Worst Experience Ever

[0roo0roo]

yup these situations require insurance before the incident. only then can they verify/police reports that let them help you out. otherwise they are not obligated to take your word for it. there should be no expectation that they should anyways. you got mugged. thats not on them.

 

[totalcommand]

Originally posted by: 88MVP

Originally posted by: sourceninja
It's all in the training. In my state I can protect my property. So I would pull my pistol in a movement that looks exactly like grabbing my wallet and shoot the bastard. Failing that, I'd probably be pissed off enough to shoot him as he ran away after giving him my wallet and phone. The law in my state is obscure enough that it might actually be legal as long as my property is on him.

But I'm not suggesting everyone carry. It requires dedication and training to effectively use a weapon. Most people won't do that, and thus are putting themselves at more risk.

This is just wrong. If you shoot the guy in the back as he's running away with your shit there is no longer any direct threat to your person, so you'd have difficulty arguing self-defense. It also makes zero difference whether he has your property or not - defense of property (especially something low value like a cell phone) doesn't give you license to shoot the guy in the back without warning. (This is why you can't say, booby trap your land with spring-loaded shotguns aimed at tresspassers) End result, you're going to be looking at manslaughter charges and a gigantic legal bill even if you did somehow beat those charges. So, best of luck to you, retarded cowboy. In the end what would have been a stolen cell phone or wallet is going to cost you either a boatload of money in legal bills or years of your life in prison.

As for the phone situation, after submitting a police report and jumping through 19 other hoops they told me I could pick up a new phone this morning at 8am. I get there at 8 and I'm told that the manager I need to enter the auth. code won't actually be there until 11. At 11, there's another problem and now I'm without a phone until at least Monday. Absolute nightmare.

Just an FYI, If by any chance you purchased with an AMEX card, AMEX will replace any stolen/damaged goods for 90 days from date of purchase.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: totalcommand

Just an FYI, If by any chance you purchased with an AMEX card, AMEX will replace any stolen/damaged goods for 90 days from date of purchase.

I wonder though, how much would they pay? Probably the $200-300 it costs to buy the subsidized phone. Still much better than nothing.

 

[totalcommand]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: totalcommand

Just an FYI, If by any chance you purchased with an AMEX card, AMEX will replace any stolen/damaged goods for 90 days from date of purchase.

I wonder though, how much would they pay? Probably the $200-300 it costs to buy the subsidized phone. Still much better than nothing.

They cover up to $1000, but like you said, in this instance, since he payed using a subsidized price they would probably pay out only the subsidized amount (not sure though).

https://www124.americanexpress...haseProtection2003.pdf

All my big ticket items are purchased with AMEX because of this, $300 return protection if the store refuses returns, and the extra year of warranty they provide on all items.

 

[sourceninja]

Originally posted by: miniMUNCH

Originally posted by: sourceninja

Originally posted by: 88MVP


You also clearly don't live in a city. If you'd actually pull a knife or a gun over some cash or a phone and risk getting shot yourself, you're an idiot. At the end of the day I can replace the damn phone. (although in my case, I have to wait 30 days. Thanks, Apple)

It's all in the training. In my state I can protect my property. So I would pull my pistol in a movement that looks exactly like grabbing my wallet and shoot the bastard. Failing that, I'd probably be pissed off enough to shoot him as he ran away after giving him my wallet and phone. The law in my state is obscure enough that it might actually be legal as long as my property is on him.

But I'm not suggesting everyone carry. It requires dedication and training to effectively use a weapon. Most people won't do that, and thus are putting themselves at more risk.

That you entertain shooting someone in the back because they stole $500 or so from you is an excellent reason why you, inparticular, should not be allowed to conceal carry.

If you'd seriously shoot them that means you value another human life at less than $500 or so...

From the law in my state,
"A person:
(1) is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against another person; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
"

"With respect to property other than a dwelling, curtilage, or an occupied motor vehicle, a person is justified in using reasonable force against another person if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to immediately prevent or terminate the other person's trespass on or criminal interference with property lawfully in the person's possession, lawfully in possession of a member of the person's immediate family, or belonging to a person whose property the person has authority to protect."

So if someone threatens you with injury for your property, you can do what is reasonable to protect your property. It says what you feel is reasonable. I feel it is reasonable to shoot a person in the back. I didn't say kill him. He might die, but that's a risk a thief takes.

My phone is worth WAY more then $500.00. It has all my passwords, all my emails, all my contacts addresses, emails, phone numbers, tons of pictures both public and private, my calendar of events. If a thief could even get to a few of those it could cost me thousands to repair.

