gives a fuck, that's why I buy insurance, but I respect your right.

 

[JSt0rm]

Seriously? Over a peace of scrap metal? I couldn't do that, actually any property who gives a fuck, that's why I buy insurance, but I respect your right.

He probably hasn't actually killed anyone before so he can talk big.

 

[nobodyknows]

http://www.kdvr.com/media/acrobat/2010-07/54863431.pdf

It looks and smells like Mr. Wallace knew he did wrong shooting those guys.


The police also said:

So, it looks like not only did Mr. Wallace KNOW and try to hide the fact that he'd shot the guys illegall.

It also looks like, from the forensic evidence so far, that he was probably never in any danger of being "run over," something he'd only ever added as an embellishment when prompted:

Plus, even though the OP's article only said:
Most here jumped right on the truthiness bandwagon. Yay!

Why wait for the facts to be totally determined, right?

Don't steal from an old man. If he is too old to chase you, he'll just kill you.


The guy was what, 82 years old? He comes out and says "Stop theif" and they drive off. What's he supposed to do?

 

[Zebo]

He probably hasn't actually killed anyone before so he can talk big.

Well I can understand if it's all you got, your livelihood, etc and no chance of getting it back without stopping theft by any means available but scrap metal? Blood on your hands? And blood feuds that can get started this way? Crazy.

I guarantee you if one of my kids were shot by someone for stumbling on their property I spend the rest of my life trying to put them in their grave.