Firearms Iinstuctor
Regular Member
I do my own research on states I hunt in.
paying you has no benefit for me maybe you can find some else to pay you
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Castle Doctrine Under Fire - Score One For Freedom-Haters
- Thread starter since9
- Start date
I do my own research on states I hunt in.
paying you has no benefit for me maybe you can find some else to pay you
Not likely - you of all people must know that there is very little money to be made in this arena.
The evidence, and this jack-wagon's own pie hole does say it was intentional.
But the fact he bragged that he was going to set a trap and shoot someone before hand, used a purse full of cash visible through an open garage door as bait, and setup up motion detectors and even a baby monitor to alert him someone was taking the bait makes it clear he did have every intention of shooting someone.
He got off light with 10 years.
Last edited:
WalkingWolf
Regular Member
So you are saying he forced the burglar to burglar? I agree he had every intention on shooting someone who burglarized his home, but that does not mean the burglar was not a threat.
I OC with every intention of shooting a threat if it is a threat to me or my family, under what you claim I or you could be charged for baiting or luring. With the intention to shoot if threatened.
Banks and stores have open doors and cash, are they baiting or luring criminals?
Last edited:
Go get your hair cut, and brag to everyone in the shop you are going to bait and shoot a criminal, then go stand beside a building and put a $100 bill on the ground. Shoot the first person that bends over to pick it up. That is basically what this jack-wagon did.
WalkingWolf
Regular Member
He didn't put a hundred dollar bill on the ground, don't be silly, or worse. He did not make the burglar break the law. As far as what he said we all would go to jail if that was a crime. It boils down to was the burglar a threat, nobody made him do it. Police 'bait' all the time, and brag about it, if they shoot a lawbreaker when threatened should they be charged?
Last edited:
davidmcbeth
Banned
Hunting over bait is against the law in most states.
Here kitty kitty kitty .. Ka-Pow ! Not very sportsman like.
No one was threatened, the kid was unarmed and the guy shot first.
If cops put a bait car or bike on the street to lure in a criminal, and their first action is pump 4 rounds from a shotgun into them, then they too will go to prison.
Last edited:
utbagpiper
Banned
I think the real problem is whether the burglar was actually a threat to the homeowner or not. Or, more accurately, whether the homeowner reasonably believed the burglar was a threat vs merely tried to make it look like he was a threat.
If someone tries to run me down with a car I may well be justified in putting a few rounds through the windshield to stop the attack. However, if I see someone stealing my car from the driveway, run outside and stand directly behind the car using my body as a barricade to try to stop the thief from driving away, I am probably not legally justified in shooting at the driver.
In the first case, the driver of the car placed me in fear for my life and limb and I responded with deadly force against a credible threat. In the second case, I placed myself into grave danger needlessly. I created an excuse to use deadly force to protect property rather than reserving deadly force for the protection of life and limb. In both cases, I am in danger of being run over by a car, the proximate danger is the same. However, the second case fails what is known as the "but for" test in civil cases. In criminal cases, it is a matter that I am no longer an innocent party in that I have deliberately and needlessly placed myself in danger. It is the difference between being attacked, and voluntarily engaging in a fist fight and then reaching for a gun when the other fellow starts to get the best of you. One does not risk life and limb over mere property.
If I happen to walk into my garage at night to discover a burglar I might be able to claim the castle doctrine or defense of habitation exception in using deadly force before the burglar presents an obvious threat to me (and also before he makes clear he is not threat to me). I have innocently walked into a situation where the criminal conduct of another gives me just cause to fear for my life and limb. Anyone who invades a garage that I believe I have secured might reasonably be expected to inflict harm upon the occupants of the attached home. Even still, the basic rules of proper gun handling require that I should be well aware of what my target is before I shoot. Would be tragic to shoot a family member or close neighbor who slipped in with the sole intent of closing my garage door for me so I wouldn't be victimized.
However, if I have deliberately left the garage door open, left valuables in plain site, and installed a motion sensor and sound monitor to let me know when a burglar has entered (or otherwise take measures to know when a burglar has entered), and I then choose to go confront him, I have chosen to walk into a potentially dangerous situation needlessly. I know the burglar has not broken into a secured area. I know he doesn't automatically present the same risk as someone who enters my home. One does not risk life nor limb over mere property.
I can sympathize with the homeowner's frustration. We work hard to obtain a few things; necessities of life and a few creature comforts. And the parasites of the world feel entitled to take them from us with apparent impunity. Even in the rare case the parasites are caught and punished, there is almost never any real restitution. But do decent men really want to use deadly force to defend mere property? Where is the morality that says the life of a fellow human--even a parasitic thief--is worth less than my automobile, or purse?
