Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Teen truck thief shot...

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Saint Louis, Missouri, United States
    Posts
    292

    Post imported post

    http://www.kmov.com/news/local/Polic...-80175957.html


    Posted on December 27, 2009 at 5:25 PM Updated today at 8:05 AM ****** ST. LOUIS (AP) -- A suspected truck thief in St. Louis is dead after being shot by the owner of the vehicle. The shooting happened Sunday morning, killing 18-year-old Charles Kemp. The 31-year-old owner of the pickup truck started the vehicle then went back inside and left it running. Police say that's when Kemp got in and began to drive away. The owner came out of the home and fired several shots. Kemp was taken to a hospital, where he died. The truck's owner was taken into custody because of outstanding warrants, and authorities have not yet determined whether he will face charges for shooting Kemp. The name of the truck owner was not released. (Copyright 2009 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)
    warrant or no warrant...i still believe he had every right to defend his property...anyone else?

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Independence, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    349

    Post imported post

    He should be given an award for saving the law abiding tax paying Missouri citizens.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Saint Louis, Missouri, United States
    Posts
    292

    Post imported post

    Thief dies from injuries after St. Louis man fights back

    http://www.kmov.com/news/just-posted...-80240072.html

    Code:
    Posted on December 28, 2009 at 8:26 PM
    Updated today at 8:35 PM
    ******
    (KMOV)-- A thief is dead after a St. Louis man fought back.
    Neighbors along the 8400 block of Church Road in Baden told News 4 the owner was simply fed up, and that's why he opened fire on the young thief who later died of his injuries. 
    According to police the teen jumped into the truck and took off. The owner had left it running to warm it up.
     
    An eyewitness told News 4 it's a shame that a teen had to die, but stopped short of calling it the wrong decision.
     
    News 4 stopped by the truck owner’s house Monday afternoon, but a family member told us he was arrested for an outstanding warrant for child support. 
    Were the property owner's methods justified? Take our poll on the right hand side!!
    i voted he was justified.

  4. #4
    Regular Member Richieg150's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Show Me State
    Posts
    433

    Post imported post

    Ditto on him being justified,warrants or not!Its the kids fault he is dead,not the owner.
    Psalm 144:1 Blessed be the LORD my strength, which teacheth my hands to war, and my fingers to fight:
    Psalm 144:2 My goodness, and my fortress; my high tower, and my deliverer; my shield, and he in whom I trust; who subdueth my people under me. Pro 14:15 The simple believeth every word: but the prudent man looketh well to his going.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    ParkHills, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    970

    Post imported post

    Justified!!

  6. #6
    Regular Member Juggernaut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Triad, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    126

    Post imported post

    Poll
    Were the property owner's methods justified?[*]Yes
    88% (562)[*]No
    8% (54)[*]Undecided
    3% (21)

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    4

    Post imported post

    I agree that the truck owner's actions were justified; however, I don't think Missouri Law agrees with us. From what I've read, he'll be charged with Voluntary Manslaughter, BUT I think Missouri law makers are going to keep this from going to trail with a plea deal.

    Missouri Statute 563.041 clearly (not as clear as it could be) states that deadly force is NOT authorized solely for protection of property. Under this wording, my friends and I can come onto your property unarmed, and steal anything we like. As long as we are passive, you can do everything you can to stop us EXCEPT use deadly force-- hope you've got a big bat and remember to avoid our heads...

    Read the poll above-- most people (slightly bias) agree that this mans actions were justified. I've found similar approval from commentators on other sites, including some 'liberal' media sites.

    Everyone should be entitled to protect their property using whatever means necessary, especially when on their own property and the crime is still in commission (no chasing criminals through town shooting, obviously).

    Some will resist this change in law, casting focus on "the killing of an 18 year old 'boy' as opposed to "the killing of an 18 year old thief." Regardless of upbringing and environment, they know stealing is wrong. This isn't a push for the murdering of thieves; it's a push for peoples right to protect what is legally theirs from being relived from them by someone too lazy to work hard to legally attain the same.

    I was recently relieved of my tools, air compressor and lawn mowers when individuals pushed down my neighbors wooden fence and broke into my outdoor storage building. If I had caught them in the act, I wouldn't be able to do anything but call the cops and wait? I know I'm not going out to stop 2+ thieves in Downtown Atlanta unarmed.

    I only lost $1000 worth of stuff, but what about this guy who was about to lose his truck which I'm sure he used to get to and from work? Assuming he had full coverage, insurance wouldn't have paid for it; it was unlocked and running with the keys.

    Change starts with similar minded people-- I think that's this group.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    West Plains, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    93

    Post imported post

    If this 18 year-old thief had been arrested and brought to trial and found guilty would we see the same enthusiasm for having the court impose the death penalty as I'm seeing here for allowing the truck's owner to arbitrarily kill him? The only difference is that the truck owner would be judge, jury, and executioner and save the cost of a trial and detention.

    Yes, I've also been the victim of burglary and theft and one feels violated to say the least. But, so far at least, our society doesn't feel that such deserves capital punishment. And if it's not right after having given the thief due process and a trial then it's not right at the moment of the crime either. And yes, saying that goes against every instinct I feel also: if it was my truck I'd also want to shoot the thieving little S.O.B.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    4

    Post imported post

    Preventing the act of theft and punishing someone for the act of theft are two different agendas; one is addressing owners’ rights, the other is punishment and deterrent. Does a person have to be killed to prevent the theft of one’s’ own property? Not always but in this case, the answer was yes. If the owner had not shot the thief, his truck would have been stolen.

    To squash your, “it's not right after having given the thief due process and a trial then it's not right at the moment of the crime either” comment:

    Missouri Statutes, Chapter 563, section 563.021: 2. A person may not use deadly force upon another person under the circumstances specified in subsection 1 of this section unless: (1) He or she reasonably believes that such deadly force is necessary to protect himself or herself or another against death, serious physical injury, or any forcible felony;

    Interesting… I can use deadly force on someone committing the act of forcible rape, but the state cannot execute a person convicted of forcible rape? Also, what percentage of murders are actually sentenced to death? Allowing people to defend their property with deadly force doesn’t mean everyone is going to; it gives those individuals that want to, the right to do so.

    Why should I not be able to defend my property from theft? Who’s responsible for replacing my property if it stolen? That’s right… I am.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    18

    Post imported post

    Private property is labeled as such for a reason, any time a person decides to violate that privacy they knowingly risk their life should the owner of the property choose to defend it.

    It's easy to make comments after the fact, that the thief was just taking a truck and that's not a crime that should be punishable by death. However, how is a person to know in a split moment what the criminal is doing or going to do? If you are going to defend your property and family from criminals hesitating to try and figure out someone intentions is a big risk that can back-fire.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •