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

[VFAA]

Originally posted by: MichaelD
That's a crying shame. They should be honoring him at a dinner gala in his honor. He cleansed the gene pool.

Wait...what's that? I hear whining from the Happy/Christian/Pro-life/Anti-gun/Tree hugging crowd....

[whine]Oh, so, MichaelD; you're saying that this man's car was worth MORE than that young mans' life? [/whine]

Yes, exactly correct!! See? We all CAN get along.

If you take out the "Christian" part, I'll agree with you...

 

[tcsenter]

Holy cow, this thread is still has the dry heaves, eh? Well, here's another incident everyone can agree on (except probably for a couple insignificant people), although I can't find a link to it, I saw it on the local news.

KCRA Channel 3 (Sacramento/Stockton) reported tonight on their 6p and 11p news a local convenience store owner shooting dead an armed robber in the store. The news showed the owner handcuffed and being put in the patrol car (pretty standard in California), the robber being worked on by EMS. He was pronounced DOA at the hospital. SCORE!

Police confirmed the robber did use a firearm when robbing the store, one was found at the scene. What is interesting is how the news anchor (in the field) reported the shooting. In an almost sympathetic tone, as though she were reporting that a family was killed in a car accident, she stated the robber "never had a chance to get away, he was shot dead during the robbery."

I almost fell out of my chair! "Never had a chance to get away"? I've seen many reports of criminals being shot in self-defense, in fact I've been documenting these incidents for a few years now, I've never quite heard it put that way before.

Is that the "desired outcome" here in California? For the robber to hold-up someone at gunpoint...and get away with it? Is he 'supposed' to be given an opportunity to complete his crime and get away? Outrageous!

This guy may have prevented his own murder, employees are often shot or murdered without posing resistance or provocation during robberies. Why would it not be the robber "never had a chance to kill anyone" because he was shot dead? Criminals who use guns during the commission of their crimes intend to use them or they wouldn't have a gun in the first place.

It is interesting, I have checked the KCRA website four times since 6pm yesterday, and nary a word about this story can be found. Maybe the newspaper will have a write-up.

 

[KK]

Originally posted by: tcsenter
Holy cow, this thread is still has the dry heaves, eh? Well, here's another incident everyone can agree on (except probably for a couple insignificant people), although I can't find a link to it, I saw it on the local news.

KCRA Channel 3 (Sacramento/Stockton) reported tonight on their 6p and 11p news a local convenience store owner shooting dead an armed robber in the store. The news showed the owner handcuffed and being put in the patrol car (pretty standard in California), the robber being worked on by EMS. He was pronounced DOA at the hospital. SCORE!

Police confirmed the robber did use a firearm when robbing the store, one was found at the scene. What is interesting is how the news anchor (in the field) reported the shooting. In an almost sympathetic tone, as though she were reporting that a family was killed in a car accident, she stated the robber "never had a chance to get away, he was shot dead during the robbery."

I almost fell out of my chair! "Never had a chance to get away"? I've seen many reports of criminals being shot in self-defense, in fact I've been documenting these incidents for a few years now, I've never quite heard it put that way before.

Is that the "desired outcome" here in California? For the robber to hold-up someone at gunpoint...and get away with it? Is he 'supposed' to be given an opportunity to complete his crime and get away? Outrageous!

This guy may have prevented his own murder, employees are often shot or murdered without posing resistance or provocation during robberies. Why would it not be the robber "never had a chance to kill anyone" because he was shot dead? Criminals who use guns during the commission of their crimes intend to use them or they wouldn't have a gun in the first place.

It is interesting, I have checked the KCRA website four times since 6pm yesterday, and nary a word about this story can be found. Maybe the newspaper will have a write-up.

Well, I hope the cuffs were taken off shortly after they cleared the owner of any wrong doing.

KK

 

[dabuddha]

Originally posted by: KK

Originally posted by: tcsenter
Holy cow, this thread is still has the dry heaves, eh? Well, here's another incident everyone can agree on (except probably for a couple insignificant people), although I can't find a link to it, I saw it on the local news.

KCRA Channel 3 (Sacramento/Stockton) reported tonight on their 6p and 11p news a local convenience store owner shooting dead an armed robber in the store. The news showed the owner handcuffed and being put in the patrol car (pretty standard in California), the robber being worked on by EMS. He was pronounced DOA at the hospital. SCORE!

Police confirmed the robber did use a firearm when robbing the store, one was found at the scene. What is interesting is how the news anchor (in the field) reported the shooting. In an almost sympathetic tone, as though she were reporting that a family was killed in a car accident, she stated the robber "never had a chance to get away, he was shot dead during the robbery."

I almost fell out of my chair! "Never had a chance to get away"? I've seen many reports of criminals being shot in self-defense, in fact I've been documenting these incidents for a few years now, I've never quite heard it put that way before.

Is that the "desired outcome" here in California? For the robber to hold-up someone at gunpoint...and get away with it? Is he 'supposed' to be given an opportunity to complete his crime and get away? Outrageous!

