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

[nobodyknows]

Obvious isnt it? If they ignore the law and become a sanctuary city it should come as no surprise they ignore the law when prosecuting these thieves. Furthermore I'm not surprised this man took the law into own hands when you have your own gov't as example to lead by just like TARP removed all moral imperative to pay you debts so many people are saying fuck it.

The answer is no. In Colorado a cop can't shoot you for stealing either.

LOL, being a sanctuary city has noithing to do with it. Hell we don't even know if these were illeglas or not and it doesn't matter. They were theives, that is all we need to know.

So your saying that if a cop happens upon a robbery in progress and the people ignore his order to stop stealing and in fact start escaping with the goods the cop can't shoot them? What's he supposed to do, say "Please"??

 

[Kappo]

Last I heard, the penalty for stealing property isn't death.

Not trying to be a court system (you know, that really efficient thing that lets repeatedly violent pedos free on bond to do more damage before they goto prison for a couple of years).

The job of the police is not to prevent crime, it is their job to clean up and investigate afterwards. It is the person's job to protect their property. Whether it be locking your doors, keeping things out of plain view, or stopping whoever is taking it.

While an extreme example, the principle is no different than defending yourself when someone attacks you. This particular case would be like a woman macing a guy when he tried to rape her and him getting set free while she goes to jail for assaulting him.

 

[shira]

Not trying to be a court system (you know, that really efficient thing that lets repeatedly violent pedos free on bond to do more damage before they goto prison for a couple of years).

The job of the police is not to prevent crime, it is their job to clean up and investigate afterwards. It is the person's job to protect their property. Whether it be locking your doors, keeping things out of plain view, or stopping whoever is taking it.

While an extreme example, the principle is no different than defending yourself when someone attacks you. This particular case would be like a woman macing a guy when he tried to rape her and him getting set free while she goes to jail for assaulting him.

Except that there's a vast difference between - on the one hand - defending yourself or others against actual or threatened physical harm and - on the other hand - shooting at someone who has made no attempt to harm you or others and is clearly attempting to run away

 

[Nemesis 1]

They are more than trying to run away they are running away with your stolen property. Had the old man caught them sooner and they did not get away with said property than that changes things abit . The old man probably wouldn't have discharged his weapon . Had the old man not had a weapon they would have likely killed him.

 

[Kappo]

Except that there's a vast difference between - on the one hand - defending yourself or others against actual or threatened physical harm and - on the other hand - shooting at someone who has made no attempt to harm you or others and is clearly attempting to run away

I don't know about you, but making me lighter in the wallet by stealing something from me is what I would consider harm.

It SHOULD be dangerous for people to steal things. Our laws protect the criminal and punish the victim. When people are helpless to defend themselves and their possessions, this is the kind of thing that happens on a much more regular basis. "Why not be more brazen since the law will side with me anyway?"

 

[Narmer]

The punishment certainly fit the crime. It's too bad both did not die. This man is an American hero. Kill them all!!!

 

[Kappo]

The punishment certainly fit the crime. It's too bad both did not die. This man is an American hero. Kill them all!!!

Both sides are unreasonable. He shouldn't be touted as a hero or criminal. He simply did what he had to do to stop someone from stealing his stuff. The news story really shouldn't be controversial. "Guys try to steal stuff, tries to catch bullet with teeth and missed it by thaaaaat much!" Criminals go to jail, guy goes about his day.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Both sides are unreasonable ....

Well, that's about all you got right.

....

Personally, I wouldn't try to kill someone who did this to me because dead people don't suffer.

With your Old Testament Mentality you have a great future with the Mutaween in Saudi Arabia and the Basij in Iran.

....

The job of the police is not to prevent crime, it is their job to clean up and investigate afterwards.

You watch too much TV, and have no actual clue as to the function, duties and responsibilities of law enforcement.

....

It is the person's job to protect their property.

Correct, but not in the context of this thread or the way you are using it.

You claim crime prevention/protection is not a law enforcement activity (you really are an idiot) and defend this senile dumb MF under the guise of his responsibility to 'protect his personal property'.

....

This particular case would be like a woman macing a guy when he tried to rape her and him getting set free while she goes to jail for assaulting him.

Fail. Not even close.





--

 

[Zebo]

With your Old Testament Mentality you have a great future with the Mutaween in Saudi Arabia and the Basij in Iran.





--

Even they are not that harsh. As I noted in Sharia the maximum penalty for theft if loss of hand or finger depending on jurisdiction and that's only if you don't need the item such as starving and taking food. Some Americans are more fundamental than the most draconian place on the planet.