 

[Muadib]

Originally posted by: sourceninja

Originally posted by: miniMUNCH

Originally posted by: sourceninja

Originally posted by: 88MVP


You also clearly don't live in a city. If you'd actually pull a knife or a gun over some cash or a phone and risk getting shot yourself, you're an idiot. At the end of the day I can replace the damn phone. (although in my case, I have to wait 30 days. Thanks, Apple)

It's all in the training. In my state I can protect my property. So I would pull my pistol in a movement that looks exactly like grabbing my wallet and shoot the bastard. Failing that, I'd probably be pissed off enough to shoot him as he ran away after giving him my wallet and phone. The law in my state is obscure enough that it might actually be legal as long as my property is on him.

But I'm not suggesting everyone carry. It requires dedication and training to effectively use a weapon. Most people won't do that, and thus are putting themselves at more risk.

That you entertain shooting someone in the back because they stole $500 or so from you is an excellent reason why you, inparticular, should not be allowed to conceal carry.

If you'd seriously shoot them that means you value another human life at less than $500 or so...

From the law in my state,
"A person:
(1) is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against another person; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
"

"With respect to property other than a dwelling, curtilage, or an occupied motor vehicle, a person is justified in using reasonable force against another person if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to immediately prevent or terminate the other person's trespass on or criminal interference with property lawfully in the person's possession, lawfully in possession of a member of the person's immediate family, or belonging to a person whose property the person has authority to protect."

So if someone threatens you with injury for your property, you can do what is reasonable to protect your property. It says what you feel is reasonable. I feel it is reasonable to shoot a person in the back. I didn't say kill him. He might die, but that's a risk a thief takes.

My phone is worth WAY more then $500.00. It has all my passwords, all my emails, all my contacts addresses, emails, phone numbers, tons of pictures both public and private, my calendar of events. If a thief could even get to a few of those it could cost me thousands to repair.

So you don't password the phone, or do backups???

 

[88MVP]

Originally posted by: sourceninja
From the law in my state,
"A person:
(1) is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against another person; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
"

"With respect to property other than a dwelling, curtilage, or an occupied motor vehicle, a person is justified in using reasonable force against another person if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to immediately prevent or terminate the other person's trespass on or criminal interference with property lawfully in the person's possession, lawfully in possession of a member of the person's immediate family, or belonging to a person whose property the person has authority to protect."

So if someone threatens you with injury for your property, you can do what is reasonable to protect your property. It says what you feel is reasonable. I feel it is reasonable to shoot a person in the back. I didn't say kill him. He might die, but that's a risk a thief takes.

My phone is worth WAY more then $500.00. It has all my passwords, all my emails, all my contacts addresses, emails, phone numbers, tons of pictures both public and private, my calendar of events. If a thief could even get to a few of those it could cost me thousands to repair.

I have no interest in continuing this further, because, frankly, you're a sorely misguided person if you actually believe your own internet rhetoric. I hope that in reality you're just bored and spouting off at your computer. But I'll point out that you misread your own state's statute. You don't get to personally decide what reasonable force is, you're allowed to use reasonable force if you reasonably believe that such reasonable force is necessary. (there are two seperate concepts there - reasonable force and reasonable belief). What constitutes "reasonable force" is not left up to each individual to arbitrarily decide. It's also not up to you to decide whether your belief that the force was necessary was reasonable - a jury is going to decide that. And I guaruntee you that using a firearm to protect a cell phone when there's no other threat to your person is far beyond the bounds of reasonable force in any state. That's first week of law school type stuff. And common sense.

Final update of the thread. I was finally allowed to purchase a replacement unit after going a week and a half without a phone and jumping through a million hoops. I got AT&T to credit my bill for the time I was unable to actually use my phone service, which is a start. I'm definitely not moving the rest of my family over to at&t though, and hopefully by the time this contract runs out the iPhone will be available through different carriers, because I've been thoroughly turned off to the entire company after this whole ordeal.

 

[sourceninja]

I wasn't going to reply, but I still feel you are wrong. I found numerous examples of people shooting at or shooting robbers in the back as the fled and have not found a case where the shooter was convicted.

I did find comments for a nearby county's prosecutor that he would define reasonable use of deadly force inside the home as shooting anyone inside your home (or attempting to steal your car) who is attempting to rob or harm you, but once they leave your home you can not follow and shoot them. He also said that firing a weapon at a fleeing robber in a public setting could be concidered (not the use of could) reckless endangerment. Looking at IN and MI I can't find a case of a legal CCW holder shooting a fleeing robber in the back and going to jail. I didn't look very hard, but a cursory google finds a case in 2008 in IL where a store clerk shot a fleeing robber 7 times and was not charged.

