Man Accused Of Shooting Alleged Sacramento Car Thief 31 minutes ago

Page 7 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

exdeath

Lifer
Jan 29, 2004
13,679
10
81
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
A person has to draw the line someplace, don't they. If everything I have hadn't come so hard or was easily replaced then I might agree with you. Everyone's sitution is different, so you do as you think best but quit telling me what's best for me..... because you have no way of knowing what's best for me and my situation.

<3 Arizona

Forced entry or the removal of a person against his will from property or from a vehicle is grounds for justification of the threat or use of deadly force. The burden of proving overwise rests on the hands of the state prosecuter, as if you act in the defense of your home or vehicle you are presumed innocent. Further, you are protected from civil liability.

The Castle Doctrine was signed into law here in 2006 for anyone who thinks it's merely a relic forgotten from the wild west days that needs to be erased from the old books.

The insides of ones car is an extention of ones home, thus it should be a safe haven where you can feel safe from intruders.

Added to the fact that statistically most car jackings begin and end with harm or death to the vehicle owner or occupants, it's a no brainer where I stand on the issue (no pun intended).
 

DAPUNISHER

Super Moderator CPU Forum Mod and Elite Member
Super Moderator
Aug 22, 2001
29,539
24,358
146
Originally posted by: exdeath
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
A person has to draw the line someplace, don't they. If everything I have hadn't come so hard or was easily replaced then I might agree with you. Everyone's sitution is different, so you do as you think best but quit telling me what's best for me..... because you have no way of knowing what's best for me and my situation.

<3 Arizona

Forced entry or the removal of a person against his will from property or from a vehicle is grounds for justification of the threatening or use of deadly force. The Castle Doctrine was signed into law here in 2006 for anyone who thinks it's merely a relic from the wild west days that needs to be erased from the old books.

The insides of ones car is an extention of ones home, thus it should be a safe haven where you can feel safe from intruders.

Added to the fact that statistically most car jackings begin and end with harm or death to the vehicle owner, it's a no brainer where I stand on the issue (no pun intended).
This wasn't a car jacking though, if it were, I would be on the other side of the debate.

 

exdeath

Lifer
Jan 29, 2004
13,679
10
81
Originally posted by: DAPUNISHER
Originally posted by: exdeath
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
A person has to draw the line someplace, don't they. If everything I have hadn't come so hard or was easily replaced then I might agree with you. Everyone's sitution is different, so you do as you think best but quit telling me what's best for me..... because you have no way of knowing what's best for me and my situation.

<3 Arizona

Forced entry or the removal of a person against his will from property or from a vehicle is grounds for justification of the threatening or use of deadly force. The Castle Doctrine was signed into law here in 2006 for anyone who thinks it's merely a relic from the wild west days that needs to be erased from the old books.

The insides of ones car is an extention of ones home, thus it should be a safe haven where you can feel safe from intruders.

Added to the fact that statistically most car jackings begin and end with harm or death to the vehicle owner, it's a no brainer where I stand on the issue (no pun intended).
This wasn't a car jacking though, if it were, I would be on the other side of the debate.

Personally I would have walked outside and stood in the way of the vehicle. They can't take your car while you are standing in the way.

If they try to remove you or threaten you death or bodily harm, it becomes threat of force or kidnapping from private property and you shoot them.

If they try to steal the car anyway, the moment they put it into reverse with you standing behind it, it becomes assualt with a deadly weapon, and again, you can shoot them. It's the same reason police open fire on a stopped vehicle when it is surrounded by officers and the driver tries to start moving the car again.

You wouldn't be shooting them for stealing the car. You were using lawful and reasonable physical force on your own property to bar them from removing your property. Let the criminal choose if he is going to escalate from there, and you can deal with it appropriately. I'm all about giving them a chance to get away with their lives but nothing more. I will protect my property, without deadly force if possible. But if they persist and escalate the level of force required, I will match and exceed it.
 

DAPUNISHER

Super Moderator CPU Forum Mod and Elite Member
Super Moderator
Aug 22, 2001
29,539
24,358
146
Originally posted by: exdeath
Originally posted by: DAPUNISHER
Originally posted by: exdeath
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
A person has to draw the line someplace, don't they. If everything I have hadn't come so hard or was easily replaced then I might agree with you. Everyone's sitution is different, so you do as you think best but quit telling me what's best for me..... because you have no way of knowing what's best for me and my situation.

<3 Arizona

Forced entry or the removal of a person against his will from property or from a vehicle is grounds for justification of the threatening or use of deadly force. The Castle Doctrine was signed into law here in 2006 for anyone who thinks it's merely a relic from the wild west days that needs to be erased from the old books.

The insides of ones car is an extention of ones home, thus it should be a safe haven where you can feel safe from intruders.

Added to the fact that statistically most car jackings begin and end with harm or death to the vehicle owner, it's a no brainer where I stand on the issue (no pun intended).
This wasn't a car jacking though, if it were, I would be on the other side of the debate.

Personally I would have walked outside and stood in the way of the vehicle. They can't take your car while you are standing in the way.

If they try to remove you or threaten you death or bodily harm, it becomes threat of force or kidnapping from private property and you shoot them.

If they try to steal the car anyway, the moment they put it into reverse with you standing behind it, it becomes assualt with a deadly weapon, and again, you can shoot them. It's the same reason police open fire on a stopped vehicle when it is surrounded by officers and the driver tries to start moving the car again.

You wouldn't be shooting them for stealing the car. You were using lawful and reasonable physical force on your own property to bar them from removing your property. Let the criminal choose if he is going to escalate from there, and you can deal with it appropriately. I'm all about giving them a chance to get away with their lives but nothing more. I will protect my property, without deadly force if possible. But if they persist and escalate the level of force required, I will match and exceed it.
That's a damned reasonable stance, I don't know if I could do it personally, but the fact you would give them a chance to bolt, and would follow the law to the T, is commendable.
 

1EZduzit

Lifer
Feb 4, 2002
11,833
1
0
Originally posted by: DAPUNISHER
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
A person has to draw the line someplace, don't they. If everything I have hadn't come so hard or was easily replaced then I might agree with you. Everyone's sitution is different, so you do as you think best but quit telling me what's best for me..... because you have no way of knowing what's best for me and my situation.
That sounds like a form of anarchy, everyone doing what is best for themselves/their situation. We live by the rule of law, if the law states you can't use potentially deadly force to protect property, that isn't me telling you what is best, it is what society says is best, at least for now.

I'd vote against changing the law to state otherwise, given the opportunity, but if more vote to do so, so be it. I still wouldn't shoot anyone over me car, even if it was legal, but that's just how I roll.

A person has to draw the line someplace, don't they.
Certainly, but if that line exceeds where the law has drawn it, be prepared to face the prospect of losing freedom&rights, and be subjected to our penal system. Some fight the good fight and win, others lose, I guess I just don't agree killing over my car is a good fight.