 

[Modelworks]

One of the reasons for not allowing lethal force goes back to the foundation of laws that believe human life has value over everything else. The other issue is if it were allowed to use deadly force for theft then the courts would be flooded because you could shoot anyone and claim you thought they were stealing something.

 

[nobodyknows]

One of the reasons for not allowing lethal force goes back to the foundation of laws that believe human life has value over everything else. The other issue is if it were allowed to use deadly force for theft then the courts would be flooded because you could shoot anyone and claim you thought they were stealing something.

Stealing isn't the reason he shoot. Catching them red-handed in the act and their refusal to stop when asked was the reason he shoot. If a theif chooses to run after being caught red handed then I think property owners should be allowed to shoot at them to help presuade them to stop.

If they can't then what reason would a thief have to stop/surrender?

 

[skyking]

Stealing isn't the reason he shoot. Catching them red-handed in the act and their refusal to stop when asked was the reason he shoot. If a theif chooses to run after being caught red handed then I think property owners should be allowed to shoot at them to help presuade them to stop.

If they can't then what reason would a thief have to stop/surrender?

LOL! Like people actually follow the laws anyway. "I'll keep going because it is against the law for him to shoot me". BANG!

 

[nobodyknows]

LOL! Like people actually follow the laws anyway. "I'll keep going because it is against the law for him to shoot me". BANG!

Yeah, wait until the guy who got shoot attempting felony theft sues the old man out of house and home for trying to protect his property. LOL, so fucking funny.

What a bunch of dimwits.

 

[shira]

Stealing isn't the reason he shoot. Catching them red-handed in the act and their refusal to stop when asked was the reason he shoot. If a theif chooses to run after being caught red handed then I think property owners should be allowed to shoot at them to help presuade them to stop.

If they can't then what reason would a thief have to stop/surrender?

If this is the standard, then what should happen to the property owner if he shoots an alleged thief, and it's discovered later that the property owner was mistaken?

This gets back to Modelworks' point: If you make it legal to shoot at someone who's trying to abscond with your property, you create a pretext for shooting at anyone.

Since there's no death penalty for theft, how can shooting at an escaping thief possibly be justified?

 

[CitizenKain]

The punishment certainly fit the crime. It's too bad both did not die. This man is an American hero. Kill them all!!!

He's a fucking nutjob and I hope he spends the last remaining years of life sitting in prison.

I wonder how much you guys would be defending this old prick if one his missed shots took out someone else down the street. Would he be as much of a hero to you if there was a kid put in the hospital as well? Or in the course of defending a trailer is a few eggs allowed to be broken.

 

[HumblePie]

If this is the standard, then what should happen to the property owner if he shoots an alleged thief, and it's discovered later that the property owner was mistaken?

This gets back to Modelworks' point: If you make it legal to shoot at someone who's trying to abscond with your property, you create a pretext for shooting at anyone.

Since there's no death penalty for theft, how can shooting at an escaping thief possibly be justified?

Bolded for a WHAT THE FUCK comment. Seriously I mean what the fuck are you stating here. Do you know how absurd that sounds? No it does NOT create a pretext for shooting at anyone. All it creates a pretext for, and get this for real causation, is for allowing people to defend their person, loved ones, home, and property with lethal force if necessary against people perpetrating a crime against them.

What you did there was a huge example of logical fallacy by division.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy

As for no death penalty for theft. Are you that stupid? Sure most of the laws are old but there are US laws that the maximum penalty for is death in regards to theft. Hell, Colorado STILL has on it's book the anti horse theft law where the maximum penalty is... get this.. death! Just because the death penalty is never used anymore for theft related crimes does not mean the penalty is not there among various laws.


As for courts now not using capital punishment in the US, that is because they typically know most or all the facts of the case by the time sentencing is occurring. Meaning by the time a criminal winds up at court, if theft was the only real motivation, then there are ways for the victim to receive reprisal from the criminal without the need for capital punishment.

In the case of someone defending them self and other their property, the person at the actual time of the crime has NO IDEA what the criminal intends to do. Why? because they are doing it that very moment. The 82 year old guy has no idea if the criminals intended to drag off his trailer and then circle back around and use their vehicle now with EXTRA MASS from the trailer as a battering ram to take him and or his house out. While the crime is happening, the victim has no clue what the final outcome is or what the criminal intends to do. As such, killing a criminal in that case is not the same thing as a court sentencing for capital punishment.

 

[Zebo]

LOL, being a sanctuary city has noithing to do with it. Hell we don't even know if these were illeglas or not and it doesn't matter. They were theives, that is all we need to know.

So your saying that if a cop happens upon a robbery in progress and the people ignore his order to stop stealing and in fact start escaping with the goods the cop can't shoot them? What's he supposed to do, say "Please"??