In all but the most rare of cases, the law throughout the US does not permit using deadly force except to defend life and limb. The seeming exceptions to this provided in castle doctrine or defense of habitation laws tend to be based on a belief that those who invade an occupied home would harm the residents, the residents cannot be expected to take time to make the same determination that is required on the street, and so on. We don't "get to" shoot burglars simply because they are burglars or because they are trespassing. Indeed, what kind of "man" wants to shoot someone over a non-violent theft of property? We resort to deadly force, the law permits deadly force, only when we reasonably believe it is necessary to protect innocent life and limb. The law recognizes a different standard in making the determination of a threat to life and limb inside our own homes than out on the street. But it is still life and limb, not property, that warrants deadly force.
In simple, succinct terms, it appears to me that in totality, the homeowner removed reasonable doubt about whether he was actually in fear for his life. It appears he used deadly force to exact revenge for petty theft when he knew full well there was no serious risk to his life or limb.
That his conduct and the results of this case may be used to weaken legitimate claims of defense of habitation in the future is the lessor offenses committed by the homeowner, methinks.
Charles
Last edited:
utbagpiper
Banned
Sure, because property is actually more important than life itself? (end sarcasm)
That is exactly the image of gun owners that the media, Brady Bunch, and other gun grabbers would like to foster.
Lest anyone think your position is reflective of the larger, gun-owning community let me state for the record that I find your position morally reprehensible and entirely indefensible.
Charles
+1
NC allows lethal force only to protect life, from serious injury or sexual assault. Once the threat is stopped (the BG turns to run, is down, verbally surrenders, etc.) the justification to use lethal force also ends.
I'm good with that, I don't want to shoot someone over my TV, truck, etc, (the stuff we carry insurance on), nor do I think that theft is or should be a capital crime.
davidmcbeth
Banned
Sure, you're good with that UNTIL you actually shoot someone (even under it being a "good shoot" under current NC laws) .. then you'll go broke defending yourself and still might get tossed into prison.
Then you'll say "that DMB guy seemed like he was outside of most peoples' thinking but now I understand".
davidmcbeth
Banned
No because YOUR life is important too.
I don't care what the brady bunch thinks.
You must think that if the law was changed that bodies would be piling up at the morgue; you have no faith in your fellow man. Whereas I do.
That's how the law was not to long ago .... widespread killings just did not happen.
And I think that if the law is changed it would save innocent lives.
davidmcbeth
Banned
Hunting over bait is against the law in most states.
I am the worst hunter/fisherman you have ever seen. The worst. I fish with corn and get zip, that's how bad I am.
I gave up on hunting and fishing .. I'm not good. I never got better. I suck at it. I admit it.
I still toss in a line once in a while just to relax ... I think I have caught 5 fish my entire life. And 4 of them were on chartered fishing boats near me in the ocean where blues and bass should be jumping into the boat ! I'm cursed I guess ... in respect to fishing and hunting.
utbagpiper
Banned
No.
But I recognize that the law reflects our values as a society. I believe we value and should value life over property.
I look forward to your citations to back up this claim. We can then discuss what has changed to spur the change in law, if in fact, the law has changed as drastically as you claim.
I think you are mistaken.
Charles
utbagpiper
Banned
And you'll think the way you do until you end up in a jurisdiction with laws similar to what you want and you or a loved one gets shot over something not at all worthy of taking a human life and the prosecutor says, "Sorry. But it was technically a legal shoot. Nothing I can do."
Charles
davidmcbeth
Banned
I could live with it.
Well it won't be because someone was stealing my stuff. Even if my stated allowed shooting a thief in the back while they ran away, with my 'stuff', it ain't worth it. Sure they are a scumbag, but as a scumbag they are not worthy of the hassle.
And to boast at the barber shop, errr excuse me 'hair stylist's' about how you were going to bait and kill a thief, well if nothing else he is going to prison for total and utter stupidity.
Freedom1Man
Regular Member
Then the police should not be allowed to use bait cars.
Freedom1Man
Regular Member
So having an alarm system is illegal now?
I have had to leave a garage door cracked at night while I was allowing air circulation to clear out chemical vapors from stripping/finishing wood, cleaning car parts, and stripping/repainting firearms.
As for shooting someone who is stealing property, well I equate property as part of my life because I have had to exchange part of my life to acquire that property. So, if you decide to steal from me, I take it as you're trying to take my life in one way shape or form and thus deadly force would be appropriate.
Also, what was the home owner supposed to do? Call the police? You have no right to police protection and the police are not that great at actually catching B&E thieves. I got to talk to one in jail one of the times I was arrested. He had committed over 100 in just one county and over 100 in the neighboring county and that was just what he was admitting to through a reduced sentence plea deal so the police could close those cases.
He told me how he did it and the only way the police caught him was through a tracked laptop computer and someone who snitched on him when the sale came back on the snitch.