You aren't the one who defines when a person feels his life is in danger, so your big talk about the "rule of law" is just that, big talk. You weren't there, it's not your responisibility to protect this guys family/property so irregardless of what YOU think, your argument DOESN'T trump mine. :p
 

DAPUNISHER

Super Moderator CPU Forum Mod and Elite Member
Super Moderator
Aug 22, 2001
29,539
24,358
146
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit


You aren't the one who defines when a person feels his life is in danger, so your big talk about the "rule of law" is just that, big talk. You weren't there, it's not your responisibility to protect this guys family/property so irregardless of what YOU think, your argument DOESN'T trump mine. :p
Where did I say it did? And I'm personally not arguing, I'm debating the issue, like adults do, not the typical P&Ner ;) I don't know the exact circumstance, I don't know if he or his family were being threaten, I can only say I wouldn't have went outside and confronted them, over my car, in his place.

Were I him. I might be out a car, I might have higher insurance cost, I might have to spend more on trying to secure my property agaisnt theft, but I would be home with my family, still able to work to provide for them, and with a clear conscience, not facing charges, and spending time& potentially money, on legal defense I could ill afford, likely even less than losing my car.

 

exdeath

Lifer
Jan 29, 2004
13,679
10
81
Originally posted by: DAPUNISHER
Originally posted by: exdeath
Originally posted by: DAPUNISHER
Originally posted by: exdeath
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
A person has to draw the line someplace, don't they. If everything I have hadn't come so hard or was easily replaced then I might agree with you. Everyone's sitution is different, so you do as you think best but quit telling me what's best for me..... because you have no way of knowing what's best for me and my situation.

<3 Arizona

Forced entry or the removal of a person against his will from property or from a vehicle is grounds for justification of the threatening or use of deadly force. The Castle Doctrine was signed into law here in 2006 for anyone who thinks it's merely a relic from the wild west days that needs to be erased from the old books.

The insides of ones car is an extention of ones home, thus it should be a safe haven where you can feel safe from intruders.

Added to the fact that statistically most car jackings begin and end with harm or death to the vehicle owner, it's a no brainer where I stand on the issue (no pun intended).
This wasn't a car jacking though, if it were, I would be on the other side of the debate.

Personally I would have walked outside and stood in the way of the vehicle. They can't take your car while you are standing in the way.

If they try to remove you or threaten you death or bodily harm, it becomes threat of force or kidnapping from private property and you shoot them.

If they try to steal the car anyway, the moment they put it into reverse with you standing behind it, it becomes assualt with a deadly weapon, and again, you can shoot them. It's the same reason police open fire on a stopped vehicle when it is surrounded by officers and the driver tries to start moving the car again.

You wouldn't be shooting them for stealing the car. You were using lawful and reasonable physical force on your own property to bar them from removing your property. Let the criminal choose if he is going to escalate from there, and you can deal with it appropriately. I'm all about giving them a chance to get away with their lives but nothing more. I will protect my property, without deadly force if possible. But if they persist and escalate the level of force required, I will match and exceed it.
That's a damned reasonable stance, I don't know if I could do it personally, but the fact you would give them a chance to bolt, and would follow the law to the T, is commendable.

Forgot to mention I would be visibly armed and clearly showing no inhibitions to using it if neccessary. And I would shout that the police are already on their way (which they would be) as loud as I could to scare them, get attention of witnesses, etc, and that in the mean time they need to keep their hands clearly visible to me or I will assume they have weapons and open fire.
 

1EZduzit

Lifer
Feb 4, 2002
11,833
1
0
Originally posted by: DAPUNISHER
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit


You aren't the one who defines when a person feels his life is in danger, so your big talk about the "rule of law" is just that, big talk. You weren't there, it's not your responisibility to protect this guys family/property so irregardless of what YOU think, your argument DOESN'T trump mine. :p
Where did I say it did? And I'm personally not arguing, I'm debating the issue, like adults do, not the typical P&Ner ;) I don't know the exact circumstance, I don't know if he or his family were being threaten, I can only say I wouldn't have went outside and confronted them, over my car, in his place.

Were I him. I might be out a car, I might have higher insurance cost, I might have to spend more on trying to secure my property agaisnt theft, but I would be home with my family, still able to work to provide for them, and with a clear conscience, not facing charges, and spending time& potentially money, on legal defense I could ill afford, likely even less than losing my car.

LOL, you call this a debate? I already have said that if this happened to you that you are free to handle the situation as you see fit, but you seem intent on going over the things this guy did wrong and you call that a debate? He obviously had some kind of mental break, sometimes these things happen in high stress situations so how can you sit back and judge that he wasn't in a life threating situation that caused the break? You weren't there!! No you would rather rake the guy over the coals for standing up for his right to defend his property.


Like I said, you weren't there, but if it had been you the thiefs would have enjoyed a nice car ride and who knows, they probably would have made a few easy bucks and be ready to steal another one already. As far as I'm concerned this guy did a public service. A theif is a theif is a theif.
 

DAPUNISHER

Super Moderator CPU Forum Mod and Elite Member
Super Moderator
Aug 22, 2001
29,539
24,358
146
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

LOL, you call this a debate? I already have said that if this happened to you that you are free to handle the situation as you see fit, but you seem intent on going over the things this guy did wrong and you call that a debate? He obviously had some kind of mental break, sometimes these things happen in high stress situations so how can you sit back and judge that he wasn't in a life threating situation that caused the break? You weren't there!! No you would rather rake the guy over the coals for standing up for his right to defend his property.


Like I said, you weren't there, but if it had been you the thiefs would have enjoyed a nice car ride and who knows, they probably would have made a few easy bucks and be ready to steal another one already. As far as I'm concerned this guy did a public service. A theif is a theif is a theif.
Well it certainly isn't a debate if you are going to allow your post to degenerate into typical P&N tactics, misrepresenting or flatout purposely changing the substance of what I've posted, and try to present your specualtion as "obvious".

What did I say he did wrong? The news story states what law he was arrested and under suspicion of breaking, I simply have stated that. I further stated, I don't think I could do it myself, but in his place, would have Lojacked my car. Another false attribution was to say "I would rather see him raked over the coals" when I've done nothing more than state that we live under the rule of law, and what you suggested at one point was basically anarchy.

Where have I even so much as implied I'd like to see him raked over the coals, or back up that bullsh!t you said, about how they would be enjoying my car. Good luck getting away with car theft on a Lojacked vehicle that was reported before you even left the driveway with it. It is possible, but the probability drops substantially.

Your entire tactic is still revolving around the premise that I reject his having possibly acted in self defense or defense of others. When I in fact stated, it is good he gets his day in court, that any scenario was possible, and I don't know for certain what did indeed happen. Yet you persist in asserting I have said otherwise, or perhaps you are "spinning" my statements as is the SOP for P&N? No matter, I know you where you stand, despite your evidently having no clue where I do, or just having no respect for someone as passive and non-aggressive as I am?

