Man on trial for shooting car thief [Archive]

Ducimus

04-04-14, 06:40 PM

What a shot!

Seriously. A 20 yard shot like that with a handgun is nothing to sneeze at.

I cannot see why he is on trial. He wasn't stealing anything. Just protecting his property. :06:

To fair, he'd go through the motions of a trial in any state. If he's convicted or not, is another matter, and will depend a lot on the views of the jury pool from said state.

I'm wondering if this will be the focal point of his defence :hmmm:
I would guess so. My first question is, "was a gun found?" If not, my next question would be, what were the variables at which time the incident occurred? Was it day or night? What where the lighting conditions if at night? Are the conditions such that it makes possible he mistakenly believed the thief was pointing a gun at him or not? etc etc. If i was on the jury, I'd want the particulars on the details.

More time is spent protecting the perp than the victim.

Isn't that just how things go these days? Seems par for the course.

The guy shot the thief from 60 ft away in the back while the thief was driving off so it seems that the shooter is lying about his life being in danger.

Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? You instead jump to an accusation of lying; which is in effect convicting the man before he even stands trail. Your political bias is showing.

On the flip side guns law in USA send message to criminals when you steal something and get caught shoot first because your life might be at danger and there is nothing to lose....
So at the end property crimes easily escalate into gunfights.
It also gives legitimacy for trigger happy people to kill others over TV set.
So ... happy shooting.

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/picture.php?albumid=132&pictureid=802

Im far from being anti gun hippie or whatever you might call it lol but some of that self defense laws let you shoot each other mindlessly and unnecessarily.

Given your first two statements, this third statement, I can only view as a feeble attempt to regain the credibility of being unbiased in the situation when you clearly are biased.

Was it worth killing him over a car?

My personal opinion in this specific order:
Morally, yes.
Legally, no.

In the end, you answer to the courts, so there's your answer.

Most burglars don't think that way. They want an easy grab, not a fight of any kind. But...

True. Most criminals want "soft targets". If someones going to burglarize a home, more often then not, they look for ones where people aren't home.

I don't think the shooter has a 'leg to stand on'. I would be interested in what the jury says.

I'll take a guess. (Vague reference too vague? :O: )

http://076dd0a50e0c1255009e-bd4b8aabaca29897bc751dfaf75b290c.r40.cf1.rackcdn.c om/images/files/000/509/512/original/original.jpg

Platapus

04-04-14, 06:40 PM

Ducimus

04-04-14, 07:01 PM

I can't condone the use of a gun unless it is a last resort (not first choice) to protect an imminent threat to life.

I think it is appropriate to charge this guy and then have a trial where the evidence can be presented.

There are too many people who, in my opinion, are looking for a chance to use their weapon "legally".

A gun is to be used only in the gravest extreme and as a last resort.

Using it to shoot someone stealing your truck ain't.

Your implying that it's a matter of people looking for a legal reason to kill someone; so I have a small question for you. If you had some burly dude on your property, stealing something that's important (even vital) to your livelihood that you cannot do without, and if the courts were not a factor, what would you do?

EDIT:
All i'm saying Plat is I don't think its as i think your implying that people are looking for a legal reason to kill someone. Anyway, It's friday night, i'm officially off work, it's the weekend, so im not sticking around to argue on the internet. This thread will inevitably go down into another gun control roast fest anyway.

Onkel Neal

04-04-14, 07:11 PM

Was it worth killing him over a car?

Was it worth the risk getting killed to steal the car?

I would never shoot anyone over a car or property unless my life was in danger.

That's your right to let people take your possessions, I won't argue with that. Please respect my right to defend my property against criminals. I guess the car owner could have shouted "hey! bring my car back" but would that have worked? Why should the criminal make the rules?

http://patrick.net/forum/content/uploads/2012/11/neighbor-sign.jpg

Next time some idiot may shoot a kid of your neighbor who had some growing up issues.

Yeah? If you play with fire....

For the car owner, obviously yes. For the criminal wanting to steal the car, probably not. For you and me - unimportant: it has not been your or my car.

:har: Always the philosopher :up:

Platapus

04-04-14, 07:31 PM

Your implying that it's a matter of people looking for a legal reason to kill someone; so I have a small question for you. If you had some burly dude on your property, stealing something that's important (even vital) to your livelihood that you cannot do without, and if the courts were not a factor, what would you do?

First of all, you are loading the question by adding an unrealistic qualifier of "something vital to my livelihood that I cannot do without". I can't think of anything that would be that in the context you used.

But in any case, I would not shoot them. If necessary I would run away in the other direction like a sniveling little girl. My guns are to be used only in the very last resort when I have no other choices AND my life is in immediate danger.

Now if some guy were throwing popcorn at me while playing loud music at a gas station, well that's a different story. Mozambique and grab a brew baby! :D

swamprat69er

04-04-14, 07:35 PM

http://patrick.net/forum/content/uploads/2012/11/neighbor-sign.jpg

:yeah:Gotta love it!:yeah:

Skybird

04-04-14, 07:42 PM

A car is not a pack of chewing gums. It can represent quite a huge financial value, even more value if the owner cannot afford to lose it for whatever a reason. It can also have non-financial value for the owner.

that a human life in principal always is more worth than lets say 30,000 dollars, is a sentimental lie. Some people are worth that much and even more. Others are not even worth one handfull of dollars. All humans are not equal, nor is everybody as valuable as just anybody else. we are different, some of us are better thna others morally, some of others are of greater material value than others, may it be skills, may it be in knowedge or experience. We are not all the same, and human life is not unlimited in value.

Boy, will this post make me popular again...

We claim that our societies respect private property. But that is not really true, there is a billion of limitations in place, and claims are made that pick away you "private property", and reduce the level to which you indeed are the owner of what is yours. Not to mentioin the huge amount the state is stealing from people because he used his monopolised status to make a rule that legalises his robbery.

If I own something which is dear to me, precious, important, valuable - whatver, then I demand the right to defend that property if somebody tries to destroy, damage or steal it intentionally. If I do not have that right, then private property is not really respected, and is not protected by the state.

Note that the right for defending what is yours, not necessarily must lead to your decision to defend it no matter what, down to the bitte rend. You should be free to decide that it is not owrth it for you to do so. But there you have it: if you are free to do so, okay. If somebody tells you you have no right, may it be due to legal rules, may it be due to his personal moral values, then he tells you you are not free to defend what is yours, and that you are subject to rules imposed onto you, the law's, or his.

You may be thinking that a car is not worth to shoot a thief over. But that is YOUR view only, the car owner may and can see that differently. His reasons can be many different ones, or just one, it does not matter. His car is his, not yours, and not the thief's. And it is the car owner's decision whether he defends it, or not. If the thief gives up, I think one can argue a killing is not longer acceptable, but to hurt him by shooting him into the leg to prevent his escape, to me still is acceptable. Whether I personally would shoot somebody who tries to steal my car, would depend on what sentimental value it may have for me, what material value it represents, whether I can afford the loss or urgently need the car this same day, and whether I can compensate the loss (I do not fully accept to just externalise my cost to the insurance if I can prevent the theft - why should the community suffer a loss if that loss could be prevented?)

If the criminal gets caught because I prevented his escape without killing him, I should have the right to demand compensation for losses or damages, plus a maximum punishment corresponding to the losses and damages the criminal has caused to me, which includes material factors and things, and me personally (body, mind) as well. That losses due to a crime must be compensated, is natural and no punishment yet. Additional to that, the criminal should suffer additional loss that goes beyond compensation - and that then is "penalty" or "punishment". I also should have the right to pass on these options, and to say that I do not demand compensation, or that I accept compensation but do not demand further punishment. Whatever my motives for that decision may be. Maybe it is my religion demanding me to do so. Maybe my moral system. Technical consideration. Mercy. The point is: the decision is mine, and nobody else's.

In other words: state and society are out, and that is what they have big problems with, while the latter only has an indirect interest. A state not needed is a state with less power. Terrible, from the profiteers' POV.

I would not shoot somebody stealing my MP3 player, it is old, broken, and I have reserve copies of the music. It is not that dear to me at all. But if I would have a car, and need it, and have no money, or it is al album with photographs that are dear to me - that would be something different.

In the old Wild West, horse thieves got hanged, because the loss of his horse could have meant a death sentence for somebody. Here at the latest any argument must end. Where the victim is expected to die itself in order to save the attacker, all sanity and reason would have gone to hell already. Unfortunately, we have this situation at courts all to often. My parents, but also myself, can sing a song of that. It costed us the lives of loved ones with those resposible for it getting away with cruel jokes of alibi penalties (and later repeating their offence, again at other people'S cost), and it costed my parents almost all their savings, and property worth almost one million. Too costly as if I would support this legal system any longer.

Skybird

04-04-14, 07:44 PM

Was it worth the risk getting killed to steal the car?

That's your right to let people take your possessions, I won't argue with that. Please respect my right to defend my property against criminals. I guess the car owner could have shouted "hey! bring my car back" but would that have worked? Why should the criminal make the rules?

http://patrick.net/forum/content/uploads/2012/11/neighbor-sign.jpg

Once again you do in just a few short lines and one sign what I need paragraphs and paragraphs for. :salute:

Armistead

04-04-14, 08:23 PM

I'm mixed, but I don't think I would shoot at someone fleeing with my property in hopes to kill them. I think the guy is making up a story for a defense.

I know I did a lot of dumb things as a kid, guess I could've got shot. I remember once as young teens a girl said we could watch her shower, so we snuck up to the outside window to watch. We watch a lil, but her father came around the corner with a long gun, so all of us kids ran in the dark. He actually shot, but as I recall he told police he shot in the air to scare whoever it was away....but what if he had shot us running....

Anyway, in our small rural town burglars get shot all the time. One old man shot two men trying to steal his car out of his driveway, both died, one was shot in the back, but no charges. We had another recent case where two crooks broke in a business and got copper wire, but the owner lived next door and shot and killed one. He said the guy charged him, but the burglar that escaped said he was just shot and they never saw it coming..The man wasn't charged.

