Man convicted of shooting car prowler

[David.Car]

imported post

compmanio365 wrote:

I'm not going to get myself thrown in jail by shooting a guy running away from me.....unless I'm in TX. Or if a similar law is passed in WA/nationally. Then it's open season, and IMO, rightly so. I don't value a criminal's life whatsoever.

Innocent until proven guilty, absolutely. But when the criminal is absolutely guilty, the rights are gone. Death by firing squad and be done with it.

So it is apparent you equate a mans life to nothing.

Good to know that you are the type of person who would rather shoot someone in the back as they run down the street with your welcome mat then be bothered trying to replace a $10 item.

Good to know that if you caught a kid with a can of spray paint in his hand spraying your fence you would immediately draw down and shoot him in the head.

Good to know you are a real life bad ass who won't blink twice before shooting any man or woman who ever dares to cross your pathor touch any of your property.

Good to know that I never want to live in the same area as you or have you even be an acquaintance in my life.

Don't forget to put up your "Get off my lawn or die" signs.

 

[deanf]

imported post

Disagree away, but I have not heard a rational point made yet as to why I am wrong

Because it's morally repugnant?

Funny, because I've never seen you at an OCDO meet. You seem to be pretty good at judging people without ever meeting them in person or having a discussion.

I've been, and we've met.

 

[Trigger Dr]

imported post

Well, That litte bit of information, which is now in the public domain, has just taken away any defense you may possibly have in the event of a future, kill the criminal because the courts won't do anything, incident. Good luck, because you are going to need it with that line of thought.

compmanio365 wrote:

Trigger Dr wrote:

For those of you that have never worked in the legal field, there is a principle of law called the "Clear and Present Danger Doctrine". Essentially what it says...in laymans terms, you can use only the amount of force necessary to neutralize the threat, BUT there must be a clear and present danger at the time the force is used. If the aggressor is moving AWAY from you, there is NO threat, therefore the use of force is NOT authorized.

Sure.....and in WA that's the case, and the law that I would obey. Do I think we should have a law like in TX though, saying I can defend my property with deadly force? Absolutely. It's a big difference between what I think should be and what is. I'm not going to get myself thrown in jail by shooting a guy running away from me.....unless I'm in TX. Or if a similar law is passed in WA/nationally. Then it's open season, and IMO, rightly so. I don't value a criminal's life whatsoever. They gave up their right to life and liberty the moment they chose to infringe upon my rights.......this talk of "You give the antis ammo" is BS and a strawman.

You don't have to agree, and you don't have to react the same way. But the ONLY reason you should be up in arms about that attitude regarding criminals is if you are a criminal or have close relations with someone who is. If that is the case, the problem is not with me, but with yourself. Society should not coddle criminals, should not protect them. Innocent until proven guilty, absolutely. But when the criminal is absolutely guilty, the rights are gone. Death by firing squad and be done with it. If I catch the criminal in the act and am 100% sure this person is or just finished committing a crime against me or my family, and they do not stop when commanded, even if they are running away with my property, then I believe I should use whatever force necessary to apprehend that person and retrieve my property/stop an attack.

Disagree away, but I have not heard a rational point made yet as to why I am wrong, only strawmen being thrown around like crazy. Come up with a logical, real life point and not just a comment about how scared of the anti-gun movement you are so I should just tone it down, and I might consider the fact that I'm wrong in my thought on this. Otherwise, it's just same old BS rhetoric I've come to expect on people who think we should coddle the criminal element in this country.

 

[Trigger Dr]

imported post

compmanio365 wrote:

Trigger Dr wrote:

For those of you that have never worked in the legal field, there is a principle of law called the "Clear and Present Danger Doctrine". Essentially what it says...in laymans terms, you can use only the amount of force necessary to neutralize the threat, BUT there must be a clear and present danger at the time the force is used. If the aggressor is moving AWAY from you, there is NO threat, therefore the use of force is NOT authorized.

Sure.....and in WA that's the case, and the law that I would obey. Do I think we should have a law like in TX though, saying I can defend my property with deadly force? Absolutely. It's a big difference between what I think should be and what is. I'm not going to get myself thrown in jail by shooting a guy running away from me.....unless I'm in TX. Or if a similar law is passed in WA/nationally. Then it's open season, and IMO, rightly so. I don't value a criminal's life whatsoever. They gave up their right to life and liberty the moment they chose to infringe upon my rights.......this talk of "You give the antis ammo" is BS and a strawman.