 

1EZduzit

Lifer
Feb 4, 2002
11,833
1
0
Originally posted by: DAPUNISHER
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

LOL, you call this a debate? I already have said that if this happened to you that you are free to handle the situation as you see fit, but you seem intent on going over the things this guy did wrong and you call that a debate? He obviously had some kind of mental break, sometimes these things happen in high stress situations so how can you sit back and judge that he wasn't in a life threating situation that caused the break? You weren't there!! No you would rather rake the guy over the coals for standing up for his right to defend his property.


Like I said, you weren't there, but if it had been you the thiefs would have enjoyed a nice car ride and who knows, they probably would have made a few easy bucks and be ready to steal another one already. As far as I'm concerned this guy did a public service. A theif is a theif is a theif.
Well it certainly isn't a debate if you are going to allow your post to degenerate into typical P&N tactics, misrepresenting or flatout purposely changing the substance of what I've posted, and try to present your specualtion as "obvious".

What did I say he did wrong? The news story states what law he was arrested and under suspicion of breaking, I simply have stated that. I further stated, I don't think I could do it myself, but in his place, would have Lojacked my car. Another false attribution was to say "I would rather see him raked over the coals" when I've done nothing more than state that we live under the rule of law, and what you suggested at one point was basically anarchy.

Where have I even so much as implied I'd like to see him raked over the coals, or back up that bullsh!t you said, about how they would be enjoying my car. Good luck getting away with car theft on a Lojacked vehicle that was reported before you even left the driveway with it. It is possible, but the probability drops substantially.

Your entire tactic is still revolving around the premise that I reject his having possibly acted in self defense or defense of others. When I in fact stated, it is good he gets his day in court, that any scenario was possible, and I don't know for certain what did indeed happen. Yet you persist in asserting I have said otherwise, or perhaps you are "spinning" my statements as is the SOP for P&N? No matter, I know you where you stand, despite your evidently having no clue where I do, or just having no respect for someone as passive and non-aggressive as I am?

Oh, trust me, I know where you stand. You don't think anybody has a right to use a gun to protect his property, only his life. I wholeheartledly disagree with your "passive" attitude.

You seem to think that the key to reducing theft is putting a better lock on your door, but I'm of the opinion that a good offense is the best defense and I don't feel sorry for a thief. You try and steal someone's $30,000 car don't come whining to me if he shoots your ass. Gee, did this guy turned the criminal into the victim? What a novel concept. I say good for him and I'd like to see more like him.

So put that in your non-aggressive pipe and smoke it. Hell, if someone shot GWB even though I know it's wrong, I'd have a hard time convincing myself he didn't do a public service.

Now about the anarchy. If the people in this country have reached the point where they are afraid of someone defending theie property, property that they worked hard and long for then I think some anarchy is in order. What you going to do about it, take my gun away? Since you seem to be afraid to defend your own property I don't think I'll lose any sleep over that possibility.

LOL Bill Mayers would love that rant!!
 

DAPUNISHER

Super Moderator CPU Forum Mod and Elite Member
Super Moderator
Aug 22, 2001
29,539
24,358
146
Take your gun away? Certainly not. I'm about as pro-gun as they come. I think you are bitter and fustrated because of all the theft you have suffered, and it has manifested itself in your posts.

Afraid? sure, sometimes, isn't everyone afraid at times, of something? Except the insane perhaps? But I prefer to consider myself civilized, in regards to what measures I'll take to stop someone from stealing my car. It isn't a capital crime IMO, and you would make it one, for all intents and purposes.

BTW, while they seem to steal everything that isn't bolted down on your farm, my property has suffered zero thefts. So, while you wouldn't lose sleep over my stuff getting ganked, you might want to spend some all nighters stand watch at the farm :p

 

1EZduzit

Lifer
Feb 4, 2002
11,833
1
0
Originally posted by: DAPUNISHER
Take your gun away? Certainly not. I'm about as pro-gun as they come. I think you are bitter and fustrated because of all the theft you have suffered, and it has manifested itself in your posts.

Afraid? sure, sometimes, isn't everyone afraid at times, of something? Except the insane perhaps? But I prefer to consider myself civilized, in regards to what measures I'll take to stop someone from stealing my car. It isn't a capital crime IMO, and you would make it one, for all intents and purposes.

BTW, while they seem to steal everything that isn't bolted down on your farm, my property has suffered zero thefts. So, while you wouldn't lose sleep over my stuff getting ganked, you might want to spend some all nighters stand watch at the farm :p

You think your as pro gun as they come? That's a hoot, by your own admission you weren't there and you don't know all the facts yet you are ready to send this person to jail for protecting his own property. How civilized of you.

You prefer to protect thieves rights over a property owners rights. This isn't a case of shop lifting, this is a $30,000 car. Around here you can buy a house for that. I'd like to see you living in a rural area (like my farm) where the nearest towns are 22 miles, 27 miles and 32 miles away. You can't even get cell phone coverage unless your on a hill with an external atennea. If you have trouble, your pretty much on your own.

Due to the nature of the business my property can be scattered over a 5 mile range and if I happen to catch someone messing with it, it's up to me to protect it. You seem to only care what works for you and want to look down your nose at people who aren't as fortunate. A bit short sighted of you IMO. Not everyone has the room to put all their property inside under lock and key and even if they did it may not be feasible for them to bring it all in and lock them up every night.

Me, I'll wait for ALL the facts to come in, but my gut feeling is this car meant a lot to this individual and that is why he protected it from three (3) (count 'em, three) scoundrels who would have stolen it from him.

And for the record, I've had things stolen that were bolted down AND locked up. I have no patience for theiving bastards and I only hope that if I do happen to catch one red-handed that he has the good sense to lay down and wait for the cops to arrive.
 

umbrella39

Lifer
Jun 11, 2004
13,816
1,126
126
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: DAPUNISHER
1EZduzit,

Testimonies like yours', definitely garner my sympathy. I also agree they have to be willing to except that their poor choices can ruin or end their lives too.

But I'm a bit philisophical about such things; if the law is that you don't use lethal force in defense of property, and you shoot and/or kiill someone, haven't you just become a criminal?

What about a person who has no way of protecting their property except by using a gun? Old people, crippled people, people like that? You can't just step out there and expect them to move on because you told them to. Not everybody lives in a city where they can call the cops and expect them to show up in 10 or 15 minutes. That just remeinded me of an email I got a couple of weeks ago. Here it is and it's "supposedly" true??
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HOW TO CALL THE POLICE WHEN YOU'RE OLD AND DONT MOVE FAST ANYMORE.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

George Phillips of Meridian, Mississippi was going up to bed when his wife told him that he'd left the light on in the garden shed, which she could see from the bedroom window. George opened the back door to go turn off the light but saw that there were people in the shed stealing things. He phoned the police, who asked "Is someone in your house?" and he said "no". Then they said that all patrols were busy, and that he should simply lock his door and an officer would be along when available. George said, "Okay," hung up, counted to 30, and phoned the police again. "Hello, I just called you a few seconds ago because there were people in my shed. Well, you don't have to worry about them now cause I've just shot them all." Then he hung up. Within five minutes three police cars, an armed Response unit, and an ambulance showed up at the Phillips' residence and caught the burglars red-handed. One of the Policemen
said to George: "I thought you said that you'd shot them!"


