Man charged with manslaughter for killing the twerp who stole his car

[gopunk]

You and MichaelD are exhibitng terrible symptoms of "it can't happen to me"'ism.
Hypothetically, if one of his shots HAD killed your loved one on a ricochet let's say. Would you be outraged? Would you want him punished?
Here's the story I always think of when I hear incident's of this nature.

----------------------
When the powerful hunting rifle was aimed out the window of 141 Elm St. on Monday afternoon, young Ami Guzman was out of sight, two blocks away in her parents' bedroom, watching a Winnie the Pooh video.

Seconds later the toddler was dying, the victim of a shooting in which a bullet's freakish path took it through a metal sign, into her apartment and through a headboard before striking the girl.

And while no one has suggested Ami Guzman was an intended target, the man accused of firing the rifle was charged by police with second-degree murder, under a legal theory that his action was so reckless that it showed a depraved indifference to human life. If convicted, Kashawn Jones would face up to 25 years to life in state prison ? the same penalty as if he had intentionally shot Ami.

-----------------------

What if it were your daughter? or mother? What if the thief was your son? Killed by a policeman is one thing, but what if YOU, god forbid, are in the wrong place at the wrong time and someone decides the defense of thier property is at stake?

Legal actions set precedents. It is necessary to consider that.

you are right... i would be pretty pissed off and outraged. but we have laws for reckless endangerment. i think it is wrong for us to have this system where we can make criminals out to be victims. the only victims here are the guy and the public. however, the car thief is being treated like a victim, which he is not. the guy should get punished for endangering the public, and nothing more imo.

and this is an issue of treating the criminal like a victim. if this guy had followed the criminal back to the criminals house, knocked the door down and shot the criminal point blank, do you think he would get away scot free? i don't think so.

and my son would not be the thief, because he would not be an idiot.

 

[waynephinney]

reminds me of the woman who had a granddaughter who was raped and in response went out and shot the men's balls off. Wonder if anything ever happened to her?

 

[MichaelD]

Oh, I know it can happen to me, believe me, I know. I'm not ignorant, nor blind.

It's never happened to me *knocks on wooden desk* but I can say that I most probably would not be calling for "the chair" or something if a loved one did get shot due to this guy firing at some piece of sh1t that stole the car right out from in front of his house. There's plenty of humans on this earth; we won't suffer b/c we lost one that "could have possibly been rehabilitated and become a productive member of society." <--I hate that "elect me, I'm great" P.C. bvllshit. :|

 

[fatbaby]

well, to be honest, if i went out and stole a car and then its owner comes after me in another car and trys to take me out wrecklessly (gta style) and kills me, i'd be pretty pissed off too

 

[Moonbeam]

The law favors life over porperty. What a concept. I see we're still being screwed over by liberals.

 

[tcsenter]

Fredrick T. Sims, 33, grabbed a gun after family members told him someone was stealing the car outside their house, then pursued the driver for several blocks and fired three rounds. The boy, Carl R. James, died at Tacoma General Hospital Monday, two days after the shooting.

As much as I enjoy, indeed I celebrate, seeing the tax-payers saved the expense of prosecuting and incarcerating a bad guy, by a gun-toting citizen in an act of legitimate self-defense, I cannot agree with this guy's actions. I have no problem with defending your home and property if one's safety is in peril, but at the moment this kid got the car on the road and began speeding away, the owner lost the nexus to self-defense.

I believe 1st degree manslaughter is a reasonable charge as opposed to murder given the mitigating factors involved, but this guy needs to spend a couple years behind bars.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Boo hoo for the shooter - that's what happens when you shoot at a fleeing non-violent offender and are lucky enough to hit him. I would probably have charged this as second-degree murder and let him persuade the jury that the shooting was not deliberate, since I find it hard to believe that he thought he would immobilize the car by shooting at it, without hitting the driver. My common sense tells me that he accomplished exactly what he intended (i.e., to shoot the thief).

 

manslaughter is going light. They probably could have charged him with murder.

 

[Agaemon]

So what people are saying is, if someone comes up to your house, and steals your lawn chair, and quickly carries it down the street, then you have the right to chase them and shoot them? No, that doesn't make sense. Regardless of criminal his criminal behavior or not, a man is dead because he stole a car. If that is something worth dying over, then all crimes, equal to or greater than stealing a car, should result in a death sentence. That is just insance.