Robbery Thieves asses would be toast since robbery assailant must have a weapon or use physical violence.

Burglary no cop can shoot you to prevent it in those states unless they reasonably believe you are dangerous to community (i.e. known violent felon) if you were to escape.

Cop would have to chase suspect and physically restrain....

 

[Zebo]

In the case of someone defending them self and other their property, the person at the actual time of the crime has NO IDEA what the criminal intends to do. Why? because they are doing it that very moment. The 82 year old guy has no idea if the criminals intended to drag off his trailer and then circle back around and use their vehicle now with EXTRA MASS from the trailer as a battering ram to take him and or his house out. While the crime is happening, the victim has no clue what the final outcome is or what the criminal intends to do. As such, killing a criminal in that case is not the same thing as a court sentencing for capital punishment.
__________________

This is why all you Rambo's outside of Texas (and a few other states) need to learn the phrase "I feared for my life" to get your killing on.

Don't try an hide it for 3 days like this man and tell multiple stories " I feared for my life and I'd feel better talking about it later after speaking with attorney" Full stop.

 

[HumblePie]

This is why all you Rambo's outside of Texas (and a few other states) need to learn the phrase "I feared for my life" to get your killing on.

Don't try an hide it for 3 days like this man and tell multiple stories " I feared for my life and I'd feel better talking about it later after speaking with attorney" Full stop.

Pretty much, but the defense can still be used. He doesn't know the criminals intended to use his trailer for extra mass to ram his house so they can get at the safe they think is in there. I've seen criminals do stupider shit before.

 

[actuarial]

While an extreme example, the principle is no different than defending yourself when someone attacks you. This particular case would be like a woman macing a guy when he tried to rape her and him getting set free while she goes to jail for assaulting him.

This story is as close to the above example as saying: The principle is no different than cutting a man's head off with an ax for stepping on your property (ie. trespassing).

Shooting a person while they are fleeing is dealing out a punishment. What's the limit here? Could he have followed the car until they stop and then shoot them? Could he ram them off the road?

All parties involved should be charged.

 

[surfsatwerk]

This story is as close to the above example as saying: The principle is no different than cutting a man's head off with an ax for stepping on your property (ie. trespassing).

Shooting a person while they are fleeing is dealing out a punishment. What's the limit here? Could he have followed the car until they stop and then shoot them? Could he ram them off the road?

All parties involved should be charged.

Maybe beat them to death with a candle stick in the conservatory.

 

[nobodyknows]

This is why all you Rambo's outside of Texas (and a few other states) need to learn the phrase "I feared for my life" to get your killing on.

Don't try an hide it for 3 days like this man and tell multiple stories " I feared for my life and I'd feel better talking about it later after speaking with attorney" Full stop.

My whole point is that if someone is stealing your property then who knows WTF they may be capable of? If I pull a gun and ask them to stop and they don't then by God anybody with any sense should be fearing for their life.

 

[nobodyknows]

If this is the standard, then what should happen to the property owner if he shoots an alleged thief, and it's discovered later that the property owner was mistaken?

This gets back to Modelworks' point: If you make it legal to shoot at someone who's trying to abscond with your property, you create a pretext for shooting at anyone.

Since there's no death penalty for theft, how can shooting at an escaping thief possibly be justified?

I'm saying that if you have confronted them and asked them to stop but they don't then you should have the right to use deadly force to protect your belongings, especially so when you're own you own property!!

 

[CitizenKain]

I'm saying that if you have confronted them and asked them to stop but they don't then you should have the right to use deadly force to protect your belongings, especially so when you're own you own property!!

Nope.

What is with people desperately wanting to kill people? Every vigilante thread is full people who are just itching for the chance to kill someone.

 

[DesiPower]

I'm saying that if you have confronted them and asked them to stop but they don't then you should have the right to use deadly force to protect your belongings, especially so when you're own you own property!!

No, you don't, everything belongs to the govt, eventually everything you won will be taken and given to the illegals and other poor and lazy ppl and that includes your property. So how can you possible have any right to even yell at minorities let alone kill them when the land you stand on and the goods being stolen don't belong to you in the first place.
Besides, you should always practice non-violence, that's what Gandhi and Mandela taught us. When you see someone steal something that was earned by you by hard labor, blood and sweat, you should just politely ask them not to do so. When you children and spouses are being raped and murdered, just politely ask them to stop.
Also, you can always call the police, let them come and catch the thieves you stolen goods might never be recovered but at least the thieves will be treated with respect and dignity and will be fed clothed and medicated and if they have committed some grave crime like murder or rape, they can always we flown back to their country in chartered planes by taxpayers. BUT at no point should you EVER use any force against any non Caucasian criminal.