George said, "I thought you said there was nobody available!"
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Rationalizing or justifing it to ourselves, doesn't make us right, or law abiding citizens anymore, we broke the law, didn't we? Some say it is our right, perhaps in their area it is? But where this happened it seems that isn't the case. The old addage "2 wrongs do not make a right" springs to mind.

Feel the laws need changing? well most here are intelligent enough to know how to attempt that. However, declaring it is your right, if the law does not agree, won't give you a "get out of jail free card" either.

In your case, and being it is rural, you could probably just plant them as fertilizer and they would never be missed. :evil:

I guess my argument is that if you are in a position where you are being robbed you have the right to defend your property. If you are out numbered, old, crippled, or just a 98 pound weakling how do you do that?

Well, the safest way IMO would be to use a gun. Now that there is a gun invloved your life is at risk and I most defintely believe that I have the right to use whatever force neseccary to protect it, including shooting someone.

If it's your choice that it's not worth risking your life to protect your property, that's fine with me, don't risk it, but don't try and stop me from doing what I believe would be the right thing.

I don't know the details of this particular case. If he chased them down to shoot them then I disagree with his actions, but if he shoot the guy on his property because he was trying to steal his car then I say tough tittie to the guy who got shoot.

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

There just isn't a big enough agreement icon for this post.

LMAO. For the love of God please someone try and steal your car soon so you can shoot them and get this need of yours to kill someone off your chest and out into reality.
 

1EZduzit

Lifer
Feb 4, 2002
11,833
1
0
Originally posted by: umbrella39
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: DAPUNISHER
1EZduzit,

Testimonies like yours', definitely garner my sympathy. I also agree they have to be willing to except that their poor choices can ruin or end their lives too.

But I'm a bit philisophical about such things; if the law is that you don't use lethal force in defense of property, and you shoot and/or kiill someone, haven't you just become a criminal?

What about a person who has no way of protecting their property except by using a gun? Old people, crippled people, people like that? You can't just step out there and expect them to move on because you told them to. Not everybody lives in a city where they can call the cops and expect them to show up in 10 or 15 minutes. That just remeinded me of an email I got a couple of weeks ago. Here it is and it's "supposedly" true??
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HOW TO CALL THE POLICE WHEN YOU'RE OLD AND DONT MOVE FAST ANYMORE.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

George Phillips of Meridian, Mississippi was going up to bed when his wife told him that he'd left the light on in the garden shed, which she could see from the bedroom window. George opened the back door to go turn off the light but saw that there were people in the shed stealing things. He phoned the police, who asked "Is someone in your house?" and he said "no". Then they said that all patrols were busy, and that he should simply lock his door and an officer would be along when available. George said, "Okay," hung up, counted to 30, and phoned the police again. "Hello, I just called you a few seconds ago because there were people in my shed. Well, you don't have to worry about them now cause I've just shot them all." Then he hung up. Within five minutes three police cars, an armed Response unit, and an ambulance showed up at the Phillips' residence and caught the burglars red-handed. One of the Policemen
said to George: "I thought you said that you'd shot them!"


George said, "I thought you said there was nobody available!"
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Rationalizing or justifing it to ourselves, doesn't make us right, or law abiding citizens anymore, we broke the law, didn't we? Some say it is our right, perhaps in their area it is? But where this happened it seems that isn't the case. The old addage "2 wrongs do not make a right" springs to mind.

Feel the laws need changing? well most here are intelligent enough to know how to attempt that. However, declaring it is your right, if the law does not agree, won't give you a "get out of jail free card" either.

In your case, and being it is rural, you could probably just plant them as fertilizer and they would never be missed. :evil:

I guess my argument is that if you are in a position where you are being robbed you have the right to defend your property. If you are out numbered, old, crippled, or just a 98 pound weakling how do you do that?

Well, the safest way IMO would be to use a gun. Now that there is a gun invloved your life is at risk and I most defintely believe that I have the right to use whatever force neseccary to protect it, including shooting someone.

If it's your choice that it's not worth risking your life to protect your property, that's fine with me, don't risk it, but don't try and stop me from doing what I believe would be the right thing.

I don't know the details of this particular case. If he chased them down to shoot them then I disagree with his actions, but if he shoot the guy on his property because he was trying to steal his car then I say tough tittie to the guy who got shoot.

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

There just isn't a big enough agreement icon for this post.

LMAO. For the love of God please someone try and steal your car soon so you can shoot them and get this need of yours to kill someone off your chest and out into reality.

I dare you to try. :laugh:
 

umbrella39

Lifer
Jun 11, 2004
13,816
1,126
126
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: umbrella39
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: DAPUNISHER
1EZduzit,

Testimonies like yours', definitely garner my sympathy. I also agree they have to be willing to except that their poor choices can ruin or end their lives too.

But I'm a bit philisophical about such things; if the law is that you don't use lethal force in defense of property, and you shoot and/or kiill someone, haven't you just become a criminal?

What about a person who has no way of protecting their property except by using a gun? Old people, crippled people, people like that? You can't just step out there and expect them to move on because you told them to. Not everybody lives in a city where they can call the cops and expect them to show up in 10 or 15 minutes. That just remeinded me of an email I got a couple of weeks ago. Here it is and it's "supposedly" true??
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HOW TO CALL THE POLICE WHEN YOU'RE OLD AND DONT MOVE FAST ANYMORE.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

George Phillips of Meridian, Mississippi was going up to bed when his wife told him that he'd left the light on in the garden shed, which she could see from the bedroom window. George opened the back door to go turn off the light but saw that there were people in the shed stealing things. He phoned the police, who asked "Is someone in your house?" and he said "no". Then they said that all patrols were busy, and that he should simply lock his door and an officer would be along when available. George said, "Okay," hung up, counted to 30, and phoned the police again. "Hello, I just called you a few seconds ago because there were people in my shed. Well, you don't have to worry about them now cause I've just shot them all." Then he hung up. Within five minutes three police cars, an armed Response unit, and an ambulance showed up at the Phillips' residence and caught the burglars red-handed. One of the Policemen
said to George: "I thought you said that you'd shot them!"


George said, "I thought you said there was nobody available!"
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Rationalizing or justifing it to ourselves, doesn't make us right, or law abiding citizens anymore, we broke the law, didn't we? Some say it is our right, perhaps in their area it is? But where this happened it seems that isn't the case. The old addage "2 wrongs do not make a right" springs to mind.