I do know this, I feel anyone ever threatens my home or family, I'm shooting...No jury here will convict people that shoot burglars..

Sailor Steve

04-04-14, 08:32 PM

He actually shot, but as I recall he told police he shot in the air to scare whoever it was away....but what if he had shot us running....
Back when I was first married (1974) my late father-in-law told me that his oldest daughter thought a boy from her school was stalking her - not to hurt her, just watching. He said one night they heard a noise in the back yard. He went out the front and around to the back with a pistol. He saw someone in the dark. He ordered the person to freeze. The person ran. Joe fired his revolver almost straight down into the ground. The person fell. Joe wasn't sure if he'd shot the ground or shot the boy. It turned out his aim was good. The boy had fainted.

04-05-14, 12:30 AM

@Skybird if i had your writing skills or the patience i would write article on how makinkin murder legal would make people more kind and polite to each other for the benefit of human kind.:haha:

That's your right to let people take your possessions, I won't argue with that. Please respect my right to defend my property against criminals. I guess the car owner could have shouted "hey! bring my car back" but would that have worked? Why should the criminal make the rules?

Criminals should not make rules but there should be some ROE regarding criminals.
It seems some people don't want to use their heads before pressing trigger therefore there should be rules that would make them reconsider.
In particular not in life threatening situations.
Something that will force people to use commonsense.

STEED

04-05-14, 03:57 AM

Was it worth the risk getting killed to steal the car?

Counter point he did not know the owner was going to use the gun to kill him.

I see no reason in this case.

Kazuaki Shimazaki II

04-05-14, 04:04 AM

Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? You instead jump to an accusation of lying; which is in effect convicting the man before he even stands trail. Your political bias is showing.

Just a note ... self-defense is an affirmative defense (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_defense). In using it, you already agree that you shot him, so you are already "guilty". You then try to show you have a reasonable case to self-defense. You don't need a "beyond reasonable doubt" proof, but you do need to actively make a case.

If you want innocent until proven guilty, try saying that you have no idea who fired the bullet that killed the thief, but it wasn't you.

Skybird

04-05-14, 05:02 AM

Counter point he did not know the owner was going to use the gun to kill him.

He better should. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. If you want to commit a deed defined as a crime in the place you are in, you better know what sort of legislation you are messing around with.

Platapus

04-05-14, 06:26 AM

Just a note ... self-defense is an affirmative defense (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_defense). In using it, you already agree that you shot him, so you are already "guilty". You then try to show you have a reasonable case to self-defense. You don't need a "beyond reasonable doubt" proof, but you do need to actively make a case.

This is well worth repeating. There are many on the Internets Tubes that don't realize this. It is one of the few instances where you *do* have to prove your innocence... or more accurately prove that the homicide you committed should be excusable/justified.

Ducimus

04-05-14, 08:04 AM

First of all, you are loading the question by adding an unrealistic qualifier of "something vital to my livelihood that I cannot do without".

Disagree. It's totally realistic.

I can't think of anything that would be that in the context you used.

I can. Just an EASY example off the top of my head. (Edit: That's a welders truck in case you didn't know.)
No truck = no job = no money = no food and no house, etc etc.
http://media.merchantcircle.com/4878930/welding%20truck%202_full.jpeg

Wolferz

04-05-14, 08:34 AM

You come 'round my house looking to steal my property and all you'll hear is ...
{{ Woom}} {{Woom}} :huh:I now own your arms.

Do you think the thief might have a little trouble explaining his situation to the cops?:rotfl2:

Non-lethal approach...
12 gauge loaded with salt.

Tribesman

04-05-14, 09:00 AM

Disagree. It's totally realistic.

I can. Just an EASY example off the top of my head. (Edit: That's a welders truck in case you didn't know.)
No truck = no job = no money = no food and no house, etc etc.
http://media.merchantcircle.com/4878930/welding%20truck%202_full.jpeg
So its gone from imminent threat to life to something you can't do without to no job no house no food.
That's scaling it right down to the bare minimum and racheting it up again just to try and make it as though you had a point in the first place.
Answered by an EASY example right of the top of the head...the truck would be insured wouldn't it.:yep:
It would be replaced wouldn't it.:yep:
Its theft while inconvenient is not an imminent threat to life no matter how far you stretch it.

Lets put it in another perspective, someone stole a carpenters hammer, he had to shoot the thief because he would starve otherwise.
Sure makes sense doesn't it.

Ducimus

04-05-14, 09:30 AM

I think the protection of property is all variable on what it is and how hard it is to replace.

I work in IT. Someone steals my laptop issued to me by my employer, im not going to get butthurt about it. They'll get me another one. They may even force me to recompense for it out of my paycheck. 600 dollars or so im guessing, give or take. Not the end of the world. So if I catch someone carting off with said laptop, it's not like im going to use lethal force in its preservation. It's theft is an inconvenience, its not detrimental to my livelihood.

However, in my previous career, it was construction related. Say I left the military and went on to become a welder. That aforementioned picture is a type of truck that I have worked off of before. So I know this is the type of truck I would have. On it you have oxy aceteline cutting equpiment, a Miller arc welder, and hundreds, if not thousands of dollars in assorted hand tools. Ranging from chipping hammers, to bevel grinders. The truck alone is probably worth 30K. Nevermind the welder and everything else on it.

As a welder, you rely on that truck to get to your jobsite. You use it every day. You work off the back of it. This is your livelyhood, and it cannot be replaced like a 600 dollar laptop. In fact, when you add up the value of the vehicle, and all equipment on it, you probably will not be ableto replace it at all. Now someone tries to steal it. If they get away with that truck, the hardships that will occur to you and your family could be nothing short of financial ruin. Depending on your financial situation, you could conceivably lose EVERYTHING as a result. Your ability to feed your children, your house, everything. I think one would question very deeply, just how much one scumbag's life is worth compared to the fallout of what will occur as a result of that theft. This scenario is not unrealistic and I have no qualms in saying, that the welfare of my family far, Far, FAR, exceeds the value of one scumbags life.

Back on topic, did the truck stolen in this case have this sort of value attached to it? I don't know. Probably not, but if it did, I wouldn't blame the guy for shooting the theif in the slightest.

Tribesman

04-05-14, 09:52 AM

Depending on the financial situation?
OK. Say my truck got a puncture after driving over a bottle on the road, I didn't have money for a new tyre, the person who dropped that bottle is now causing me to starve to death.
Can I shoot that person for littering as their action is an imminent threat to my life?

Wolferz

04-05-14, 11:54 AM

Tribesman

04-05-14, 12:07 PM

No, but I bet you'd thump his noggin until no sign of life remained. Wouldn't you?:O:
Errrrrr...no.
Not unless I wanted to go to prison for attempted murder, murder or wounding with intent.
Now if beating them to death was a reasonable use of violence for the situation, and it was justified legally for that situation then that's different. But in the stretches of the bounds of reality that are being presented then it simply isn't.

Aktungbby

04-05-14, 12:30 PM

Gail Gerlach, 56, walked outside his Spokane home to see Brendon Kaluza-Graham driving off in his SUV on March 25, 2013, so he fired a single shot from his 9mm semiautomatic from about 60 feet away.

The bullet went through the rear window and headrest, hitting Kaluza-Graham’s spine at the base of the skull and killing him almost instantly. Gerlach has a permit for the weapon.

Gerlach claims that he thought he saw Kaluza-Graham pointing a gun at him and believed his life was in danger.

“This case has a theme, and the theme of this case is the sight of fear,” Gerlach’s attorney, Richard Lee, said in court.

Prosecutors contend that it was physically impossible for Gerlach to see the victim as the car was driving off, that the windows were too tinted and dirty. Additionally, Kaluza-Graham was unarmed. On the primary facts gleaned (enlarged from the OP article), the details of which may be incorrect reporter error, this one is a NO GO. The element of fear of death or 'great bodily harm' must be present to justify the use of deadly force, as in another post, to 'satisfiy the tryers of fact' at the obligatory inquest or hearing. A six-o'clock single shot to the occiput thru a tinted window of a person leaving the scene at 60 feet-20 yards, is not a fear inducing situation by any stretch of the imagination other than that the dead man is now in a vehicle which, as in Ducimus's scenario with acetylene/welding gear etc is now a traveling 'bomb' in a residential neighborhood. That shot is a cool methodical assassination Von Richthofen (or Boelke) would be proud of as his twin Spandaus "light up" the back of Snoopy's leather helmet! Firing 'warning shots' is universally frowned on: the ricochets and/or downward arcing fire is too dangerous as often proved in celebratory Arab moments of joy in crowded situations...or simply "unlawful discharge of a firearm in an inhabited zone".:nope:

TheDarkWraith

04-05-14, 12:35 PM

swamprat69er

04-05-14, 12:54 PM

Then why does law enforcement get away with murder in this same situation? Many times the 'fugitive' is running away or hops into a vehicle speeding AWAY from police but they still fire at the vehicle and kill them. How is that any different :06:
'cause LEO has the badge and the gun AND the courts on his side, not to mention his many cronies that will swear that his life was in immanent danger.

Wolferz

04-05-14, 01:52 PM

'cause LEO has the badge and the gun AND the courts on his side, not to mention his many cronies that will swear that his life was in immanent danger.

Don't forget the brainwashed masses they cherry pick a jury from.
Oops, I guess that would be included under "courts":yep: Disregard last transmission.:oops:

Wolferz

04-05-14, 02:16 PM

Errrrrr...no.
Not unless I wanted to go to prison for attempted murder, murder or wounding with intent.
Now if beating them to death was a reasonable use of violence for the situation, and it was justified legally for that situation then that's different. But in the stretches of the bounds of reality that are being presented then it simply isn't.

