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

[Zorkorist]

Another big problem is racoons eating my minnows out of minnow bucket when I forget to shut live-well after too much whiskey. Those fuckers are amazing way they can get past gates and onto dock and into minnow bucket for food. Gotta give it up there.

It ain't muder if you shoot a raccoon... I'm just saying.

-John

 

[Zorkorist]

He brought a gun to a fight, without guns.

And then he used them.

-John

 

[Vic]

I leave my house unlocked 24/7 but you will get shot if you enter or licked to death by labs if I'm not home. Keys are in the ignition of all vehicles. I just don't worry that much about stuff getting stolen. What I do worry about is losing my keys and can't get in or go to lake. Keys cost like $100 ea these days

I even leave keys in ignition on boats in two slips 20 and 50 miles away from home.


Worst thing that happened was all my rods and reels got stolen off my boat (about 15) because I leave those on the deck as well when leaving. That's why I buy cheap walmart crappie rods.

Another big problem is racoons eating my minnows out of minnow bucket when I forget to shut live-well after too much whiskey. Those fuckers are amazing way they can get past gates and onto dock and into minnow bucket for food. Gotta give it up there.

FYI: most insurance policies specifically don't cover losses where you fail to properly secure the insured property, i.e. leave it unlocked with the keys in the ignition.

 

[Zebo]

Dude, I'm pretty sure I went water-skiing with your boat.

Sorry about your rods and reels... they bugged my girl-friend at the time... vegan, etc.

-John

Unless you're a child my pontoon boats would not pull you out of the water. (no wonder no one steals them, right? Ugly mofos but stable and best for fishing) I keep the Nitro tailored at house for hitting channels and local spots...that fucker goes 80mph. I'd notice if you took it... Sluuuuurp. Gets like 2 MPG.

 

[Zebo]

FYI: most insurance policies specifically don't cover losses where you fail to properly secure the insured property, i.e. leave it unlocked with the keys in the ignition.

I'm sure they don't but I'm no idiot. Well only half which is good enough.

 

[Craig234]

News flash, he didn't kill anybody. He shoot a thief, I say more power to him. We need more people like him IMO. Isn't one of the points of owning a gun so you can protect your property??

Does that mean we can use our guns to march into the CEO's office of our stocks and shoot them if it loses money?

Look, there is an uncomfortable gray area here. Guy sees two big guys stealing his stuff. He wants to stop them. He should call the police, but there's a window before they get there. He wants to stop them stealing his stuff, and he's a great risk if he doesn't take his gun so he does, and tells them 'stop where you are and wait for the police'.

Now the easy part is if the criminals rush at him in response - that's a self-defense shooting. But what if the criminals say they aren't going to hurt him, but they are going to take the stuff and keep packing it up? The guy's only choice then is basically let them take it, or shoot them.

Now, as a moral society, Texas excluded, we have largely decided the value of life, including a thief's life, is more than the value of the property, and we don't let the criminal get killed for the property. Some don't agree with this, but I think they're wrong. But it sure raises an awkward situation for the gun holding property owner standing there not using his gun to keep his stuff.

Making it worse perhaps is that not only is that the law, but people are not socialized to understand much less agree with it - politicians hardly want to be the messenger that gets killed for spreading the unpopular message of how that works, so the instances when it happens are likely to have bad things happen, as they did here.

There are more gray areas, since the property owner could have his friends tackle and forcefully detain the thieves - what weapons can be used? When does the physical struggle move from detaining and not killing, to self defense allowing for the use of deadly force? There are no easy answers IMO - including the one some think is one of 'let the property owner shoot to kill period'. If he gets in his car chasing the thieves and shoots them out the window, fine.

 

[ChunkiMunki]

another choice is to call the police, take as much detail down as you can, and prosecute in a court of law. Vigilantism is never the answer, however unmanly some may find it. your property can be replaced.

 

[Budmantom]

This is what you get with liberals in places of power.

That's Obama and the rest of the socialists governing against the people.

 

[umbrella39]

that's obama and the rest of the socialists governing against the people.

gtfu

 

[ebaycj]

I go in a bank and start stealing green pieces of paper, you don't think the cops will shoot me dead?

Only if there is someone else in the bank whose life you are endangering.

 

[ebaycj]

Jury nullification could trump the decision to charge the old man.

We need LOTS more jury nullification in this country. LOTS.

 

[hal2kilo]

Here's details from the source (Wheat Ridge Police Dept).

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

Looks like the problem is that the old man lied to begin with, and probably knew he was in for some trouble.

 

[Budmantom]

That's Obama and the rest of the socialists governing against the people.

gtfu

I forgot to mention how articulate Socialists are.

 

[Perknose]

Here's details from the source (Wheat Ridge Police Dept).

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

Looks like the problem is that the old man lied to begin with, and probably knew he was in for some trouble.

42 posts before yours. Remember to RTFT.

 

[nobodyknows]

Depends man. Are we in a state of emergency where insurance loses will not be covered? Has SHTF? Is it a child? Does the property mean anything to me? Will it's loss rob me of livelihood? Generally, no, I would not shoot someone for stealing even though it's my right to in my state. I use firearms as tools to acquire game and will shoot two legged predators if I fear for me and mines life. Shooting someone for stealing under normal circumstances is close to murder IMO even in Saudi Arabia they only cut off your hand (and only if you don't need it, like a car/trailer, bread and food is a fine). And you want to Kill them (BTW protip - you don't shoot something unless you aim to kill it). Are we worse than fundis? Worse than most draconian place on the planet?