Feel the laws need changing? well most here are intelligent enough to know how to attempt that. However, declaring it is your right, if the law does not agree, won't give you a "get out of jail free card" either.

In your case, and being it is rural, you could probably just plant them as fertilizer and they would never be missed. :evil:

I guess my argument is that if you are in a position where you are being robbed you have the right to defend your property. If you are out numbered, old, crippled, or just a 98 pound weakling how do you do that?

Well, the safest way IMO would be to use a gun. Now that there is a gun invloved your life is at risk and I most defintely believe that I have the right to use whatever force neseccary to protect it, including shooting someone.

If it's your choice that it's not worth risking your life to protect your property, that's fine with me, don't risk it, but don't try and stop me from doing what I believe would be the right thing.

I don't know the details of this particular case. If he chased them down to shoot them then I disagree with his actions, but if he shoot the guy on his property because he was trying to steal his car then I say tough tittie to the guy who got shoot.

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

There just isn't a big enough agreement icon for this post.

LMAO. For the love of God please someone try and steal your car soon so you can shoot them and get this need of yours to kill someone off your chest and out into reality.

I dare you to try. :laugh:

Where do you keep the keys? My training did not cover stealing cars! :laugh:
 

1EZduzit

Lifer
Feb 4, 2002
11,833
1
0
Originally posted by: umbrella39
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: umbrella39
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: DAPUNISHER
1EZduzit,

Testimonies like yours', definitely garner my sympathy. I also agree they have to be willing to except that their poor choices can ruin or end their lives too.

But I'm a bit philisophical about such things; if the law is that you don't use lethal force in defense of property, and you shoot and/or kiill someone, haven't you just become a criminal?

What about a person who has no way of protecting their property except by using a gun? Old people, crippled people, people like that? You can't just step out there and expect them to move on because you told them to. Not everybody lives in a city where they can call the cops and expect them to show up in 10 or 15 minutes. That just remeinded me of an email I got a couple of weeks ago. Here it is and it's "supposedly" true??
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HOW TO CALL THE POLICE WHEN YOU'RE OLD AND DONT MOVE FAST ANYMORE.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

George Phillips of Meridian, Mississippi was going up to bed when his wife told him that he'd left the light on in the garden shed, which she could see from the bedroom window. George opened the back door to go turn off the light but saw that there were people in the shed stealing things. He phoned the police, who asked "Is someone in your house?" and he said "no". Then they said that all patrols were busy, and that he should simply lock his door and an officer would be along when available. George said, "Okay," hung up, counted to 30, and phoned the police again. "Hello, I just called you a few seconds ago because there were people in my shed. Well, you don't have to worry about them now cause I've just shot them all." Then he hung up. Within five minutes three police cars, an armed Response unit, and an ambulance showed up at the Phillips' residence and caught the burglars red-handed. One of the Policemen
said to George: "I thought you said that you'd shot them!"


George said, "I thought you said there was nobody available!"
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Rationalizing or justifing it to ourselves, doesn't make us right, or law abiding citizens anymore, we broke the law, didn't we? Some say it is our right, perhaps in their area it is? But where this happened it seems that isn't the case. The old addage "2 wrongs do not make a right" springs to mind.

Feel the laws need changing? well most here are intelligent enough to know how to attempt that. However, declaring it is your right, if the law does not agree, won't give you a "get out of jail free card" either.

In your case, and being it is rural, you could probably just plant them as fertilizer and they would never be missed. :evil:

I guess my argument is that if you are in a position where you are being robbed you have the right to defend your property. If you are out numbered, old, crippled, or just a 98 pound weakling how do you do that?

Well, the safest way IMO would be to use a gun. Now that there is a gun invloved your life is at risk and I most defintely believe that I have the right to use whatever force neseccary to protect it, including shooting someone.

If it's your choice that it's not worth risking your life to protect your property, that's fine with me, don't risk it, but don't try and stop me from doing what I believe would be the right thing.

I don't know the details of this particular case. If he chased them down to shoot them then I disagree with his actions, but if he shoot the guy on his property because he was trying to steal his car then I say tough tittie to the guy who got shoot.

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

There just isn't a big enough agreement icon for this post.

LMAO. For the love of God please someone try and steal your car soon so you can shoot them and get this need of yours to kill someone off your chest and out into reality.

I dare you to try. :laugh:

Where do you keep the keys? My training did not cover stealing cars! :laugh:

Well, then your going to have a hard time trying to make me your victim, aren't you. And that is what this is about, rolling over and playing the victim as opposed to standing up for your rights.

I think most thieves are probably as motivavted by the high created thru vicitimizing someone as they are by making easy money. They're sick and they would spread their sickness to me if I let them.

If everyone just rolled over everytime a thief strikes what do you suppose would happen to civilization?
 

BoomerD

No Lifer
Feb 26, 2006
64,144
12,461
136
Calif. cities dominate insurers' list for auto theft
By Toni Locy, USA TODAY
California is the nation's stolen car capital, according to an insurance industry report to be released Tuesday.
Seven of the nation's Top 10 metropolitan areas with the highest auto theft rates for 2004 are in California. Five of those are in the Central Valley, the heart of the state's agriculture production and, increasingly, home to methamphetamine manufacturers and abusers, says William Ruzzamenti, director of the Central Valley High-Intensity Drug Trafficking Area program.

The Modesto metropolitan area tops the list for the second year in a row, says the National Insurance Crime Bureau, a non-profit fraud investigation service funded by insurance companies. The NICB analyzed data collected by the FBI for each of the nation's 336 metropolitan statistical areas.

Car theft dropped 2.6% nationally in 2004. The decrease comes after four years of rising auto theft figures, according to the NICB.

The group found that the number of vehicle thefts per 100,000 people increased in the Stockton-Lodi area of California, moving it into second place in 2004 from third in 2003.

Three other Central Valley communities dominate the NICB's 2004 Top 10: Sacramento in fifth place; Visalia-Tulare-Porterville in seventh place, up from 15th place in 2003; and Fresno in ninth place.

Elsewhere, Detroit dropped to 15th from 10th place, and Miami fell to 13th from 8th place in 2003.

Ruzzamenti says he does not have any data to prove the connection between methamphetamine and auto theft. But he says drug abuse fuels crime such as auto theft, and the high auto-theft rates are occurring in California communities where methamphetamine trafficking is prevalent. The High-Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas are designated by the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy.