A reasonable line of thinking on the subject.:yep: However, the judgement of a use of force will not be in your hands if you do deem it necessary.
In essence, we have built a society on the predication of victims and criminals. So we have cops, robbers and victims. Plenty of laws to punish the robbers, if you call room and board for free a punishment. :roll:
You have cops who are sometimes criminals too with little to no oversight.
And last and certainly least we have victims. The good little sheeple who have to suck up whatever injury they suffer from the Cops and robbers.
I say our marksman was just being a good citizen who saw a crime in progress and made a citizens arrest and better yet, he saved the sheeple a butt load of money in prosecution and punishment costs. Turn him loose on the next lowlife scumbag and send those lazy foos a message. Watch out for JQ Public too.

Platapus

04-05-14, 03:38 PM

That's a welders truck in case you didn't know.)
No truck = no job = no money = no food and no house, etc etc.

I would imagine that if I shot someone while they were stealing that truck, that the truck would be seized as evidence and I would not have access to it. Until the case was resolved.

I would also imagine that the expense of a lawyer and time off from work for any trial would be a much more serious financial concern then just losing a truck.

Shooting someone for stealing a truck seems to be a poor financial decision.

Wolferz

04-05-14, 07:10 PM

The pros have all the authority in these matters.
The cons have all the luck.:-?

Aktungbby

04-05-14, 07:30 PM

Then why does law enforcement get away with murder in this same situation? Many times the 'fugitive' is running away or hops into a vehicle speeding AWAY from police but they still fire at the vehicle and kill them. How is that any different :06: The State of California differentiates a Peace officer and an ordinary citizen very slightly but emphatically: a sworn 'Peace officer' who may 'act on belief' of what may have occurred; a private citizen, including professional security officers (who are often P.O.S.T certified as well) may only act on(and make citizen arrests) only on what he witnesses. In court before 'tryers of fact', this tends to expand the cachet of the officer's judgment considerably. It is not always just or straightforward.
I would imagine that if I shot someone while they were stealing that truck, that the truck would be seized as evidence and I would not have access to it. Until the case was resolved.

I would also imagine that the expense of a lawyer and time off from work for any trial would be a much more serious financial concern then just losing a truck.

Shooting someone for stealing a truck seems to be a poor financial decision.

PRECISELY:salute: "Money is the sinews of war" even if its just down to you vs the bad guy. This righteous dude will lose all just to his attorneys and the estate of the deceased in the probable civil suit to follow. And, as in a previous post, don't ever use your best firearm; that's confiscated too...one step above a Saturday night special for fieldwork always!... just so it's reliable!

Platapus

04-05-14, 08:11 PM

I have posted it before and I think I will again

Anyone who owns a gun for self/home defense needs to read

In the Gravest Extreme: The Role of the Firearm in Personal Protection by Massad Ayoob

http://www.amazon.com/Gravest-Extreme-Firearm-Personal-Protection/dp/0936279001/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1396746420&sr=1-1&keywords=in+the+gravest+extreme

It is an eye opening book written by a man who probably knows more about it than most lawyers.

It is not like in the movies. :nope:

Ducimus

04-06-14, 08:19 AM

I would imagine that if I shot someone while they were stealing that truck, that the truck would be seized as evidence and I would not have access to it. Until the case was resolved.

I would also imagine that the expense of a lawyer and time off from work for any trial would be a much more serious financial concern then just losing a truck.

Shooting someone for stealing a truck seems to be a poor financial decision.

Your missing my point. I was attempting to make more clear, my example if the courts were not involved. The morality of the issue, not the legality. Remove the legality from it, with a situation where you are on your own. What do you do? What i'm trying to drive home, is that people arent neccessarly looking for an excuse to use their firearms. You can seriously screw up someones life without ever directly threatening it by violent means.

It goes back to the horse thief example by skybird. Yes, we used to hang horse thieves, because the item that was being stolen was detrimental to ones livelihood and life. It's basically the same thing I'm trying to get at.

The sad reality of today, is that the perpetrators of crime have more rights and consideration then the victims. Morality aside, and strictly legally, if someone wants to screw you over and take everything you have, you have to let them, because if you defend your property, you'll probably end up having the criminal sue YOU and win. Frankly, the situation of your family is far worse if your in jail. You cannot help them there, so by virtue of criminal rights, you have to bend over and take it, UNLESS he's stupid enough to threaten your life, THEN and ONLY then, can you take action. It's F'ing stupid.

I have posted it before and I think I will again

Anyone who owns a gun for self/home defense needs to read

In the Gravest Extreme: The Role of the Firearm in Personal Protection by Massad Ayoob

Yeah I caught the reference the first time. If were talking concealed carry, and your out in public, spot on! Where things get fuzzy to me is when your on (or in) your own private property.

EDIT:
I have to confess i have a bias in all this. I fervently hate gang bangers, thugs, and other assorted scum bags. I regard them the same i would a gum stain on a sidewalk, and consider them oxygen thieves. (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=oxygen%20thief)

04-06-14, 10:02 AM

The sad reality of today, is that the perpetrators of crime have more rights and consideration then the victims. Morality aside, and strictly legally, if someone wants to screw you over and take everything you have, you have to let them, because if you defend your property, you'll probably end up having the criminal sue YOU and win.I'm not American obviously...lol but from reading about the cases it really looks like people often look for the opportunity to draw a gun and shoot , or are not able or willing to consider any other option.
Maybe it is burned in their consciousness that it is OK thing to do . or simply some are *******s with the gun.
Might be issue of mentality as well.
Seems the law in some states is empowering those shooters to act mindlessly and get away with that.
So i don't know if the criminals have more rights...
On ethical side i'm not sure that if some kid...not necessarily gang member armed with UZI.. :haha: steals your car or walks on your lawn should be executed right away.
...maybe incidents like the one brought up here will make people think a bit more before pressing trigger.
You are not living in war zones after all , are you?
Shoot first ask questions later?

In USA firearms are easy to get so i suppose the pool of morons owning them legally is quite big... they need something to be afraid of.

Tribesman

04-06-14, 10:43 AM

You cannot help them there, so by virtue of criminal rights, you have to bend over and take it, UNLESS he's stupid enough to threaten your life, THEN and ONLY then, can you take action. It's F'ing stupid.

No, no, no and no.
By focusing on the extreme you miss out on all the other details, missing out on all the details makes your argument wrong.
There are lots of levels of reasonable action, the final one of which may be deadly force.
It is only the final one which has the "THEN and ONLY then" you talk about.
So what is "F'ing stupid." is focusing on only the final option and claiming that its restrictions prohibits all the other options.

CaptainHaplo

04-06-14, 04:44 PM

I don't know the outcome - none of us can tell the future. However, he legally made a huge error in claiming the shot was in self defense.

Per Washington State statute - specifically RCW 9A.16.050 - he was justified in shooting the person.

Here is what we know. The thief was engaged in auto theft, which under Washington law - RCW 9A.56.065 is a class B felony. This is key because of RCW 9A.16.050 states:

Homicide is also justifiable when committed either:

(1) In the lawful defense of the slayer, or his or her husband, wife, parent, child, brother, or sister, or of any other person in his presence or company, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design on the part of the person slain to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury to the slayer or to any such person, and there is imminent danger of such design being accomplished; or

(2) In the actual resistance of an attempt to commit a felony upon the slayer, in his presence, or upon or in a dwelling, or other place of abode, in which he is.

Thus, the owner of the truck committed justifiable homicide under the law in actual resistance to an attempt to commit a felony in his presence.

By claiming this was an act of self defense, the shooter has now forced himself into an affirmative defense, when he need not have done so.

Skybird

04-06-14, 05:40 PM

Is car theft a felony (=Kapitalverbrechen, schweres Verbrechen) in the US? I don't think so, since nobody was injured or got killed in this case, which would be a precondition to qualify the deed as such. The no longer used German term implies a crime so serious that the penalty could be decapitation (=death), that's where the term came from: a crime that is so serious that it could cost you your caput (Latin for head)

Just asking for curiosity, because formally, for a court, it makes the difference, Haplo.

Morally, as I stated earlier, the car owner imo has the right to defend his property. But laws are not about morals, but they are despite morals. Which is not necessarily or automatically a bad thing, else for example every religious nuthead could claim that the law should be bend due to his religious morals. If individuals could claim the law to be bend in their favour, the idea of having a status where before the law everybody should be equal, has flown right through the window. Which unfortunately all too often is the case nowadays.

CaptainHaplo

04-06-14, 06:26 PM

Just asking for curiosity, because formally, for a court, it makes the difference, Haplo.

Glad to answer, Skybird. It does make a difference. Here is the referenced State Statute...

RCW 9A.56.065

Theft of motor vehicle.

(1) A person is guilty of theft of a motor vehicle if he or she commits theft of a motor vehicle.

(2) Theft of a motor vehicle is a class B felony.

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.56.065

Skybird

04-06-14, 08:03 PM

Aktungbby

04-06-14, 08:35 PM

CaptainHaplo

04-06-14, 08:36 PM

Class B felony equals capital offence? What then is class A? I'm asking because the translator gives only "Schwerverbrechen" or "Kapitalverbrechen" for "felony", and car theft in Germany is no such major offence. Slaughter, robbery with injuring people, murder would be that, heavy physical violence and such stuff.

Skybird - a private individual may commit justifiable homicide to prevent a felony act against them. That is the law in that State. It is not the law in every State. However - the law defining justifiable homicide above does not limit what types of felonious acts it means. In essence - ANY felony against them allows that private individual to use deadly force.

Note that we are talking a private individual during the commission of a felony in which they are the victim. The courts do not have such leeway in sentencing or punishing a criminal.

After looking it up - theft of anything worth $5000 or more is a class B felony in Washington (except for firearms and vehicles - those are covered separately). Class C felonies are assault type charges - usually against minors. Class A felonies are murders/homicides. So apparently a criminal life is worth $4,999.99 - and not one penny more. At least, in Washington State.