You don't have to agree, and you don't have to react the same way. But the ONLY reason you should be up in arms about that attitude regarding criminals is if you are a criminal or have close relations with someone who is. If that is the case, the problem is not with me, but with yourself. Society should not coddle criminals, should not protect them. Innocent until proven guilty, absolutely. But when the criminal is absolutely guilty, the rights are gone. Death by firing squad and be done with it. If I catch the criminal in the act and am 100% sure this person is or just finished committing a crime against me or my family, and they do not stop when commanded, even if they are running away with my property, then I believe I should use whatever force necessary to apprehend that person and retrieve my property/stop an attack.

Disagree away, but I have not heard a rational point made yet as to why I am wrong, only strawmen being thrown around like crazy. Come up with a logical, real life point and not just a comment about how scared of the anti-gun movement you are so I should just tone it down, and I might consider the fact that I'm wrong in my thought on this. Otherwise, it's just same old BS rhetoric I've come to expect on people who think we should coddle the criminal element in this country.

 

[Tawnos]

imported post

David.Car wrote:

compmanio365 wrote:

I'm not going to get myself thrown in jail by shooting a guy running away from me.....unless I'm in TX. Or if a similar law is passed in WA/nationally. Then it's open season, and IMO, rightly so. I don't value a criminal's life whatsoever.

Innocent until proven guilty, absolutely. But when the criminal is absolutely guilty, the rights are gone. Death by firing squad and be done with it.

So it is apparent you equate a mans life to nothing.

Good to know that you are the type of person who would rather shoot someone in the back as they run down the street with your welcome mat then be bothered trying to replace a $10 item.

Good to know that if you caught a kid with a can of spray paint in his hand spraying your fence you would immediately draw down and shoot him in the head.

Good to know you are a real life bad ass who won't blink twice before shooting any man or woman who ever dares to cross your pathor touch any of your property.

Good to know that I never want to live in the same area as you or have you even be an acquaintance in my life.

Don't forget to put up your "Get off my lawn or die" signs.

I'd say the criminal is the one who equates a person's life to nothing, or $10, or whatever. If someone is coming at me with a gun saying "stop or I shoot!" you bet I will stop.

Whether it is right or wrong to use deadly force is what's at question here. Don't conflate that by accusing compmanio of not valuing a life, as he is giving the thief the choice to say what their life is worth. The thief gets to choose "live and face punishment" or "die for $10/whatever price item."

Legally, of course, deadly force is considered unjustified for stopping a criminal who doesn't have imminent designs to kill or grievously injure another. Practically, however, a criminal who is caught in the act but runs away, even when threatened with deadly force, is expressing their self-valuation.

 

[gsx1138]

imported post

swatspyder wrote:

David.Car wrote:

I thought he was guilty as @#$% as soon as the story came out. The guy was running away from the car and was shot in the back of the head.

The shooters health was never at risk. He fired from an elevated position. All over some stuff in a car. Yeah... Great priorities.

After dark in Texas, your property is yours to defend against theft with deadly force. We should adopt that law here in WA.

Agreed. With both quotes.

 

[New Daddy]

imported post

David.Car wrote:

FunkTrooper wrote:

Look, it's not about shooting someone over a computer if someone were to steal it I would lose my well being and could possibly end up homeless. I do value human life even those of criminals but I cannot abide someone who seeks to ruin my own life. I won't argue with your straw man other than to say I hope if I had children that they would never try to take someones well being from them because desperate men in desperate places do desperate things.

Yes because in the instance of the story the mans car radio is his means of making a living.

It is called insurance, you should probably look into some. If someone steals your computer, insurance makes it so you can buy another. It is fairly damn cheap too, I am insured for $25,000 in property loss for less then100 bucks a YEAR.

As for your "well being" being directly correlated with a single computer... You might want to think about having a back up copy of you files.

And stealing a computer, even if it is the way you make your living is not someone seeking out to destroy your life, and does not = shooting said person.

I don't know what you do for a living, but its very clear to me you know very little about the real world. To wit: There is a CPA in Bellevue, that lost a significant portion of its income because some low life walked in and stole a bunch of their computers. Did the insurance cover the computers? Yes. But, insurance doesn't cover the data. Insurance doesn't cover the pissed off clients. And insurance doesn't cover that at least 4 major clients walked away (including my wife's firm - which was almost $1M a year in billings).

For me, if you manage to steal my work computer, my employer will terminate me. Period. I've already signed an acknowledgment agreeing to it. Pension, health insurance, food for my children, it's all gone.