TOP 10 HOT SPOTS FOR CAR THEFT
Seven of the country's 10 areas with the highest vehicle-theft rates are in California. The top 10 in 2004 and their 2003 rank:
2004 rank Area 2003 rank
1 Modesto, Calif. 1
2 Stockton-Lodi, Calif. 3
3 Las Vegas 4
4 Phoenix-Mesa 2
5 Sacramento 5
6 Oakland 7
7 Visalia-Tulare-Porterville, Calif. 15
8 San Diego 9
9 Fresno, Calif. 6
10 Seattle-Bellevue-Everett 11
Source: National Insurance Crime Bureau For more rankings, go to www.nicb.org


"In all of the communities where there is a significant meth problem, there is a significant auto theft problem," Ruzzamenti says. Thieves "grab the most common and easy thing that they know: They steal cars."

California Highway Patrol Lt. Jeff Morris agrees. In modest-income, agricultural areas such as Modesto, thieves favor cars manufactured in the late 1980s and 1990s, says Morris, who heads the Stanislaus County Auto Theft Task Force.

In the Modesto area, he says, 94% of the cars are recovered ? usually stripped of their stereos, wheels and whatever valuables were in the glove compartment.

"Most of them (car thieves) are not looking to take the car to a chop shop," Morris says. "They take the car around the corner, grab the change, take the stereo and the wheels and just let it go."

Morris says that the task force has had success using "bait" vehicles to catch car thieves, but the public needs to be more security-conscious about cars.

He says car thefts could be reduced significantly if people stopped leaving their keys in their cars and leaving their vehicles running while they make a quick stop at the store.

Morris says such habits are hard to break. "It's the small-town mentality," he says.

Another way to curb thefts is for motorists to install tracking devices, which emit a signal to police if a vehicle is stolen, the insurance bureau says.


I live in Modesto. My insurance rates are sky-high because of this...and the high number of un-insured, unlicenced (often illegal immigrant) drivers in the area.
The cops claim to have a good recovery rate, but as that article says, usually at least partially stripped.
As I said earlier, chasing the theives down the street and shooting them definitely puts this guy in the wrong. No two ways about it. I WOULD however support adding repeated theft to the list of capital crimes that carry the possiblity of the Death Penalty. Those who meet the standards of "career criminals" or "habitual criminals" are "sucking the life out of people" and law enforcement basically has their hands tied. Kahleeforneeya's "3 strikes" law is a good start, but maybe it should be changed to "3 strikes and you're dead"...
Quit giving the criminals more fvcking rights than the victims get...quit worrying about whether the death penalty is "painful" to the criminal, since they generally don't worry about whether they hurt their victims...
Kill em all...let Gawd sort it out...;)
 

umbrella39

Lifer
Jun 11, 2004
13,816
1,126
126
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: umbrella39
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: umbrella39
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: DAPUNISHER
1EZduzit,

Testimonies like yours', definitely garner my sympathy. I also agree they have to be willing to except that their poor choices can ruin or end their lives too.

But I'm a bit philisophical about such things; if the law is that you don't use lethal force in defense of property, and you shoot and/or kiill someone, haven't you just become a criminal?

What about a person who has no way of protecting their property except by using a gun? Old people, crippled people, people like that? You can't just step out there and expect them to move on because you told them to. Not everybody lives in a city where they can call the cops and expect them to show up in 10 or 15 minutes. That just remeinded me of an email I got a couple of weeks ago. Here it is and it's "supposedly" true??
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HOW TO CALL THE POLICE WHEN YOU'RE OLD AND DONT MOVE FAST ANYMORE.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

George Phillips of Meridian, Mississippi was going up to bed when his wife told him that he'd left the light on in the garden shed, which she could see from the bedroom window. George opened the back door to go turn off the light but saw that there were people in the shed stealing things. He phoned the police, who asked "Is someone in your house?" and he said "no". Then they said that all patrols were busy, and that he should simply lock his door and an officer would be along when available. George said, "Okay," hung up, counted to 30, and phoned the police again. "Hello, I just called you a few seconds ago because there were people in my shed. Well, you don't have to worry about them now cause I've just shot them all." Then he hung up. Within five minutes three police cars, an armed Response unit, and an ambulance showed up at the Phillips' residence and caught the burglars red-handed. One of the Policemen
said to George: "I thought you said that you'd shot them!"


George said, "I thought you said there was nobody available!"
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Rationalizing or justifing it to ourselves, doesn't make us right, or law abiding citizens anymore, we broke the law, didn't we? Some say it is our right, perhaps in their area it is? But where this happened it seems that isn't the case. The old addage "2 wrongs do not make a right" springs to mind.

Feel the laws need changing? well most here are intelligent enough to know how to attempt that. However, declaring it is your right, if the law does not agree, won't give you a "get out of jail free card" either.

In your case, and being it is rural, you could probably just plant them as fertilizer and they would never be missed. :evil:

I guess my argument is that if you are in a position where you are being robbed you have the right to defend your property. If you are out numbered, old, crippled, or just a 98 pound weakling how do you do that?

Well, the safest way IMO would be to use a gun. Now that there is a gun invloved your life is at risk and I most defintely believe that I have the right to use whatever force neseccary to protect it, including shooting someone.

If it's your choice that it's not worth risking your life to protect your property, that's fine with me, don't risk it, but don't try and stop me from doing what I believe would be the right thing.

I don't know the details of this particular case. If he chased them down to shoot them then I disagree with his actions, but if he shoot the guy on his property because he was trying to steal his car then I say tough tittie to the guy who got shoot.

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

There just isn't a big enough agreement icon for this post.

LMAO. For the love of God please someone try and steal your car soon so you can shoot them and get this need of yours to kill someone off your chest and out into reality.

I dare you to try. :laugh:

Where do you keep the keys? My training did not cover stealing cars! :laugh:

Well, then your going to have a hard time trying to make me your victim, aren't you. And that is what this is about, rolling over and playing the victim as opposed to standing up for your rights.

I think most thieves are probably as motivavted by the high created thru vicitimizing someone as they are by making easy money. They're sick and they would spread their sickness to me if I let them.

If everyone just rolled over everytime a thief strikes what do you suppose would happen to civilization?

Who the hell said this guy should roll over and play dead? Too much reading between the lines methinks. No one did.

He did what I think most of us would have done, save the shooting part. I have not heard any evidence yet (his trial will come) that these 3 teens threatened him nor that they gave him a just cause to open fire. As stated countless times in this thread, there are laws that make what the teens did illegal as well as laws that made what the shooter did illegal. They can all deal with the courts on this one.

Face it, the laws are never going to allow you to shoot someone for stealing your car as much as some posting here would seemingly like them to. Do you honestly think you are above the law on this matter? You are someone better/different than a police officer who can not use deadly force to prevent a theft.

Yeah, I really want some half-asleep asshole shooting up my block and potentially killing innocent people in their living rooms/berooms because his car is getting stolen.
 

1EZduzit

Lifer
Feb 4, 2002
11,833
1
0
Originally posted by: umbrella39
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: umbrella39
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: umbrella39
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: DAPUNISHER
1EZduzit,

Testimonies like yours', definitely garner my sympathy. I also agree they have to be willing to except that their poor choices can ruin or end their lives too.