CaptainHaplo

04-06-14, 08:41 PM

Class B (maximum penalty 10 years in prison and $20,000 fine) in the State of Washington! Woops! The 'class B felony' perpetrated upon Mr Gerlach without an immediate and perceivable threat of 'death or great bodily harm to himself or enumerated family or persons in his company' does not give sufficient cause to enact the death penalty imposed from 60 feet through a tinted window to the back of the head with one round. Mr. Gerlach has violated the poor(escaping) miscreant perpetrator's 8th Amendment privilege against unreasonable punishment:doh:...better he had walked around to the front of the vehicle and, under threat of being driven over, shot the miscreant perpetrator thru the windshield...coolly and methodically... as the stolen truck in motion is now a deadly weapon and Mr Gerlach is under no obligation to move out of the way on his own driveway; and his use of escalating force to prevent vehicular manslaughter would thus be justified to those 'tryers of fact'.:D

While that may be your opinion, it is not what is stated in law. Specifically, the following:

(2) In the actual resistance of an attempt to commit a felony upon the slayer, in his presence, or upon or in a dwelling, or other place of abode, in which he is. The attempt to steal the vehicle was defined under law to be a felony. The felony was committed upon Mr Gerlach, as he was the owner of said vehicle. His actions were to stop - thus actually resist - the commission of said felony. To have the right to use such force to resist he need only be present. To have fired the shot, it is in evidence that he must, by laws of physics, be present to fire the shot.

Thus - had he not claimed self defense, but merely stood on the legality of the use of deadly force in the resistance of a felony committed upon him, he would not even be in court.

Also - a person does not have the constitutional protection of the 8th amendment EXCEPT when dealing with punishment dealt out by the courts. In violating the constitutional rights of Mr. Gerlach, the perpetrator (or their family) has no standing to claim constitutional protections during the commission of a crime.

Aktungbby

04-06-14, 10:39 PM

(b) In the actual resistance of an attempt to commit a felony upon the slayer, in his or her presence, or upon or in a dwelling,((or)) residence, other place of abode, or occupied vehicle in which he or she is;
your whole statute as set forth.!

(c) In the event the slayer had a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself, herself, or another person in a dwelling, residence, other place of abode, or occupied vehicle.

(2) Under subsection (1) of this section, a person does not have a duty to retreat if the person is in a place where he or she has a right to be.

NEW SECTION. Sec. 3. A new section is added to chapter 9A.16 RCW to read as follows:

(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another person when using deadly force pursuant to RCW 9A.16.050(1)(c) if:

(a) The person against whom the deadly force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering or had unlawfully and forcibly entered a dwelling, residence, other place of abode, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person's will from a dwelling, residence, other place of abode, or occupied vehicle; and....Mr Gerlach was not 'in or on' an Abode or 'occupied vehicle' and not under duress or reasonable fear of death and/or great bodily harm and the perpetrator was not in the process of entering, but had already accomplished that of an unoccupied vehicle not in an abode or an attachment to which would include a garage or carport even. NO GO here as before; it's just not a 'clean shoot' and Mr Gerlach's very cool 60' distance "outside the home" with apparent lack of panic lends no credence to need use of deadly force! Giving every benefit of the doubt to Mr. Gerlach is real tough here. Needless firearm discharge in a residential front yard over an insured vehicle:hmmm: in a class B felony, probably 'wobbled down' by a decent public defender to a misdemeanor-class A doesn't add up to it!?:shifty:

CaptainHaplo

04-06-14, 11:17 PM

(b) In the actual resistance of an attempt to commit a felony upon the slayer, in his or her presence, or upon or in a dwelling,((or)) residence, other place of abode, or occupied vehicle in which he or she is;
your whole statute as set forth.!

OK - show me the link for that... because what you have in red is NOT the law as recorded by the official Washington state legislature page located here:

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.16.050

So either you are adding to the statute to suit your claim, or your source is incorrect according to the official government page.

Next - the key word there is "or". Even "if" your quote of the statute was correct (which it isn't) - then only ONE of the conditions need be met in section 2. The fact that the crime was a felony and was being committed IN THE PRESENCE of Mr. Gerlach constitutes fulfillment of section 2 in regards to justifiable homicide.

Nowhere in the law regarding justifiable homicide as delineated in 9A.16.050 does it require Mr. Gerlach to be in fear of his life or under assault by a deadly weapon. While it does state those conditions are one possible reason for justifiable homicide, it also lays out other alternative circumstances in which homicide is justifiable under that statute. Specifically, homicide is justifiable if the person is in active resistance to a felony being perpetrated on them or in their presence. Given that Mr. Gerlach was in the area of the felony being perpetrated, and it was his truck being stolen, it is clear that Mr. Gerlach acted in resistance to a felony being committed in his presence - which justifies the homicide according to 9A.16.050. It is also clear that Mr. Gerlach acted in resistance to a felony being committed upon him - that is the theft of his vehicle (already defined as a Class B felony) so again the homicide is justified under the law.

However - Mr. Gerlach did not avail himself of the defense provided to him under 9A.16.050. As such. he is likely to be convicted unless his attorney also includes the above statute in his defense as the trial moves forward.

Here is your challenge, Achtungbby....

Show me where - using the official source for the law in question - where in 9A.16.050 it is a REQUIREMENT to be under assault or in fear of assault. Note that 9A.16.050 states EITHER - not AND.....

Aktungbby

04-07-14, 01:47 AM

:k_confused:Yipes! Your absolutely right! and I humbly apologize! Apparently I'm looking at the proposed legislation to correct RCW 9A. 16.050! However, I like your version just as well! RCW 9A.16.050

Homicide — By other person — When justifiable.

Homicide is also justifiable when committed either:

(1) In the lawful defense of the slayer, or his or her husband, wife, parent, child, brother, or sister, or of any other person in his or her presence or company, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design on the part of the person slain to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury to the slayer or to any such person, and there is imminent danger of such design being accomplished; or

(2) In the actual resistance of an attempt to commit a felony upon the slayer, in his or her presence, or upon or in a dwelling, or other place of abode, in which he or she is.
Of some interest by a Washington police officer-scenario wise: http://blog.thenewstribune.com/bluebyline/2011/08/24/when-it-comes-to-deadly-force-there-is-no-home-base/ (http://blog.thenewstribune.com/bluebyline/2011/08/24/when-it-comes-to-deadly-force-there-is-no-home-base/) ... http://blog.seattlepi.com/defenseattorney/2012/04/24/stand-your-ground-2/ (http://blog.seattlepi.com/defenseattorney/2012/04/24/stand-your-ground-2/)In Washington, if someone claims a killing was done in self defense, then the jury would be instructed this way: " It is a defense to a charge of murder that the homicide was justifiable as defined in this instruction. Homicide is justifiable when committed in the lawful defense of the slayer when:
1) the slayer reasonably believed that the person slain intended to commit a felony or to inflict death or great personal injury;
2) the slayer reasonably believed that there was imminent danger of such harm being accomplished; and
3) the slayer employed such force and means as a reasonably prudent person would use under the same or similar conditions as they reasonably appeared to the slayer, taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances as they appeared to him, at the time of and prior to the incident.

The State has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the homicide was not justifiable. If you find that the State has not proved the absence of this defense beyond a reasonable doubt, it will be your duty to return a verdict of not guilty." [Washington Pattern Instruction #16.02] Washington law adds the requirement that the force be what a "reasonably prudent person" would use, :hmmm: It also appears that private citizens in Washington have some wider latitude to use deadly force than peace officers under RCW 9Aa.16.040...http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2010400110_shootingrules01m.html (http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2010400110_shootingrules01m.html).. For most of the 20th century, police officers in several states were allowed to shoot any fleeing felony suspect to prevent escape. That changed after a 1985 U.S. Supreme Court case, Tennessee v. Garner, in which the court ruled that police violated constitutional rights when they killed an unarmed burglary suspect as he fled by climbing a fence.
Deadly force is permitted only when a fleeing suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others, the justices said.
That standard has been written into Washington state law, RCW 9A.16.040. I was also incorrect about the penalty for auto theft which remains a class B felony in Washington State and for which the penalty IS:
Theft of a Motor Vehicle – Penalties

If you are caught stealing an automobile, no matter the value you can be charged with this offense. Theft of a motor vehicle is a Class B felony carrying a potential sentence of up to one year in prison, fines, community service, and/or a potential term of community supervision (probation).
Ref: RCW 9A.56.065 (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9A.56.065) The question put to Mr Gerlach's 'tryers of fact' will be " would a reasonably prudent person shoot anyone at 60' to prevent a crime which only draws a year of time as he was fleeing and not a 'significant threat of death or serious injury'? as with the now legally constrained peace officers. Did Mr. Gerlach know it was a felony or a misdemeanor at the time( one year is usual for misdemeanors) sufficiently to know he was permitted to fire at the now fleeing felon in a vehicular class B felony? Mr Gerlach needs a good attorney and a crime scene cleanup crew to restore his truck to it's pre-felony condition. Sadly, you cannot shoot the burglar in the back outside the home these days even as he's humpin' along under the weight of your big $creen TV and has actually been in your 'castle' to do the felony burglary, and that's where Mr Gerlach's similar case will go against him.

Skybird

04-07-14, 05:33 AM

Haplo, I exclusively struggle with the understanding of the term "felony", its definition and what it means in Us penalty code, type A and B. Stealing a car is not a capital crime like slaughter, murder, robbery by the use of severe physical violence, serious physical violence, kidnapping over here. So, the term felony (A, B) means any kind of crime in general, or capital crimes only?

CaptainHaplo

04-07-14, 06:05 AM

@Achtungbby - No apology necessary. That is why we discuss things and I appreciate your willingness to double check. You are right, the private citizen does have more latitude IF they are present when the crime is committed. Not sure I agree that should be the case, but it is what Washington State allows.

Haplo, I exclusively struggle with the understanding of the term "felony", its definition and what it means in Us penalty code, type A and B. Stealing a car is not a capital crime like slaughter, murder, robbery by the use of severe physical violence, serious physical violence, kidnapping over here. So, the term felony (A, B) means any kind of crime in general, or capital crimes only?