This guy may have prevented his own murder, employees are often shot or murdered without posing resistance or provocation during robberies. Why would it not be the robber "never had a chance to kill anyone" because he was shot dead? Criminals who use guns during the commission of their crimes intend to use them or they wouldn't have a gun in the first place.

It is interesting, I have checked the KCRA website four times since 6pm yesterday, and nary a word about this story can be found. Maybe the newspaper will have a write-up.

Well, I hope the cuffs were taken off shortly after they cleared the owner of any wrong doing.

KK

amen to that. give that man a medal for protecting whats his and standing up to wrong doing

 

[tcsenter]

Well, I hope the cuffs were taken off shortly after they cleared the owner of any wrong doing.

I suspect he did not even spend the night in jail, although its possible. Even the most antigun prosecutors who oppose your right to protect yourself hate to put something like this before a jury because they know damned well the chances of acquittal are extremely good, if it even makes it passed a judge, and they care more about their record than their principles. Some times they get a real bug up their ass and try to argue 'vigilantism' or some other heap of steaming dung, as they tried (unsuccessfully) when prosecuting Bernie Geotz in New York City.

Unfortunately, when ever any person is put on trial, there is a risk that you'll get an unusually stupid representation of the public as your jury and be convicted. Look what happened to that elderly man in England who shot two robbers in HIS OWN HOME. Convicted of murder (later reduced on appeal).

NEVER give a statement to the police without your attorney - EVAR. You give them your vital info; name, age, address, etc. If they ask what happened, state "I was defending myself, I thought he was going to kill me." Say that more than once. Several times, preferrably.

If they try to get you to make more in depth statements, politely (always be polite!) refuse to answer any questions without your lawyer present. Request a lawyer the first moment they try to interrogate you beyond your name, rank, serial number, etc.

As much as I respect the difficult, dangerous, and thankless job we as a society ask of our law enforcement officers, I do not trust law enforcement one bit. There are far too many examples of innocent people getting ramrodded and shafted because they held the misconception that 'innocent people cooperate' while 'guilty people lawyer-up'.

In their zeal to cooperate because they believe they have nothing to hide or fear, incompetent or unscrupulous investigators - and there are many - are manipulating them into giving statements that can be construed as damning and used against them in court.

 

[NikPreviousAcct]

Menacing and threatening personal harm, the thief in that story is quite a bit different than a kid driving away with a car. Nobody said anything about an armed thief coming at you. That story is too different to provide an example.

 

[Maetryx]

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

But if a baby is financially inconvenient, we can go ahead and kill those. Because some lives are more equal than others.

 

[Spagina]

Originally posted by: MacBaine

Originally posted by: imtim83
I don't think its right what the man did. You should never kill someone who stole something from you. You should call the police and get him arrested.

Well, in the 10% chance that they catch him, he'll get off easily like he did the first time, and keep committing crimes because he has no reason not to. Now, if this kid had a buddy int he same business, and he saw what happened, then maybe he'd reform double-time.

Very true. I don't believe in the death penalty for car theft, but I do believe that you have to deal with the consequences of your actions. 2 years ago my father's pickup was stolen while he was at a Post Office. The person that stole it almost stripped it completely clean, luckily enough the kid was a moron and he drove what was left of the pickup around and the police were easily able to pick it out as it was the only pickup driving around the city missing all of it's bumpers, mirrors, and chrome. Now here is where it gets good. For the next year this a$$hole kid and his attorney stalls the trials. The kid lied about his age, he told the court he was 15 years old. After he escaped they found out he was 19. My father went to court 9 times before the damn justice system let the theif go and he escaped. Now the sheriff's office has no clue where the kid is at, they declared him a fugitive and told my father to call the police if he ever came in contact with the kid again (like that is going to happen). Justice wasn't served one bit and I guarantee that this kid will steal again. This is how the justice system works in America now. There is more leeway and concern for the criminal than there are for the victims of the crime. How did our system get flipped 180 like this? I feel no sympathy for the criminal that was killed, he was responsible for stealing the car, it was his own fault that he ended up dead.

 

[NikPreviousAcct]

Originally posted by: Maetryx

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

But if a baby is financially inconvenient, we can go ahead and kill those. Because some lives are more equal than others.

I don't agree. You can probably guess that I'm against abortion.

 

[Siddhartha]

Nevermind

 

[misterj]

you just dont touch a mans car.

 

[thomsbrain]

Originally posted by: SuperTool
He chased down the kid and killed him. It wasn't self defense. This guy should be charged with murder, not manslaughter.

right. people don't deserve to die for stealing cars. especially a fricking pontiac.

 

[alkemyst]

I am sick and tired of all this defending criminal crap. If someone breaks into your car, house, takes your bag, etc I feel you should be able to kill them dead on the spot. If someone threatens you verbally I think you should be able to kill them too. So much of this crap going on and armchair tough guys. The other day my g/f pulled someone over that totally cut her off, the lady goes ballistic and totally bruised up my g/f's arm...the police can't do anything since 'technically' my g/f stopped the other woman...if it were me the scenario would have ended differently.