But I'm a bit philisophical about such things; if the law is that you don't use lethal force in defense of property, and you shoot and/or kiill someone, haven't you just become a criminal?

What about a person who has no way of protecting their property except by using a gun? Old people, crippled people, people like that? You can't just step out there and expect them to move on because you told them to. Not everybody lives in a city where they can call the cops and expect them to show up in 10 or 15 minutes. That just remeinded me of an email I got a couple of weeks ago. Here it is and it's "supposedly" true??
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HOW TO CALL THE POLICE WHEN YOU'RE OLD AND DONT MOVE FAST ANYMORE.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

George Phillips of Meridian, Mississippi was going up to bed when his wife told him that he'd left the light on in the garden shed, which she could see from the bedroom window. George opened the back door to go turn off the light but saw that there were people in the shed stealing things. He phoned the police, who asked "Is someone in your house?" and he said "no". Then they said that all patrols were busy, and that he should simply lock his door and an officer would be along when available. George said, "Okay," hung up, counted to 30, and phoned the police again. "Hello, I just called you a few seconds ago because there were people in my shed. Well, you don't have to worry about them now cause I've just shot them all." Then he hung up. Within five minutes three police cars, an armed Response unit, and an ambulance showed up at the Phillips' residence and caught the burglars red-handed. One of the Policemen
said to George: "I thought you said that you'd shot them!"


George said, "I thought you said there was nobody available!"
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Rationalizing or justifing it to ourselves, doesn't make us right, or law abiding citizens anymore, we broke the law, didn't we? Some say it is our right, perhaps in their area it is? But where this happened it seems that isn't the case. The old addage "2 wrongs do not make a right" springs to mind.

Feel the laws need changing? well most here are intelligent enough to know how to attempt that. However, declaring it is your right, if the law does not agree, won't give you a "get out of jail free card" either.

In your case, and being it is rural, you could probably just plant them as fertilizer and they would never be missed. :evil:

I guess my argument is that if you are in a position where you are being robbed you have the right to defend your property. If you are out numbered, old, crippled, or just a 98 pound weakling how do you do that?

Well, the safest way IMO would be to use a gun. Now that there is a gun invloved your life is at risk and I most defintely believe that I have the right to use whatever force neseccary to protect it, including shooting someone.

If it's your choice that it's not worth risking your life to protect your property, that's fine with me, don't risk it, but don't try and stop me from doing what I believe would be the right thing.

I don't know the details of this particular case. If he chased them down to shoot them then I disagree with his actions, but if he shoot the guy on his property because he was trying to steal his car then I say tough tittie to the guy who got shoot.

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

There just isn't a big enough agreement icon for this post.

LMAO. For the love of God please someone try and steal your car soon so you can shoot them and get this need of yours to kill someone off your chest and out into reality.

I dare you to try. :laugh:

Where do you keep the keys? My training did not cover stealing cars! :laugh:

Well, then your going to have a hard time trying to make me your victim, aren't you. And that is what this is about, rolling over and playing the victim as opposed to standing up for your rights.

I think most thieves are probably as motivavted by the high created thru vicitimizing someone as they are by making easy money. They're sick and they would spread their sickness to me if I let them.

If everyone just rolled over everytime a thief strikes what do you suppose would happen to civilization?

Who the hell said this guy should roll over and play dead? Too much reading between the lines methinks. No one did.

He did what I think most of us would have done, save the shooting part. I have not heard any evidence yet (his trial will come) that these 3 teens threatened him nor that they gave him a just cause to open fire. As stated countless times in this thread, there are laws that make what the teens did illegal as well as laws that made what the shooter did illegal. They can all deal with the courts on this one. Face it, the laws are never going to allow you to shoot someone for stealing your car as much as you would seemingly like them to.

Who said I wanted to shoot them? That's something your reading between the lines.

Will someone kindly explain to me what to do when you attempt to stop a crime and the criminals ignore you? If I were CHuck Norris maybe I could just kick their azzes, but I'm not.

Out where I farm it would take an hour for any help to come to my aid. Do you not care about my property and my right/ability to defend it? Do you think the rights of someone caught in the act of stealing trump my right to protect my property?

Please, do tell me how am I supposed to be able to protect my property, ask the thieves to kindly cease and desist?
 

1EZduzit

Lifer
Feb 4, 2002
11,833
1
0
Originally posted by: umbrella39

Yeah, I really want some half-asleep asshole shooting up my block and potentially killing innocent people in their living rooms/berooms because his car is getting stolen.

LOL, so it would OK during the day?

Yeah, it would be much safer to let the police do a high speed chase for miles trying to stop these guys.
 

exdeath

Lifer
Jan 29, 2004
13,679
10
81
Originally posted by: umbrella39
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: umbrella39
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: umbrella39
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: DAPUNISHER
1EZduzit,

Testimonies like yours', definitely garner my sympathy. I also agree they have to be willing to except that their poor choices can ruin or end their lives too.

But I'm a bit philisophical about such things; if the law is that you don't use lethal force in defense of property, and you shoot and/or kiill someone, haven't you just become a criminal?

What about a person who has no way of protecting their property except by using a gun? Old people, crippled people, people like that? You can't just step out there and expect them to move on because you told them to. Not everybody lives in a city where they can call the cops and expect them to show up in 10 or 15 minutes. That just remeinded me of an email I got a couple of weeks ago. Here it is and it's "supposedly" true??
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HOW TO CALL THE POLICE WHEN YOU'RE OLD AND DONT MOVE FAST ANYMORE.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

George Phillips of Meridian, Mississippi was going up to bed when his wife told him that he'd left the light on in the garden shed, which she could see from the bedroom window. George opened the back door to go turn off the light but saw that there were people in the shed stealing things. He phoned the police, who asked "Is someone in your house?" and he said "no". Then they said that all patrols were busy, and that he should simply lock his door and an officer would be along when available. George said, "Okay," hung up, counted to 30, and phoned the police again. "Hello, I just called you a few seconds ago because there were people in my shed. Well, you don't have to worry about them now cause I've just shot them all." Then he hung up. Within five minutes three police cars, an armed Response unit, and an ambulance showed up at the Phillips' residence and caught the burglars red-handed. One of the Policemen
said to George: "I thought you said that you'd shot them!"


George said, "I thought you said there was nobody available!"
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Rationalizing or justifing it to ourselves, doesn't make us right, or law abiding citizens anymore, we broke the law, didn't we? Some say it is our right, perhaps in their area it is? But where this happened it seems that isn't the case. The old addage "2 wrongs do not make a right" springs to mind.

Feel the laws need changing? well most here are intelligent enough to know how to attempt that. However, declaring it is your right, if the law does not agree, won't give you a "get out of jail free card" either.

In your case, and being it is rural, you could probably just plant them as fertilizer and they would never be missed. :evil:

I guess my argument is that if you are in a position where you are being robbed you have the right to defend your property. If you are out numbered, old, crippled, or just a 98 pound weakling how do you do that?