@Skybird - no, there are two generally levels of crime, a misdemeanor and a felony. A felony is worse regarding sentencing. According to the State in question, any theft of $5000 (excluding firearms or motor vehicles) or more is a felony act. Any theft less than that would be a misdemeanor and would have different sentencing (punishment) guidelines.

The key here is that the Court can not impose capital punishment just because its a felony. Basically in Washington State - if you are convicted of a Class B felony, the punishment maximum is 10 years incarceration and up to a $20,000 fine. That is the most the Court can do. However, the law does allow greater action by private citizenry if you commit a felonious crime in their presence - up to and including deadly force to stop you.

To make it more confusing, we have 50 States.... Each State would have its own laws regarding this type of situation.

Skybird

04-07-14, 06:40 AM

So "Autodiebstahl" is a capital crime, then. Strange I find that. Different folks - different strokes.

In Germany, it would only be murder, slaughter, severe physical violence, kidnapping, robbery with a strong physical component and/or very huge prey and or an act of killing, arson. I'm not sure whether rape and child abuse are seen as such capital crimes as well (I would hope so).

"Kapitalverbrechen" is no official term in German legal system anymore, but is still very popular in colloquial use, since everybody klnows what is meant by it. Formally, the law calls these things simply "Schwerverbrechen" (very serious crimes).

Wolferz

04-07-14, 07:21 AM

Mister Gerlach is in need of a good jailhouse lawyer.

Any of you fellows available?:03::O:

swamprat69er

04-07-14, 08:12 AM

Sailor Steve

04-07-14, 10:21 AM

So "Autodiebstahl" is a capital crime, then.
Again a difference in interpretation. In the United States the term "capital crime" indicates a crime that is punishable by death, or "capital punishment".

A felony is described as a crime which is punishable by one year or more in prison. Any lesser punishment indicates a misdemeanor.

Skybird

04-07-14, 10:38 AM

Again a difference in interpretation. In the United States the term "capital crime" indicates a crime that is punishable by death, or "capital punishment".

Like I said:

The no longer used German term "Kapitalverbrechen" implies a crime so serious that the penalty could be decapitation (=death), that's where the term came from: a crime that is so serious that it could cost you your caput (Latin for head).

I conclude that the ENG-GER dictionaries, which also varied in their translation, have messed the term "felony" up then.

Penguin

04-07-14, 01:41 PM

So cops are (rightfully!) not allowed to waste a car thief, if they don't pose an immanent danger to others, yet citizens should be allowed to do so? :hmmm:
So where do you guys draw the line? Should egging a car be punishable by death? (http://edition.cnn.com/2014/02/17/us/arkansas-prank-death/) Hey, we don't know if the guy could afford the claening bill...

Shooting someone for stealing a truck seems to be a poor financial decision.

:agree:

Also if work as a professional and can't afford to pay a loss insurance, you have a pretty bad business model.

I conclude that the ENG-GER dictionaries, which also varied in their translation, have messed the term "felony" up then.
Rough equals:
felony = Verbrechen (madatory minimum sentence)
misedeamor = Straftat/Vergehen
infraction/violation of ordinances = Ordnungswidrigkeit (ticket)

not 100% comparible because case law vs. common law/differences in jurisdictions, etc

Skybird

04-07-14, 02:00 PM

That helps, thanks. :salute:

Wolferz

04-07-14, 02:05 PM

Bring back the pillory in the public square so that we may spit upon the criminal and strike him with our shoes. Spending a week or two with pigeons crapping on you should be sufficient punishment to deter any miscreant from recidivist behavior. :up:Get your bird seed here folks! Bird seed for sale!
Empty the prisons and line up the pillories for a good old fashioned three Stooges style Gibbs slapping:O:

Aktungbby

04-07-14, 04:37 PM

Or is it just Judge Roy Bean that tries him.
I'll settle fer the Judge...and a Hamm's at his tienda-cum-court in Vinigaroon, anyday! Walter Brennan, as the infamous jurist, winning his third Oscar in 1940's "The Westerner" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLYydMo-p7Q (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLYydMo-p7Q) Polite toasts to English women (MS Lilly Langtree) and capital offense hanging cases and general horsn' around in court! http://i.ebayimg.com/00/s/OTEwWDExNDA=/z/L40AAOxyVLNSzGOC/$_57.JPG
Only offered as the prosecution asked potential jurors "After Judge Plese's questions, the prosecution took their turn at the pool of potentials, asking a multitude of questions including if they liked old westerns and if they had any sympathy or empathy." :hmmm:

CaptainHaplo

04-07-14, 06:45 PM

Like I said in post #22 "I don't think the shooter has a 'leg to stand on'. I would be interested in what the jury says."
He said he shot the perp in 'self defense', yet the perp was running away from him. Because of the self defense statement, I think he is well and truly screwed.
I would like to hear what the jury has to say. He does get a trial by Judge & jury, doesn't he? Or is it just Judge Roy Bean that tries him.

If the attorney he has is smart, he will argue that he did not need to be acting in self defense to fire. If that argument is made, then he should (legally speaking) - be found to have committed justifiable homicide. I am not saying that the law is "right" in this case, but it is what the law as written calls for in this case.

So cops are (rightfully!) not allowed to waste a car thief, if they don't pose an immanent danger to others, yet citizens should be allowed to do so? :hmmm:
So where do you guys draw the line?

I am not sure that I agree with the way the law is written in Washington State. Where do we draw the line? That is going to be highly independent and varied. What matters is that the State of Washington draws the line at firearms, motor vehicles or $5000.00 of theft. Vandalism isn't a felony so the egging of a car wouldn't apply.

CaptainHaplo

04-07-14, 07:03 PM

In the interest of debate, let me point out a situation where the law as written in Washington could be used badly....

The law states that any felony can be acted on with justifiable homicide provided the homicide is committed to stop the felony. A class C felony is - as an example - assault on a minor.

So, a mom has had a long day and is at the grocery store with her 6 year old spoiled kid. Standing in line at the cashier, and the kid has been a brat and bugging the whole shopping trip. Maybe the kid takes a candy bar and refuses to put it back - mom gets angry and snatches the kid by the shirt, turns the kid around and wallops him/her a few times on the backside with an open hand. To some people - that constitutes an assault on a child. To others, its simply and reasonable corporeal punishment. The law "could" be used to justify shooting that mom disciplining her child if the shooter construed that as an assault.

With no requirement but to "be present" and nothing but their own viewpoint to guide them, it could happen.

Not likely though. A person choosing to carry is also likely to be not only more legally educated but also more responsible with their firearm than to act as above. Something to think about though.....

Platapus

04-07-14, 07:05 PM

A person choosing to carry is also likely to be not only more legally educated but also more responsible with their firearm than to act as above. Something to think about though.....

I would opine that recent events in Florida would challenge this assertion. :yep:

CaptainHaplo

04-07-14, 07:37 PM

I would opine that recent events in Florida would challenge this assertion. :yep:

What recent events in Florida?

Wolferz

04-07-14, 07:41 PM

A case in my former hometown had a citizen arrested, charged with and convicted of attempted murder for sticking an arrow in the gob of a fleeing thief who had just stolen the radio out of his car.
Plain and simple, the crooks have more rights than the citizens if we are bound by law to let them get away with their thieving.
I think there should be the added uncertainty in the minds of those who would steal that there's no guarantee you will live to benefit from your plundered bootie. I think in this case, even a blind police officer could see that this miscreant died during the commission of grand theft auto. The police report should have been a slam dunk... Perp was found dead at the scene in a stolen vehicle. No shooter could be located. Case closed.
Maybe we should all turn to a life of crime and see how that works out.:hmmm:

Moral of the story: " If you're going to kill a car thief, it's best you have an unregistered weapon to put in his hand before the police arrive."

Armistead

04-07-14, 09:24 PM

I think the law should be you can't use deadly force on a mere thief as long as he obeys your orders not to flee with your property or if you feel your life is in danger.

This reminds me of a story my grandfather told me when he ran a funeral home. A thief was trying to steal his car and he snuck up and had the thief at gunpoint. My grandfather said to the thief "you're probably wondering if I will shoot you if you run, only one way to find out...take off." The thief decided to wait for the police and a good thing.

When I was around 5, my father shot and killed an intruder when we lived upstairs in the funeral home. He actually shot the man on the back screened in porch. No charges were filed, but that was the 60's.

Aktungbby

04-07-14, 10:19 PM

http://www.khq.com/story/24897812/only-on-khq-gail-gerlach-nearing-manslaughter-trial-100-potential-jurors-to-be-called (http://www.khq.com/story/24897812/only-on-khq-gail-gerlach-nearing-manslaughter-trial-100-potential-jurors-to-be-called) Warning: the Above photos are disturbing and the question begs why shoot someone over this vehicle? It travelled down the road and crashed into a neighboring garage; fortunately no one else was injured. Mr Gerlach was well out to the street as the fleeing vehical pulled away. More fodder for thought... http://www.kxly.com/news/spokane-news/gerlach-to-face-manslaughter-charge-in-car-theft-shooting/20345172 (http://www.kxly.com/news/spokane-news/gerlach-to-face-manslaughter-charge-in-car-theft-shooting/20345172) Mr Gerlach had only just started carrying in the last two weeks prior to the shooting and probably has no 'street smarts' and was instantly second guessing himself if not regretful. His attorney's fear defense is going to run smack into the jury instruction from my prior post:" 1) the slayer reasonably believed that the person slain intended to commit a felony or to inflict death or great personal injury;
2) the slayer reasonably believed that there was imminent danger of such harm being accomplished; and
3) the slayer employed such force and means as a reasonably prudent person would use under the same or similar conditions as they reasonably appeared to the slayer, taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances as they appeared to him, at the time of and prior to the incident."
1)By the time Mr Gerlach retrieved his weapon and got to the driveway or street, events were well past 'intend' and off his property much less his 'abode' 2) the greater imminent harm as the photos show was from causing a dead person to be behind the wheel of a Suburban in motion. 3) I'm a reasonably prudent person; bullets, once fired, are no longer under your control and he cannot have seen a proper felonious B target in the tinted rear Suburban window moving harmlessly now 60' away...If the vehicle could hit something unintentional (the garage) so for sure could the .9mm round: It's a blessing it did not. To quote Mr Gerlach: ""[I] wish I could live it all over again," Gerlach told Detective Ben Estes after the shooting. When Estes asked why, Gerlach replied, "20/20 is hindsight." Now perhaps he IS becoming 'reasonably prudent'.:hmmm:

CaptainHaplo

04-07-14, 10:33 PM

I have to agree with Achtungbby - using the fear defense creates additional legal hurdles.