I also only selected the part about property. When it comes to protection, that is another matter. Let's look at the larger chunk:

Use of force to protect person or property
Sec. 2. (a) A person is justified in using reasonable force against another person to protect the person or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person:
(1) is justified in using deadly force; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that that force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person or the commission of a forcible felony. No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting the person or a third person by reasonable means necessary.
(b) A person:
(1) is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against another person; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other person's unlawful entry of or attack on the person's dwelling, curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle.
(c) With respect to property other than a dwelling, curtilage, or an occupied motor vehicle, a person is justified in using reasonable force against another person if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to immediately prevent or terminate the other person's trespass on or criminal interference with property lawfully in the person's possession, lawfully in possession of a member of the person's immediate family, or belonging to a person whose property the person has authority to protect. However, a person:
(1) is justified in using deadly force; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
only if that force is justified under subsection (a).
(d) A person is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against another person and does not have a duty to retreat if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or stop the other person from hijacking, attempting to hijack, or otherwise seizing or attempting to seize unlawful control of an aircraft in flight.

Now lets think about this (besides how I can legally shoot someone on an airplane when it's illegal to have a gun on an airplane). In order for a man to rob me he is going to need to threaten serious bodily injury. Meaning he is going to need to have a knife or a gun. He is going to have to imply that he will kill him if I don't give him what he wants. It is reasonable to suggest that shooting him as he turns is protecting the public (a third person). Obviously he will rob again. I doubt the attacker only wants your phone. So he is going to take my wallet and other valuables. It is reasonable to believe that my family could be in danger as he now knows what kind of money I have and where I live.

Browsing LEO forums I have not found many IL or MI LEO's that are against shooting a fleeing robber who threatened you with serious injury and has your property. An interview with a local county prosecutor stated that the escalation of force must only go 1 level above. Meaning that it is reasonable to shoot someone who just threatened you with a knife or a gun. And honestly, the guy would have to, because if he didn't have a knife or a gun he is going to be in for a big shock when I pull mine.

So the heart of the matter is I spent the better part of 2 hours looking for a case in my state where a man shot a fleeing robber and was charged and convicted. I can't find any. I can find cases where a man shot at or shot a robber in the back, but I can't find any where he was convicted of even manslaughter. And honestly, I'm not so sure a robber wouldn't shoot me if I gave him what he wanted, so I would be shooting him before he turned to run anyway. On top of that, what do you think is a reasonable force to terminate his possession of my property? I only have one option. Attempting to subdue him would get me killed as he must be armed or claiming to be armed (which is the same thing). So I can either do nothing or use force to protect my property as I am reasonable entitled to do. I can only think of one kind of force (shooting) that fits the bill here. I'm willing to entertain any other kind of force. Jedi Mind trick perhaps? I can't call the cops because he has my god damn phone!

So yes the law is much more cut and dry if he is inside my home or in the middle of robbing me. But I'll take my chances as others have before me in this state in shooting someone who just robbed me no matter what. Let it be a lesson to other robbers out there that this state is armed with very weak gun control.

And yes, I backup my phone. I password protect my data. Does that mean I'm 100% safe that he won't steal my bank passwords, or that it wasn't unlocked that moment for him to copy down some addresses, or even that he just FORCES ME AT GUNPOINT TO GIVE HIM THE CODE!!.

Maybe I'm wrong, I really don't care. It's my property and I'm going to keep it and defend it from anyone who tries to illegal take it from me. And in this state they will be hard pressed to find anyone willing to convict a man for protecting what is his. Worst case situation I'll lose my lifetime carry permit.

You two are done with this line of discussion - this is All Things Apple, not Politics & News. Capiche?

-ViRGE

 

[Kmax82]

Originally posted by: 88MVP

Final update of the thread. I was finally allowed to purchase a replacement unit after going a week and a half without a phone and jumping through a million hoops. I got AT&T to credit my bill for the time I was unable to actually use my phone service, which is a start. I'm definitely not moving the rest of my family over to at&t though, and hopefully by the time this contract runs out the iPhone will be available through different carriers, because I've been thoroughly turned off to the entire company after this whole ordeal.

They're all just as bad unfortunately.

 

[RapidSnail]

Can you get a police report and mail it to ATT/Apple?

 

[Docnasty]

So what happened when you got mugged? Did the person pull a knife/gun on your or did they assault you and then steal your property? Even if you don't feel comfortable carrying a concealed weapon there are other means of non-lethal self-defense. OC spray is a good choice, especially Fox brand (that stuff is NASTY) or a tazer. I personally carry a Ruger LCP .380 on a daily basis.