Well, the safest way IMO would be to use a gun. Now that there is a gun invloved your life is at risk and I most defintely believe that I have the right to use whatever force neseccary to protect it, including shooting someone.

If it's your choice that it's not worth risking your life to protect your property, that's fine with me, don't risk it, but don't try and stop me from doing what I believe would be the right thing.

I don't know the details of this particular case. If he chased them down to shoot them then I disagree with his actions, but if he shoot the guy on his property because he was trying to steal his car then I say tough tittie to the guy who got shoot.

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

There just isn't a big enough agreement icon for this post.

LMAO. For the love of God please someone try and steal your car soon so you can shoot them and get this need of yours to kill someone off your chest and out into reality.

I dare you to try. :laugh:

Where do you keep the keys? My training did not cover stealing cars! :laugh:

Well, then your going to have a hard time trying to make me your victim, aren't you. And that is what this is about, rolling over and playing the victim as opposed to standing up for your rights.

I think most thieves are probably as motivavted by the high created thru vicitimizing someone as they are by making easy money. They're sick and they would spread their sickness to me if I let them.

If everyone just rolled over everytime a thief strikes what do you suppose would happen to civilization?

Who the hell said this guy should roll over and play dead? Too much reading between the lines methinks. No one did.

He did what I think most of us would have done, save the shooting part. I have not heard any evidence yet (his trial will come) that these 3 teens threatened him nor that they gave him a just cause to open fire. As stated countless times in this thread, there are laws that make what the teens did illegal as well as laws that made what the shooter did illegal. They can all deal with the courts on this one.

Face it, the laws are never going to allow you to shoot someone for stealing your car as much as some posting here would seemingly like them to. Do you honestly think you are above the law on this matter? You are someone better/different than a police officer who can not use deadly force to prevent a theft.

Yeah, I really want some half-asleep asshole shooting up my block and potentially killing innocent people in their living rooms/berooms because his car is getting stolen.

Repost from my earlier post, wanted your opinion:

Personally I would have walked outside and stood in the way of the vehicle, visibly armed and clearly showing no inhibitions to using it if neccessary. And I would shout that the police are already on their way (which they would be) as loud as I could to scare them, get attention of witnesses, etc, and that in the mean time they need to keep their hands clearly visible to me or I will assume they have weapons and open fire.

They can't take your car while you are standing in the way, and it's not unreasonable to stand where you want on your own property or use reasonable physical means to restrain someone from taking your property or grab them by the head and pull through through the car window.

If they try to remove you or threaten you death or bodily harm for being in the way, it becomes threat of force or kidnapping from private property and you shoot them.

If they try to steal the car anyway, the moment they put it into reverse with you standing behind it, it becomes assualt with a deadly weapon, and again, you can shoot them. It's the same reason police open fire on a stopped vehicle when it is surrounded by officers and the driver tries to start moving the car again.

You wouldn't be shooting them for stealing the car. You were using lawful and reasonable physical force on your own property to bar them from removing your property. Let the criminal choose if he is going to escalate from there, and you can deal with it appropriately. I'm all about giving them a chance to get away with their lives but nothing more. I will protect my property, without deadly force if possible. But if they persist and escalate the level of force required, I will match and exceed it, and I will be following the law every step of the way.

As for laws being allowed to shoot someone for stealing your car? No such thing and there never will be because it's barbaric. Pouncing on someone and removing them forcibly from your car, and then shooting them only because they tried to stab you with a knife or pulled a gun out of their pocket in the process?

Legal, because you shot the guy for threatening unlawful threat of deadly force against your legal physical force, not for trying to steal your car which you were legally defending with non deadly force until the guy pulled a knife and thereby escalating the situation to something entirely different. Acting in yours rights to defend yourself and your property while staying in the bounds of the law in situations involving deadly force is all about a little game of understanding the concept known as "escalation of force".

Basically you put the criminal in a position where he is forced to decide the outcome for himself under the pretext that he will not win no matter what. At the very least, he will be walking away without your car. At the most he will be dead for trying to harm you. Being the criminal, any escalation of force on his part is automatically unlawful, while your matching of that force is entirely legal. Let the criminal decide how far he is going to take it while breaking no laws yourself.

The law says you can defend yourself, and there are ways to protect even your property as described above, and come out clean legally. Whether or not you would take it that far yourself and actually let the criminal escalate it to the point of shooting him is an individual moral choice that you are left to make for youself, just the way it should be.

In Arizona we just signed a bill known as the Castle Doctrine into law in 2006. This law states that you are acting reasonably in using physical force or deadly force, with no obligation to retreat, if someone unlawfully and forcibly enters your home or vehicle or tries to remove you from your home or vehicle against your will. It also protects the person who defended himself from civil liability and puts the burden of proof that you were not acting reasonably on the state.

 

umbrella39

Lifer
Jun 11, 2004
13,816
1,126
126
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: umbrella39

Yeah, I really want some half-asleep asshole shooting up my block and potentially killing innocent people in their living rooms/berooms because his car is getting stolen.

LOL, so it would OK during the day?

Yeah, it would be much safer to let the police do a high speed chase for miles trying to stop these guys.

I don't agree with high speed chases either. Seldom do the chaser or the chased get killed, it is usually Joe Soccer Dad and his kids parked at a red light.
 

umbrella39

Lifer
Jun 11, 2004
13,816
1,126
126
@ exdeath, I have no problems with that concept. As long as there is a threat upon yours or someone else's for that matter's life, I would not vote guilty if I were on that jury. Hopefully, simply showing your weapon and your intent to use it would be enough to scare off most would-be theives, but if you put them in a position where they have to make a choice, run off or run you over, then by all means, fire away.
 

1EZduzit

Lifer
Feb 4, 2002
11,833
1
0
Originally posted by: umbrella39
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: umbrella39

Yeah, I really want some half-asleep asshole shooting up my block and potentially killing innocent people in their living rooms/berooms because his car is getting stolen.

LOL, so it would OK during the day?

Yeah, it would be much safer to let the police do a high speed chase for miles trying to stop these guys.

I don't agree with high speed chases either. Seldom do the chaser or the chased get killed, it is usually Joe Soccer Dad and his kids parked at a red light.

Yet letting them escape opens the door for a high speed chase and the possible deaths of innocents or letting them steal again. I notice the two caught are now up for parole violations. I wonder for what, any guesses??

I don't think someone can just walk up and shoot someone who you catch in the process of stealing, but what do you do if they don't comply to a request to cease and desist, even though you have a gun pointed at them? If at that point they are so stupid as to continue and try to steal from you then why should you have to put your life in jepoardy before you have the right to shoot them. Only a crazy person would ignore someone with a gun pointing at them, someone they are in the process of stealing from. To me, at that point I would be afraid of them to the point that I was afraid for my life.