 

[wfbberzerker]

from the article:

While the use of force to protect personal property is legal under some circumstances, using deadly force to retrieve personal property is not, Costello said.

i think its clear that the man was protecting his property, not retrieving it. if he had gone guns blazing the next day to the kids house to get his car back, that would have been a different story.

 

[xuanman]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
The law favors life over porperty. What a concept. I see we're still being screwed over by liberals.

unfortunately for moonbeam haters, this isn't even a liberal/treehugging/whatever issue. it's the LAW. what a concept: life is more valuable than property. the prosecutors are going light by only trying him for manslaughter.

 

[tcsenter]

The law favors life over porperty. What a concept. I see we're still being screwed over by liberals.

Well...not really. The law favors the victim over the criminal, at least it should, anyhow. That things didn't turn-out favorably for the criminal because his victim turned the tables on him does NOT make the criminal a 'victim'. This could have all been avoided in the first place had a 15 year-old punk decided to earn his money the hard way like everyone else. Unless you feel the property owner has committed some 'first wrong' merely by having the nerve to own property, as though we must tolerate being plundered and victimized because we have material possessions?

 

[b0mbrman]

Wow, this really is an interesting topic for discussion...

 

[SuperTool]

Just cus someone stole your car, doesn't give you the right to kill them. This is not the wild west. We have laws.

 

[b0mbrman]

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Just cus someone stole your car, doesn't give you the right to kill them. This is not the wild west. We have laws.

Not picking a side but...what would you say if this man shot off his rounds to stop a different type of crime? For example, rape? Assuming of course that the law also doesn't give someone the right to kill an in-act rapist...

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: b0mbrman

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Just cus someone stole your car, doesn't give you the right to kill them. This is not the wild west. We have laws.

Not picking a side but...what would you say if this man shot off his rounds to stop a different type of crime? For example, rape? Assuming of course that the law also doesn't give someone the right to kill an in-act rapist...

I'm not sure, but I would think the law would give you that right.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: b0mbrman

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Just cus someone stole your car, doesn't give you the right to kill them. This is not the wild west. We have laws.

Not picking a side but...what would you say if this man shot off his rounds to stop a different type of crime? For example, rape? Assuming of course that the law also doesn't give someone the right to kill an in-act rapist...

I would say that was totally different. Rape is a violent crime, and has a victim who suffers tremendously. I have had a car (a brand-new Integra GS-R sedan, in fact) stolen and totalled - it was honestly not that big a deal. Even if I could have killed the thief with impunity, I never would have, because I would not ever feel right about it. A car is a car is a car.

On the other hand, I was once mugged at knifepoint, and in the heat of the moment I might have done almost anything. While I am glad I was not armed and did not shoot him, I was so angry and upset by the robbery that, at least for a while, I sincerely wanted to kill the robber. I know if I had to shoot someone to prevent a loved one from being raped or killed, I could and would do it in a heartbeat.

 

[d33pt]

that's a hard call on this one... i agree this man should be punished because what he did was very dangerous and reckless, but i dont think he should get 6 years.. maybe 1 or 2...

 

[xuanman]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

The law favors life over porperty. What a concept. I see we're still being screwed over by liberals.

Well...not really. The law favors the victim over the criminal, at least it should, anyhow. That things didn't turn-out favorably for the criminal because his victim turned the tables on him does NOT make the criminal a 'victim'. This could have all been avoided in the first place had a 15 year-old punk decided to earn his money the hard way like everyone else. Unless you feel the property owner has committed some 'first wrong' merely by having the nerve to own property, as though we must tolerate being plundered and victimized because we have material possessions?

actually, yes really. the 15 year old kid committed the common law torts of trespass to chattels and conversion, not to mention various criminal offenses. the individual who had his car stolen can use force to regain his chattel only to a reasaonable extent but CANNOT use wounding or deadly force to recapture his chattel. the fundamental public policy argument behind these principles of tort and criminal law is that life > property...unless you have some better explanation for the controlling legal principles of our country.

 

[gopunk]

Originally posted by: Don_Vito

Originally posted by: b0mbrman

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Just cus someone stole your car, doesn't give you the right to kill them. This is not the wild west. We have laws.

Not picking a side but...what would you say if this man shot off his rounds to stop a different type of crime? For example, rape? Assuming of course that the law also doesn't give someone the right to kill an in-act rapist...