Had Gerlach simply stated he was acting in accordance with the law to stop a felony, there would be no charges.

swamprat69er

04-07-14, 10:53 PM

Now perhaps he IS becoming 'reasonably prudent'.:hmmm:
Reasonably prudent, a little late for that.

CaptainHaplo

04-08-14, 08:34 AM

A few years ago, Ken Schram (a Seattle talk radio host) had prosecutor John Ladenburg on his show. The question was asked:

If I find a man in my home raping my wife, can I shoot and kill him without being charged?

The answer: Yes

It was further asked: If he runs away and I chase him for three blocks before I shoot him, will I be charged?

The answer: No, you will not be charged because a felony is not complete until the criminal escapes. The escape completes the crime.

I wish they had podcasts from back then.....

Now - with that said, this adds 2 factors. One, the thief had not yet escaped, thus the felony was still "in commission". Also - the man taking Mr. Gerlach's vehicle constituted a danger to the general public since he was fleeing the scene of a crime and could have run someone over in his attempt to escape.

I really don't see him getting convicted - UNLESS the prosecutor states that the taking of the vehicle was "Taking without permission" as opposed to "theft of a vehicle". Only then can he claim the crime was not a felony and make the manslaughter charge stick.

In the end - I don't see a conviction. Know why? Because 12 people are going to look at this and say - well one less criminal on the streets - and done legally.

swamprat69er

04-08-14, 08:43 AM

That is why I want to follow this to the end. I want to see what the jurys response is.

04-08-14, 09:58 AM

swamprat69er

04-08-14, 10:01 AM

You are guaranteed if it is at night and a rabbit I will get it in my lights and have rabbit stew for supper the next night.:D

Aktungbby

04-08-14, 03:04 PM

Payback will be HELL! http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51AtC9OnzqL.jpghttp://allrecipes.com/recipe/hasenpfeffer-rabbit-stew/ (http://allrecipes.com/recipe/hasenpfeffer-rabbit-stew/) http://images.media-allrecipes.com/userphotos/250x250/00/00/13/1349.jpg

Wolferz

04-08-14, 03:11 PM

Somebunny is hungry.:haha:

Wolferz

04-08-14, 03:24 PM

Washington man kills a car thief with one round and gets arrested..
Sick Connecticut woman hits a fence in Washington and gets executed with five rounds by DC police.

What's wrong with this picture?:hmmm:

DC police in need of remedial firearm training?:-?

swamprat69er

04-08-14, 03:24 PM

No! Don't run them over, just gradually slow down and stop. The stupid rabbit will stay in your lights, then walk around it so you have the rabbit between you and the vehicle and you can walk right up to it, pick it up by the ears and one swipe with a sharp knife and it is all over.

Aktungbby

04-11-14, 12:49 PM

The State has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the homicide was not justifiable. If you find that the State has not proved the absence of this defense beyond a reasonable doubt, it will be your duty to return a verdict of not guilty." [Washington Pattern Instruction #16.02] Washington law adds the requirement that the force be what a "reasonably prudent person" would use, :hmmm: It also appears that private citizens in Washington have some wider latitude to use deadly force than peace officers under RCW " http://www.krem.com/news/local/Jury-selection-enters-day-2-253408541.html (http://www.krem.com/news/local/Jury-selection-enters-day-2-253408541.html) Gail Gerlach was acquitted of manslaughter by the jury after the state failed to prove its case. The jury also found that Mr Gerlach's "use of force was justified" which will enable him to be reimbursed by the state for his legal expenses. Mr Gerlach's comment after the trial and acquittal: "This was a tragedy, as Christians we believe in redemption," said Gail Gerlach outside of court following the verdict. "The greatest tragedy is that Mr. Brendon Kaluza-Graham will never have a chance to turn his life around. I’m going to now take time to spend with my family and friends.” :shifty:

Wolferz

04-11-14, 01:18 PM

There's a good piece of news for a change.:up:

swamprat69er

04-11-14, 02:36 PM

http://www.krem.com/news/local/Jury-selection-enters-day-2-253408541.html (http://www.krem.com/news/local/Jury-selection-enters-day-2-253408541.html) Gail Gerlach was acquitted of manslaughter by the jury after the state failed to prove its case. The jury also found that Mr Gerlach's "use of force was justified" which will enable him to be reimbursed by the state for his legal expenses. Mr Gerlach's comment after the trial and acquittal: "This was a tragedy, as Christians we believe in redemption," said Gail Gerlach outside of court following the verdict. "The greatest tragedy is that Mr. Brendon Kaluza-Graham will never have a chance to turn his life around. I’m going to now take time to spend with my family and friends.” :shifty:

:up:Good news!:up:

CaptainHaplo

04-11-14, 10:27 PM

Well, at least this time the law worked. I am surprised they explicitly went away from the legal "property protection clause". Still, justice is served.

TarJak

04-11-14, 10:35 PM

Yes a man who chose a life of crime has had it cut short by his judge jury and executioner. Bravo.

TarJak

04-11-14, 10:54 PM

I agree it was the thiefs fault he was killed. It makes sense to me to pull out a gun and shoot someone dead when they steal something from me.

Jimbuna

04-12-14, 07:00 AM

Much relief in the Gerlach household I should imagine.

CaptainHaplo

04-12-14, 10:27 PM

Yes a man who chose a life of crime has had it cut short by his judge jury and executioner. Bravo.

Tarjak - your right. He had his life cut short by one man who acted as Judge, Jury and Executioner. The law allows for that in the State of Washington under certain circumstance.

Guess the man who chose to life a life of crime should have chosen a different courtroom to try and steal a truck from, huh....

On behalf of all those other people who would have been victimized by said criminal, I thank Mr. Gerlach....

TarJak

04-13-14, 02:48 AM

Or perhaps Mr. Gerlach could have made another choice that prevented further victims without ending a life, no matter how undeserving.

But of course he's allowed to kill someone, so that's OK.

Cybermat47

04-13-14, 04:15 AM

Or perhaps Mr. Gerlach could have made another choice that prevented further victims without ending a life, no matter how undeserving.

He could've done what my Uncle did, and get a really big Dog... it worked for him. Not so much for the guys who tried to steal from him.

d@rk51d3

04-13-14, 05:24 AM

He could've done what my Uncle did, and get a really big Dog... it worked for him. Not so much for the guys who tried to steal from him.

Can of aerostart beats a big dog in seconds........

Cybermat47

04-13-14, 05:40 AM

Can of aerostart beats a big dog in seconds........

I'll keep that in mind :hmmm:

04-13-14, 09:46 AM

Good for Mr. Gerlach...
I suppose next time he will think twice before acting foolishly including some other tough guys who draw quicker than they think...which may be ok only in some environments.

CaptainHaplo

04-13-14, 02:09 PM

Or perhaps Mr. Gerlach could have made another choice that prevented further victims without ending a life, no matter how undeserving.

So what other choice are you suggesting? What other choice can you offer that guarantees no further victims that is not an over-reach by government?

Unless it is lifetime incarceration with no possibility of parole, you can not say it "prevents further victims" with any certainty. Lifetime incarceration is - in many way - more unreasonable, cruel and unusual of a punishment than a quick (and relatively painless) death inflicted as a direct cause during the commission of a crime.

But of course he's allowed to kill someone, so that's OK.

I love how you make this claim, simply ignoring both the law (as we have reviewed extensively) and the fact that he killed this man under what he says is fear of his life as well as in the protection of his property - both of which are allowed by the law where he lives.

Your claim doesn't deal with those facts, you just make it out like he was walking down the street, shot someone and got off free for it. At the least, such a comment is intellectually dishonest and intentionally misleading for someone who has not read about the case.....

04-13-14, 02:35 PM

So how many here have suffered from a serious Crime?
My prospective changed because of one I wasn't even home for.
:stare:

I can understand using of deadly force under certain condition when at home... but how serious crime is car theft?
I remember ...It is like stealing your camel in middle of desert lol.

Ohh yeas law is law ...yet this can be seen as sort of citizen rule patriot act.:D

and the fact that he killed this man under what he says is fear of his life If that is the case he either was laying to save his skin which is understandable or else... he most certainly should not have permit to carry firearms , who knows what else may threaten him....

CaptainHaplo

04-13-14, 03:03 PM

If that is the case he either was laying to save his skin which is understandable or else... he most certainly should not have permit to carry firearms , who knows what else may threaten him....

Such a comment specifically flies in the face of our justice system and process....

You have merely the press accounts of what happened. Those jurors sat through days of testimony. Not only was he found not guilty, the jury also found that his act of force was "justified" given the full evidence in the case.

You see - what came out at trial (and what most people don't know because its not reported in the mainstream press accounts) is that Brendon Kaluza-Graham, the "victim" - had previously been charged with a violent crime, with a deadly weapon, on law enforcement that was attempting to apprehend him. The reality is that the man had already demonstrated that he was capable of deadly violence against those who attempted to stop his criminal activity. So it is NOT unreasonable to think that he may have acted in a threatening manner toward Mr. Gerlach.

At least, that is what the jury stated after reviewing the evidence. So when you "judge" Mr. Gerlach on limited information, especially when you do so in a way that would strip him of his right to protect himself in the future, do you not commit the same type of egregious wrong you claim he perpetrated on Graham?

04-13-14, 03:23 PM

You see - what came out at trial (and what most people don't know because its not reported in the mainstream press accounts) is that Brendon Kaluza-Graham, the "victim" - had previously been charged with a violent crime, with a deadly weapon, on law enforcement that was attempting to apprehend him. The reality is that the man had already demonstrated that he was capable of deadly violence against those who attempted to stop his criminal activity. So it is NOT unreasonable to think that he may have acted in a threatening manner toward Mr. Gerlach.

This is typical court room mental gymnastics...dinging into the victim? (or how ever you like to call the thief) past....

Since there had been no witnesses that could testify otherwise theological assumption was made...
Probably every one was willing to go along with that.
That how it works...cool.

What would happen if the guy had no earlier issues with the law??
If it was just some stupid kid from the neighborhood?
Was the general atmosphere at the place/neighborhood where the crime happened so bad that called for so extreme measures and assumptions?
Did he know the thief??

Mr. Gerlach got lucky.

Cybermat47

04-13-14, 04:21 PM

Look, I'm very anti-killing, but I see it this way:

This man saw his car being stolen. He didn't think, he just shot the guy. It seems that this action is permitted by law. You can say that his actions were immoral, but they were still protected by law. Now, personally, I wish that he had manged to incapacitate the thief without killing him. We don't know why the man was a thief. He could've been doing it out of desperation, and/or for his family. But all Mr. Gherlach saw was a man stealing his property.

We can argue about this until we die, but the fact is, it won't change anything. So let's just go back to living our lives.

TarJak

04-13-14, 05:04 PM

So what other choice are you suggesting? What other choice can you offer that guarantees no further victims that is not an over-reach by government? Why would you choose killing as the first option,given the fact the thief is already driving away in the car negating the fear defence?

Unless it is lifetime incarceration with no possibility of parole, you can not say it "prevents further victims" with any certainty. Lifetime incarceration is - in many way - more unreasonable, cruel and unusual of a punishment than a quick (and relatively painless) death inflicted as a direct cause during the commission of a crime. What an extremist load of bollocks.

I love how you make this claim, simply ignoring both the law (as we have reviewed extensively) and the fact that he killed this man under what he says is fear of his life as well as in the protection of his property - both of which are allowed by the law where he lives.

Your claim doesn't deal with those facts, you just make it out like he was walking down the street, shot someone and got off free for it. At the least, such a comment is intellectually dishonest and intentionally misleading for someone who has not read about the case.....
I've made no claim. Merely expressed a sarcastic opinion. You're now bordering on veiled insult.

Such a comment specifically flies in the face of our justice system and process....

You have merely the press accounts of what happened. Those jurors sat through days of testimony. Not only was he found not guilty, the jury also found that his act of force was "justified" given the full evidence in the case.

You see - what came out at trial (and what most people don't know because its not reported in the mainstream press accounts) is that Brendon Kaluza-Graham, the "victim" - had previously been charged with a violent crime, with a deadly weapon, on law enforcement that was attempting to apprehend him. The reality is that the man had already demonstrated that he was capable of deadly violence against those who attempted to stop his criminal activity. So it is NOT unreasonable to think that he may have acted in a threatening manner toward Mr. Gerlach.

At least, that is what the jury stated after reviewing the evidence. So when you "judge" Mr. Gerlach on limited information, especially when you do so in a way that would strip him of his right to protect himself in the future, do you not commit the same type of egregious wrong you claim he perpetrated on Graham?
More extremist bollocks. Things are rarely as black and white as you have painted them.

What if they knew each other prior to the incident? And that was never presented to the jury because the prosecution didn't know about a prior relationship? Would that make a difference?

Of course the jury will decide on the evidence that is presented as is right and proper. That's not the issue. The issue is that extreme violence as a first response is a poor choice and certainly not one to be encouraged. Unless of course that's what you're advocating?

I'm very uncomfortable with holding someone who chooses extreme violence as their first response, up as a shining paragon of virtue that we should all cheer on.

Cybermat47

04-13-14, 05:06 PM

I'm very uncomfortable with holding someone who chooses extreme violence as their first response, up as a shining paragon of virtue that we should all cheer on.

Agreed. I don't think he should be considered a criminal, but saying that he's a hero or anything like that is a load of crap. Killing should never be considered a good thing, no matter the circumstances. At the most, it should be considered as necessary.

And personally, if it came to a choice between losing my car or killing someone, I'd start saving up for a new car. I wouldn't take someone's life over something as petty as a car.

But why are we arguing about this? What's done is done. We can't change anything. Just respect each other's opinions and get back to being friends :salute:

TarJak

04-13-14, 07:55 PM

We argue because it's fun. Intellectual exercises like these little jousts at windmills are just another form of entertainment. Just like the courts of law.

CaptainHaplo

04-13-14, 07:56 PM

Why would you choose killing as the first option,given the fact the thief is already driving away in the car negating the fear defence?

So on other words, you refuse to answer the question.
Also - for the record, "killing" was not the "first option". According to testimony, Gerlach yelled "Stop!" repeatedly - so verbally instructing the criminal to cease their criminal activity was the "first" option.

What an extremist load of bollocks.
Calling names because you can't argue substance....

I've made no claim. Wrong.... see:
Or perhaps Mr. Gerlach could have made another choice that prevented further victims without ending a life, no matter how undeserving.

You claim that Gerlach could have made another choice. When challenged, you refuse to answer what other choice he could have made that would have done what you suggest - guarantee no further victims.

Merely expressed a sarcastic opinion. You're now bordering on veiled insult. No - I am calling you out on trying to portray an event a certain way by using a blanket statement that intentionally omits and ignores critical, relevant facts. That isn't an insult, its called insisting on a debate based on facts and substance vs spin.

More extremist bollocks. Who is being the insulting one?

Things are rarely as black and white as you have painted them. Perhaps that is the case. However, given that a jury of 12 people came to a unanimous conclusion on this case, it would appear to have been rather black and white.

What if they knew each other prior to the incident? And that was never presented to the jury because the prosecution didn't know about a prior relationship? Would that make a difference?

Of course the jury will decide on the evidence that is presented as is right and proper. That's not the issue. That is part of the issue. If the prosecution didn't know - that means they didn't do their job. Would it make a difference - I don't know the legality of having it admitted or not. So I can't say....

The issue is that extreme violence as a first response is a poor choice and certainly not one to be encouraged. Unless of course that's what you're advocating?

I'm very uncomfortable with holding someone who chooses extreme violence as their first response, up as a shining paragon of virtue that we should all cheer on. Now we are getting somewhere. While it wasn't the "first" response - the reality is that it COULD be and that the law in the State of Washington allows it to be. Is that something I would advocate? I see both advantages and disadvantages of the law as written.

Where I take issue is that some here would crucify a man for doing something entirely legal and within his rights to do. If you disagree with the law that allows it, then work to change that - but don't vilify the man for acting in a perfectly legal manner. Especially when he has been subjected to judicial prosecution on top of it and been exonerated.

Oh - and as for whether his actions were "justified" - I suspect women would be less likely to call his actions justified without significant reason than men. The jury was 11 women, 1 man. He was found justified - that tells me quite a bit.

Ultimately, I can agree that the very first action should not be to start putting rounds downrange. But I also see the need to make sure that the OPTION of doing so remains an option. In addition, I have a problem with people who claim that someone "could not have been in fear of their life" or "should not have been" and judges that from afar.

TarJak

04-13-14, 10:09 PM

So on other words, you refuse to answer the question.
Also - for the record, "killing" was not the "first option". According to testimony, Gerlach yelled "Stop!" repeatedly - so verbally instructing the criminal to cease their criminal activity was the "first" option.
I chose to ask a more pertinent question. If you don't have the imagination to work out the alternatives then I feel sorry for anyone you may feel entitled to shoot dead.

Calling names because you can't argue substance....
I called what I saw. Your argument is a load of bollocks.

Wrong.... see:
I see you grasping at straws.

You claim that Gerlach could have made another choice. When challenged, you refuse to answer what other choice he could have made that would have done what you suggest - guarantee no further victims.
You need to brush up on your semantics. A claim is different to an opinion. Again you're making an extremist argument.

No - I am calling you out on trying to portray an event a certain way by using a blanket statement that intentionally omits and ignores critical, relevant facts. That isn't an insult, its called insisting on a debate based on facts and substance vs spin.
I'm calling what Gerlach did immoral and unnecessary. Nothing more. Nothing less. I could care less if that's a blanket he's uncomfortable lying under.

Who is being the insulting one?
Again calling it as I see it. You're argument is still a load of bollocks.

Perhaps that is the case. However, given that a jury of 12 people came to a unanimous conclusion on this case, it would appear to have been rather black and white.
My point here is that even the jury tries the case on the limited information presented to them. Based on parameters they had to work with, their decision was correct. Whether Gerlach was guilty or not is not at issue. Saying they may have seen information outside the public domain may be true but it doesn't exclude other information that they may not have been aware of.

Holding him up a a paragon of virtue is still wrong

Now we are getting somewhere. While it wasn't the "first" response - the reality is that it COULD be and that the law in the State of Washington allows it to be. Is that something I would advocate? I see both advantages and disadvantages of the law as written.

Where I take issue is that some here would crucify a man for doing something entirely legal and within his rights to do. If you disagree with the law that allows it, then work to change that - but don't vilify the man for acting in a perfectly legal manner. Especially when he has been subjected to judicial prosecution on top of it and been exonerated.

Oh - and as for whether his actions were "justified" - I suspect women would be less likely to call his actions justified without significant reason than men. The jury was 11 women, 1 man. He was found justified - that tells me quite a bit.

Ultimately, I can agree that the very first action should not be to start putting rounds downrange. But I also see the need to make sure that the OPTION of doing so remains an option. In addition, I have a problem with people who claim that someone "could not have been in fear of their life" or "should not have been" and judges that from afar.
I'm not trying to crucify anyone. Just pointing out that killing is a poor and overly violent reaction, in this and in most cases ed except where life is in imminent danger, even and particularly when sanctioned by the state.