I'll shed no tears over the death of a thief. If I'm on the jury and somebody has shot a thief, they'll walk. Your high handed attitude will not put food on my table, and as far as you not wanting to be around somebody who feels this way - you probably wouldn't qualify to hang around me anyway.

 

[compmanio365]

imported post

David.Car wrote:

compmanio365 wrote:

I'm not going to get myself thrown in jail by shooting a guy running away from me.....unless I'm in TX. Or if a similar law is passed in WA/nationally. Then it's open season, and IMO, rightly so. I don't value a criminal's life whatsoever.

Innocent until proven guilty, absolutely. But when the criminal is absolutely guilty, the rights are gone. Death by firing squad and be done with it.

So it is apparent you equate a mans life to nothing.

Good to know that you are the type of person who would rather shoot someone in the back as they run down the street with your welcome mat then be bothered trying to replace a $10 item.

Good to know that if you caught a kid with a can of spray paint in his hand spraying your fence you would immediately draw down and shoot him in the head.

Good to know you are a real life bad ass who won't blink twice before shooting any man or woman who ever dares to cross your pathor touch any of your property.

Good to know that I never want to live in the same area as you or have you even be an acquaintance in my life.

Don't forget to put up your "Get off my lawn or die" signs.

Please......now you sound like an anti-gun liberal of the worst sort. Glad to know that even in the supposedly pro-2A camp we have those who are capable of stretching the truth to ridiculous proportions to meet their own agenda, and are incapable of having civil discussion, instead believing that all those who do not believe exactly as they do are evil and unworthy of the right to keep and bear arms. Thanks for showing your true colors.

Seriously....when did I say I'd "shoot anyone who dares cross my path or touch my property"? Now you are typing in hysterics....if you can't keep your discussion civil, and can't make posts without completely distorting what has been said, then please refrain from posting further. Good day sir.

 

[deanf]

imported post

Livelihood does not equal life. To equate the former with the later betrays a belief that life has none but a monetary value, and apparently a very small one, based on what some are willing to kill for.

 

[David.Car]

imported post

compmanio365 wrote:

Seriously....when did I say I'd "shoot anyone who dares cross my path or touch my property"? Now you are typing in hysterics....if you can't keep your discussion civil, and can't make posts without completely distorting what has been said, then please refrain from posting further. Good day sir.

When you stated with Texas law it would be open season for you to kill criminals. When you stated you value a criminals life at 0. When you said someone is guilty of a crime they should face the firing squad. When you said if you caught someone in the act you should be able to use ANY FORCE to stop them.

Those are all things YOU said that = you having a strange desire to be able to kill someone for any sort of crime.

The simple facts are it is illegal to shoot someone for a theft unless yourhealth or someones elses health is in jeapordy. And for damn good reason. Because without that law people like you, and the original man of this thread, will shoot people over car radios, or computers, or some other ITEM. Things do not equal human life. I don't care how many ways you try to rationalize it. Property is not greater then human life.

I won't shoot someone to save an item. I won't shoot someone to save an animal. The only time I would ever pull the trigger on someone is to protect another humans well being.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

imported post

Boy times have changed, there was a time you were hung for stealing a horse.

Thats not case no more and crooks know it thats why there are so many now.

Life is of the ultimate value I agree, but some many folks are ruining the quality of others life's with no real retribution.

Pulling a gun in defense of yourself and property should be a right, like Tawnos said, then a crook can choose what his life is worth.

(I still wouldn't shoot a fleeing man, myself though)

 

[antispam540]

imported post

What I'd like to know is what we're supposed to do if someone waltzes up to our car, breaks the window, takes whatever we have, and starts walking off. "Stay on the phone" with 911? Give a police report when they show up, and listen to them be up front with you and let you know you'll never see your stuff again because they can't bother to find the guy?

If they make no violent move, can we even touch them? Restrain them from entering our homes "peacefully" and taking whatever they want?

I don't want to have to shoot someone to stop them from taking my stuff (which probably would put me out on the street and have me dead within three weeks because I would no longer be able to do my job and support myself or my loan payments).

I know you don't want that to happen to me or to yourself either, so if you don't think shooting someone who is clearly taking something very important to keeping yourself alive is the right thing to do, what DO you propose?

I'm looking for a solution here, not a "you're crazy if you want to shoot them" or "you're crazy if you don't want to shoot them" post. I don't want to hear "it's just stuff, let them have it." If you're not happy with either option, propose a better one, and maybe this will turn from a flame war into something productive.