I would say that was totally different. Rape is a violent crime, and has a victim who suffers tremendously. I have had a car (a brand-new Integra GS-R sedan, in fact) stolen and totalled - it was honestly not that big a deal. Even if I could have killed the thief with impunity, I never would have, because I would not ever feel right about it. A car is a car is a car.

On the other hand, I was once mugged at knifepoint, and in the heat of the moment I might have done almost anything. While I am glad I was not armed and did not shoot him, I was so angry and upset by the robbery that, at least for a while, I sincerely wanted to kill the robber. I know if I had to shoot someone to prevent a loved one from being raped or killed, I could and would do it in a heartbeat.

a car is a car is a car... for you. but who's to say a car can not have sentimental value to someone else? perhaps it was given to him by his late father or something. emotionally, there is nothing to say that he would not have suffered tremendously.

 

[gopunk]

Originally posted by: Agaemon
So what people are saying is, if someone comes up to your house, and steals your lawn chair, and quickly carries it down the street, then you have the right to chase them and shoot them? No, that doesn't make sense. Regardless of criminal his criminal behavior or not, a man is dead because he stole a car. If that is something worth dying over, then all crimes, equal to or greater than stealing a car, should result in a death sentence. That is just insance.

shooting has one purpose: to stop them. if they are already caught, i see no reason why we should sentence them to death. but i also don't see anything wrong with using any means necessary to stop them. why shouldn't you be able to? if you gave me a choice between my car and the life of some scumbag who terrorizes innocent civilians, i'll take my car any day.

 

[xuanman]

Originally posted by: gopunk

Originally posted by: Agaemon
So what people are saying is, if someone comes up to your house, and steals your lawn chair, and quickly carries it down the street, then you have the right to chase them and shoot them? No, that doesn't make sense. Regardless of criminal his criminal behavior or not, a man is dead because he stole a car. If that is something worth dying over, then all crimes, equal to or greater than stealing a car, should result in a death sentence. That is just insance.

shooting has one purpose: to stop them. if they are already caught, i see no reason why we should sentence them to death. but i also don't see anything wrong with using any means necessary to stop them. why shouldn't you be able to? if you gave me a choice between my car and the life of some scumbag who terrorizes innocent civilians, i'll take my car any day.

because it is against the law.

 

[gopunk]

Originally posted by: xuanman

Originally posted by: gopunk

Originally posted by: Agaemon
So what people are saying is, if someone comes up to your house, and steals your lawn chair, and quickly carries it down the street, then you have the right to chase them and shoot them? No, that doesn't make sense. Regardless of criminal his criminal behavior or not, a man is dead because he stole a car. If that is something worth dying over, then all crimes, equal to or greater than stealing a car, should result in a death sentence. That is just insance.

shooting has one purpose: to stop them. if they are already caught, i see no reason why we should sentence them to death. but i also don't see anything wrong with using any means necessary to stop them. why shouldn't you be able to? if you gave me a choice between my car and the life of some scumbag who terrorizes innocent civilians, i'll take my car any day.

because it is against the law.

the law does not dictate what is wrong or what is right, it *should* be the other way around.

 

[xuanman]

Originally posted by: gopunk

Originally posted by: xuanman

Originally posted by: gopunk

Originally posted by: Agaemon
So what people are saying is, if someone comes up to your house, and steals your lawn chair, and quickly carries it down the street, then you have the right to chase them and shoot them? No, that doesn't make sense. Regardless of criminal his criminal behavior or not, a man is dead because he stole a car. If that is something worth dying over, then all crimes, equal to or greater than stealing a car, should result in a death sentence. That is just insance.

shooting has one purpose: to stop them. if they are already caught, i see no reason why we should sentence them to death. but i also don't see anything wrong with using any means necessary to stop them. why shouldn't you be able to? if you gave me a choice between my car and the life of some scumbag who terrorizes innocent civilians, i'll take my car any day.

because it is against the law.

the law does not dictate what is wrong or what is right, it *should* be the other way around.

that's fine. write your local legislators and try to get the law changed in your jurisdiction. good luck overturning 300 years of legal history.

 

[Gaard]

Is your car at the bottom of the list? IOW, what else can be stolen from you where you think using any means necessary to get it back is ok? Your bicycle? How about your stereo or TV? Your watch? Shoes?
See what I'm getting at? Where's the line drawn at?