So far twice I have been 'in trouble' when someone else started things with me or my friends. Society says you have to wait to be shot at before you shoot back....to me that is b/s since that first shot can be the one that ends it for you...I like the old west style laws, if you can't back it up keep your mouth shut.

:/

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: dabuddha

Originally posted by: KK

Originally posted by: tcsenter
Holy cow, this thread is still has the dry heaves, eh? Well, here's another incident everyone can agree on (except probably for a couple insignificant people), although I can't find a link to it, I saw it on the local news.

KCRA Channel 3 (Sacramento/Stockton) reported tonight on their 6p and 11p news a local convenience store owner shooting dead an armed robber in the store. The news showed the owner handcuffed and being put in the patrol car (pretty standard in California), the robber being worked on by EMS. He was pronounced DOA at the hospital. SCORE!

Police confirmed the robber did use a firearm when robbing the store, one was found at the scene. What is interesting is how the news anchor (in the field) reported the shooting. In an almost sympathetic tone, as though she were reporting that a family was killed in a car accident, she stated the robber "never had a chance to get away, he was shot dead during the robbery."

I almost fell out of my chair! "Never had a chance to get away"? I've seen many reports of criminals being shot in self-defense, in fact I've been documenting these incidents for a few years now, I've never quite heard it put that way before.

Is that the "desired outcome" here in California? For the robber to hold-up someone at gunpoint...and get away with it? Is he 'supposed' to be given an opportunity to complete his crime and get away? Outrageous!

This guy may have prevented his own murder, employees are often shot or murdered without posing resistance or provocation during robberies. Why would it not be the robber "never had a chance to kill anyone" because he was shot dead? Criminals who use guns during the commission of their crimes intend to use them or they wouldn't have a gun in the first place.

It is interesting, I have checked the KCRA website four times since 6pm yesterday, and nary a word about this story can be found. Maybe the newspaper will have a write-up.

Well, I hope the cuffs were taken off shortly after they cleared the owner of any wrong doing.

KK

amen to that. give that man a medal for protecting whats his and standing up to wrong doing

Is there any update to this TCsenter? I hope that store owner was let go with no charges and home to his family.
Glad to see we agree on another thing TCsenter. I sincerly hope that "Newsreporter" was fired as she should not be in that line of work with that kind of whacky emotions dictating what she says and believes

 

[SCSIfreek]

Originally posted by: thomsbrain

Originally posted by: SuperTool
He chased down the kid and killed him. It wasn't self defense. This guy should be charged with murder, not manslaughter.

right. people don't deserve to die for stealing cars. especially a fricking pontiac.

I dont care if its a BMX bike. The damn car don't belong to you. Touch it and you shall pay with whateva you have. No money? pay it with your freakin life . Good for that scumbag who took the car.


--Scsi

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: alkemyst
I am sick and tired of all this defending criminal crap. If someone breaks into your car, house, takes your bag, etc I feel you should be able to kill them dead on the spot. If someone threatens you verbally I think you should be able to kill them too. So much of this crap going on and armchair tough guys. The other day my g/f pulled someone over that totally cut her off, the lady goes ballistic and totally bruised up my g/f's arm...the police can't do anything since 'technically' my g/f stopped the other woman...if it were me the scenario would have ended differently.

So far twice I have been 'in trouble' when someone else started things with me or my friends. Society says you have to wait to be shot at before you shoot back....to me that is b/s since that first shot can be the one that ends it for you...I like the old west style laws, if you can't back it up keep your mouth shut.

:/

What a bunch of crap. There's no way...NO WAY...anybody could possibly believe this crap. Logic tells me, then, that you just want to push a few buttons and rile some people up. Go away.

 

[ReiAyanami]

if the 15 year olf career thief had a gun, how long do u think it would be before he shot u. or run somebody over.

 

[classy]

Originally posted by: alkemyst
I am sick and tired of all this defending criminal crap. If someone breaks into your car, house, takes your bag, etc I feel you should be able to kill them dead on the spot. If someone threatens you verbally I think you should be able to kill them too. So much of this crap going on and armchair tough guys. The other day my g/f pulled someone over that totally cut her off, the lady goes ballistic and totally bruised up my g/f's arm...the police can't do anything since 'technically' my g/f stopped the other woman...if it were me the scenario would have ended differently.

So far twice I have been 'in trouble' when someone else started things with me or my friends. Society says you have to wait to be shot at before you shoot back....to me that is b/s since that first shot can be the one that ends it for you...I like the old west style laws, if you can't back it up keep your mouth shut.

:/

OK

 

[classy]

Originally posted by: ReiAyanami
if the 15 year olf career thief had a gun, how long do u think it would be before he shot u. or run somebody over.

What if? What if? What if? What if you dealt with the facts as they happened? Did you ever consider that what if?

 

[PTCvette]

Man, that's just sad. If I had a 1985 Pontiac, I don't think I would be that protective of it!!!! I don't think he deserves to be charged with manslaughter, but maybe some sort of criminal stupidity or something.... At least he's looking a a lesser charge and not death or something. 6-8 years behind bars would actually end up being more like 2 or so IMO.

-Jeff