 

[tyguy808]

imported post

Spam-

Go out and confront and detain them. Just remember, once you detain someone, YOU are responsible for their safety until someone of "higher rank" takes the reins. If you try to stop them, keep in mind that you probably should no t shoot a retreating person. If they become agressive, by all means, shoot 'em up. I would recommend a single shot to the thigh or torso, that way he'll do the time for the crime.

 

[antispam540]

imported post

Excellent idea, detainment - how exactly does one go about doing this in a legal manner? One certainly can't point a gun at the thief, so what can you honestly threaten them with? What keeps them from just walking away with your property? I figure I should know this in case I'm ever in that situation.

 

[tyguy808]

imported post

antispam540 wrote:

Excellent idea, detainment - how exactly does one go about doing this in a legal manner? One certainly can't point a gun at the thief, so what can you honestly threaten them with? What keeps them from just walking away with your property? I figure I should know this in case I'm ever in that situation.

Like hell you can't point a gun at a thief!A simple "STOP OR I'LL SHOOT" should do the trick. What do you think the cops do when they approach a suspected car prowler, "umm excuse me, sir, can you stop what you're doingso I canhave a chat with you", hell no. If they are caught red-handed, like in my example,they're probably gonna be looking at the business end ofmy loaded (and chambered)9.

 

[antispam540]

imported post

tyguy808 wrote:

antispam540 wrote:

Excellent idea, detainment - how exactly does one go about doing this in a legal manner? One certainly can't point a gun at the thief, so what can you honestly threaten them with? What keeps them from just walking away with your property? I figure I should know this in case I'm ever in that situation.

Like hell you can't point a gun at a thief!A simple "STOP OR I'LL SHOOT" should do the trick. What do you think the cops do when they approach a suspected car prowler, "umm excuse me, sir, can you stop what you're doingso I canhave a chat with you", hell no. If they are caught red-handed, like in my example,they're probably gonna be looking at the business end ofmy loaded (and chambered)9.

We've all been taught not to point a gun at anything we're not ready to kill. Wasn't the gentleman in question sentenced to jail for unlawful use of deadly force? If we can't actually shoot the robber unless they become a clear and present danger to our lives, how can we in good faith point a loaded gun at them? Surely most criminals would simply turn and run away, still carrying your valuables?

 

[joeroket]

imported post

You can approach him/her with your pistol at the ready and be within the law. If they feel the need to escalate the situation with a weapon you are prepared to defend yourself. If you go out right off the bat pointing a weapon at a thief, keep in mind this is not for felonies, then you be putting yourself in legal jeopardy.

This is my own opinion that has been formulated from cases involving firearms.

 

[tyguy808]

imported post

I personally WAS taught that. And in preperation for battle (confrontation) I would be prepared to shoot if said criminal made aggressive actions towards myself. The guy that got sentenced for unlawful use of deadly force shot a man in the back of the head, without warning (that I could read of or find). If they run, pursue, then detain them. Detainment is achieved by just holding them til police arrive, you need no cuffs nor miranda rights.

 

[joeroket]

imported post

tyguy808 wrote:

I personally WAS taught that. And in preperation for battle (confrontation) I would be prepared to shoot if said criminal made aggressive actions towards myself. The guy that got sentenced for unlawful use of deadly force shot a man in the back of the head, without warning (that I could read of or find). If they run, pursue, then detain them. Detainment is achieved by just holding them til police arrive, you need no cuffs nor miranda rights.

I agree but being prepared to defend and shoot does not mean you must confront with the barrel. At the ready is good but you are still prepared to answer if the force is required.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

imported post

joeroket wrote:

tyguy808 wrote:

I personally WAS taught that. And in preperation for battle (confrontation) I would be prepared to shoot if said criminal made aggressive actions towards myself. The guy that got sentenced for unlawful use of deadly force shot a man in the back of the head, without warning (that I could read of or find). If they run, pursue, then detain them. Detainment is achieved by just holding them til police arrive, you need no cuffs nor miranda rights.

I agree but being prepared to defend and shoot does not mean you must confront with the barrel. At the ready is good but you are still prepared to answer if the force is required.

Reactionary actions is very very quick, sometimes even quicker than you can pull a trigger while holding someone at gun point ( I personally know someone who has experience in this). Just had a conversation about that with One of Bellingham Police Deputies (open carrying of course) he stated their were studies on that. I feel nothing wrong, with approaching someone engaged in criminal activity with gun in hand, keep the distance though.

The shoot to wound thing I don't agree with, shoot to stop, don't waste valuable time trying to maim someone.