The only point I'm trying to make is that IF you don't at least try to protect your property the thiefs will take you faor an easy mark and be back for more.

These guys weren't kids stealing a stupid apple, they were stealing a trailer, probably worth somewhere around $2500 to $3000. An 82 year old man is just supposed to sit there and let it happen because he might kill them? Sorry, but the thieves should have thought of thast first. When they didn't stop he had no choice but to draw his gun and if they are still stupid enough not to stop then your dealing with some very dangerous people.... people that may well run you over or have a gun that you don't know about. In my mind this man was justified. If a thief who is caught red-handed doesn't stop when commanded then the property owner is justified in shooting at them. If s theif gets killed, too bad, so sad.

Apparently your money has came to you a lot easier then my money has come to me because I worked my ass off and can't afford a trailer. I guess I should just drive over to Colorado and steal one, it seems like it should be a cake walk.

 

[nobodyknows]

Here's details from the source (Wheat Ridge Police Dept).

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

Looks like the problem is that the old man lied to begin with, and probably knew he was in for some trouble.

The problem is someone stole a trailer. If he hadn't shoot at them I'm sure they would have gotten away with it, scott-free.

 

[nobodyknows]

Does that mean we can use our guns to march into the CEO's office of our stocks and shoot them if it loses money?

You hvae to admit that allowing that could potentially solve a lot of problems. I have no problem putting to death people who violate the public trust. I think we've turned into a bunch of pansy ass wussys who only care about how things affect us personally instead of how things afffect us as a country.

 

[piasabird]

Regretfully, this is a common occurrance in Rural Areas. Thieves just assume that farmers have insurance and will not risk their own lives. Thieves also know that in Rural areas that police are ill equiped and few and far between. We can not let thugs like this keep getting away with rampant crime. The surviving member is guilty of his friends death. If a criminal commits a crime and someone dies, then the criminal is responsible.

This is one of the laws in Question:


18-1-706, use of physical force in defense of property: A person is justified in using reasonable and appropriate physical force upon another person when and to the extent that he reasonably believes it necessary to prevent what he believes to be an attempt by the other person to commit theft, criminal mischief, or criminal tampering involving property, but he may only use deadly physical force under these circumstances only in defense of himself or another as described in section 18-1-704.

If they are stealing the property, this gives the person who owns the property the right to try to prevent said theft.

 

[Murloc]

they were already on the run, no reason to shoot at them. It was excessive.
They would have found his bed later anyway.

You shoot if they are in your house threatening your life, not if they are fleeing, it's the police's task to catch them.

 

[nobodyknows]

they were already on the run, no reason to shoot at them. It was excessive.
They would have found his bed later anyway.

You shoot if they are in your house threatening your life, not if they are fleeing, it's the police's task to catch them.

Where I live when we catch a thief red-handed, we yell "stop thief" and if they don't stop we shoot first and ask questions later. It's legal here and it only makes sense to do it that way.

Of course I wouldn't shoot anybody over an apple or such, but in the case of a $2000 to $3000 trailer you cant bet your sweet ass I'd be shooting at them if they didn't stop once they were caught red-handed.

 

[Zebo]

The only point I'm trying to make is that IF you don't at least try to protect your property the thiefs will take you faor an easy mark and be back for more.

These guys weren't kids stealing a stupid apple, they were stealing a trailer, probably worth somewhere around $2500 to $3000. An 82 year old man is just supposed to sit there and let it happen because he might kill them? Sorry, but the thieves should have thought of thast first. When they didn't stop he had no choice but to draw his gun and if they are still stupid enough not to stop then your dealing with some very dangerous people.... people that may well run you over or have a gun that you don't know about. In my mind this man was justified. If a thief who is caught red-handed doesn't stop when commanded then the property owner is justified in shooting at them. If s theif gets killed, too bad, so sad.

Apparently your money has came to you a lot easier then my money has come to me because I worked my ass off and can't afford a trailer. I guess I should just drive over to Colorado and steal one, it seems like it should be a cake walk.

I'm not going to get into this argument. I already said I the respect the right but it's not for me. Sorta like Cocaine I think it should be legal but it's not for me. But this was not TX and he should be prosecuted since thieves were not trying to run over him and he can not use deadly force to stop a theft.

 

[nobodyknows]

I'm not going to get into this argument. I already said I the respect the right but it's not for me. Sorta like Cocaine I think it should be legal but it's not for me. But this was not TX and he should be prospected since thieves were not trying to run over him and he can not use deadly force to stop a theft.

But he did and I commend hin for having the courage of his convictions and protecting his property no matter what the bleeding hearts think. He not only talks the talk, he walks the walk.

 

[Zebo]

Where I live when we catch a thief red-handed, we yell "stop thief" and if they don't stop we shoot first and ask questions later. It's legal here and it only makes sense to do it that way.

Of course I wouldn't shoot anybody over an apple or such, but in the case of a $2000 to $3000 trailer you cant bet your sweet ass I'd be shooting at them if they didn't stop once they were caught red-handed.

:awe:
Well at least some of you Rambos have judgment so all gun owners don't look like mouthbreathing fools.

 

[nobodyknows]

:awe:
Well at least some of you Rambos have judgment so all gun owners don't look like mouthbreathing fools.

LOL, only an idiot would shoot someone over an apple and only a bigger idiot would try and argue that someone would shoot someone for stealing an apple.

 

[Zebo]

But he did and I commend hin for having the courage of his convictions and protecting his property no matter what the bleeding hearts think. He not only talks the talk, he walks the walk.

I don't we are a nation of laws and he violated that pact.