That there are those that hold this as acceptable and even laudable behaviour is disappointing. As I said before, bravo.

CaptainHaplo

04-14-14, 08:23 AM

I chose to ask a more pertinent question. If you don't have the imagination to work out the alternatives then I feel sorry for anyone you may feel entitled to shoot dead.

See - this is why it isn't a debate. First you make a claim, then when challenged on it you refuse to back it up you claim you didn't make one at all. When it is proven you did, you again try to deflect by insults instead of dealing with a challenge to your own position....

I called what I saw. Your argument is a load of bollocks.
Yelling "bollocks" and "extremist" does not a convincing argument make....

I see you grasping at straws.
Yet when offered the option to substantially articulate why my view is wrong based on facts, you resort instead to insult because the facts do not back your position.

You need to brush up on your semantics. A claim is different to an opinion. Again you're making an extremist argument.

Yet you continually refuse to offer an "OPINION" on what should have been Gerlach's actions other that "well he shouldn't have done THAT!" - all while intentionally throwing insults. You, my friend, need to brush up on your debating skills. Or at least stop trying to use the "tribesman method of debate and other ass-hattery".

I'm calling what Gerlach did immoral and unnecessary. Nothing more. Nothing less. I could care less if that's a blanket he's uncomfortable lying under.

And what I am pointing out is that your decision to call it "immoral and unnecessary" is based on media reports after the fact. You were not Gerlach, standing there watching someone drive away and - according to his testimony, pointing something back toward him which he thought was a gun. Your opinion of his actions lack factual perspective and are based on not only your personal bias, but also incomplete information. Neither of us was in Gerlach's place, so neither of us can truly determine if he was or was not in fear of his life. We can only speculate. A jury with more information found his actions reasonable. While not irrefutable, that result lends further credence to my position.

Bottom line: You don't like what happened and you think it was immoral and unnecessary. I disagree. Thankfully for Mr. Gerlach both the law and the community where he is agreed with my position based on the evidence and the outcome as decided by his peers.

You're argument is still a load of bollocks.
And yet you still fail to articulate why, instead spewing the generic dismissiveness with no factual or reasonable logic behind it.

My point here is that even the jury tries the case on the limited information presented to them. Based on parameters they had to work with, their decision was correct. Whether Gerlach was guilty or not is not at issue. Saying they may have seen information outside the public domain may be true but it doesn't exclude other information that they may not have been aware of.

So in other words, you don't like the outcome, so your implying that there could be other information that might have had an impact "if only the jury knew". And earlier you claimed that I was reaching for straws LOL.

Holding him up a a paragon of virtue is still wrong

Why? Because he did something you didn't like? You admit he did nothing wrong legally. So besmirching his virtue is still wrong.

I'm not trying to crucify anyone. Just pointing out that killing is a poor and overly violent reaction, in this and in most cases ed except where life is in imminent danger, even and particularly when sanctioned by the state.

And again you fail. Calling someone immoral is in fact, an attempt to "crucify" them. In addition, your opinion that "killing is a poor and overly violent reaction, in this and in most cases" is simply that - your opinion. The fact that he was found to have been "justified" in his actions indicate that your "overly violent reaction in this case" claim is absurd. Your entitled to your opinion - and your entitled to be wrong. In this case, you seem to be exercising your right to both.

That there are those that hold this as acceptable and even laudable behaviour is disappointing. As I said before, bravo.

That there are those who would prefer to remove the rights of individuals to protect themselves from threats - especially by determination from afar with incomplete information - on whether or not that person had reason to be in fear of their life - is disappointing as well.

If you don't think it should be "acceptable" - work to change the law that makes it so. Or just sit here and continue to whine about the rights of people to defend their life, liberty and property. I just hope you never find yourself in the same situation - and then are crucified by those not in your shoes at that moment who would tell you that you had no right to be afraid for your life.

Wolferz

04-14-14, 11:13 AM

Gentlemen, please.
One could argue that Mister Gerlach actually saved an innocent life or two or three. If he had reported the vehicle stolen and it was later spotted by the police who then gave chase, as they are wont to do, in an effort to arrest the thief...
You end up with a desperate criminal seeking to evade capture, flying around like a maniac and maybe colliding with that mini van filled with a soccer mom and her kids. Suffice it to say, "the dirtbag was trashed at the source of the crime." Goodbye, The End. Any questions?
The wheels of justice have turned the right way.
If you fellows want to continue the circular debate... I won't stand in your way.:03::88) It's like watching a game of Duck Duck Goose.

Fish

04-14-14, 01:20 PM

What a shot! I cannot see why he is on trial.

I can, but hé, a human live is here worth more then a car. :o

CaptainHaplo

04-14-14, 04:28 PM

I think the fundamental issue here is the following question:

If a person is in the act of unlawfully violating another person's rights - be they the right to life, liberty or property - should the person committing the crime have the reasonable expectation that their own rights to life, liberty or property should still be respected by the person they are victimizing?

In my view, the answer is generally no. Tarjak apparently feels differently.

TarJak

04-14-14, 04:54 PM

This was never a debate in my view. I made a comment, which was disagreed with. Largely by trying to put words into my mouth which has continued in the above post.

How I feel, Capt. Haplo, is that a human life is worth more than property, regardless of how it is led. Death for theft, is indeed a heavy sentence.

My comments were never about the legality, or otherwise, of the situation, only on the subject of whether its a good thing to be cheering on someone who chooses to kill someone for what that person did.

@ Wolferz, you've disappeared into the realm of speculation. Another speculation could be a prior "business" relationship between the two protagonists which went sour, leading to the death of one of them, the only witness being the other. So what? We can speculate ad nauseam. But it leads us nowhere.

Wolferz

04-14-14, 05:30 PM

@ Wolferz, you've disappeared into the realm of speculation. Another speculation could be a prior "business" relationship between the two protagonists which went sour, leading to the death of one of them, the only witness being the other. So what? We can speculate ad nauseam. But it leads us nowhere.

Just as the incessant circular argument leads back to the point of origin.:salute:

Ultimately, we can only agree to disagree because nobody can force you to be right.:O: The man shot and killed a worthless horse thief in the act of stealing his horse. The Sheriff brought him before the judge and jury and he was acquitted of any wrong doing in the protection of his property. Justice was served because it was the thief who chose to become a victim. He wasn't murdered in cold blood. If it rankles your sensibilities, well, we can't help you there.
I for one have no sympathy for self inflicted injury. The thief should have known better and stuck with the old shoe leather express. Maybe these criminals will finally get the message that their behavior won't be tolerated any longer and a life of crime can be hazardous to their health. Whatever it takes to give them pause and think twice is OK in my book.:hmmm:

TarJak

04-14-14, 05:39 PM

Just as the incessant circular argument leads back to the point of origin.:salute:

Ultimately, we can only agree to disagree because nobody can force you to be right.:O: The man shot and killed a worthless horse thief in the act of stealing his horse. The Sheriff brought him before the judge and jury and he was acquitted of any wrong doing in the protection of his property. Justice was served because it was the thief who chose to become a victim. He wasn't murdered in cold blood. If it rankles your sensibilities, well, we can't help you there.
I for one have no sympathy for self inflicted injury. The thief should have known better and stuck with the old shoe leather express.
Fill your boots if that's what makes you feel better about yourself. Neither parties actions are cause for celebration. :Kaleun_Goofy:

Maybe these criminals will finally get the message that their behavior won't be tolerated any longer and a life of crime can be hazardous to their health. Whatever it takes to give them pause and think twice is OK in my book.:hmmm:

Given that hasn't happened throughout the length of human history, I have doubts that message will ever get through.

Wolferz

04-14-14, 06:07 PM

Fill your boots if that's what makes you feel better about yourself. Neither parties actions are cause for celebration. :Kaleun_Goofy:

Given that hasn't happened throughout the length of human history, I have doubts that message will ever get through.

This dimension is a free will zone. If there are those who freely choose to put their mortal existence on the line in order to get something for nothing, who am I to stop them from making the choice? If they choose to steal my property, then I choose to stop them with force and I'll walk away with a big smile on my face but, I won't be throwing a party to celebrate it.:-?

CaptainHaplo

04-14-14, 06:17 PM

How I feel, Capt. Haplo, is that a human life is worth more than property, regardless of how it is led. Death for theft, is indeed a heavy sentence.

Tarjak, in this I can partially agree with you. The thing is you put the burden on the victim - holding Mr. Gerlach responsible for the death of Mr. Kaluza-Graham. I instead put the responsibility on Mr. Kaluza-Graham himself, because it was HIS decision to act in a way that was not only unlawful, but placed his own life in danger in the commission of the crime.

When you choose to disregard someone else's rights, you have no right to complain when they violate yours. So while a human life is worth more than property, if you place yours in jeopardy to take someone else's property and you get killed - its your own fault.

TarJak

04-15-14, 02:16 AM

Every way you look at it, Mr. Gerlach is responsible for his actions no-one else can be. It was his choice to use deadly force. So yes I do hold him responsible for his actions. What the other bloke did may have influenced his actions, however Mr. Gerlach remains responsible.

His choice to pull a gun, his choice to pull the trigger. No amount of justification or lawyering can change that.

CaptainHaplo

04-15-14, 05:44 AM

His choice to pull a gun, his choice to pull the trigger. No amount of justification or lawyering can change that.

And there we finally have the truth of it. Nothing justifies deadly force in your mind. At least you finally admitted you don't believe in the right of self defense.

TarJak

04-15-14, 06:11 AM

And there we finally have the truth of it. Nothing justifies deadly force in your mind. At least you finally admitted you don't believe in the right of self defense.
Again you are putting words in my mouth that I have not said. Try reading what I wrote and interpret it literally without your own extremist spin.

Cybermat47

04-15-14, 06:11 AM

And there we finally have the truth of it. Nothing justifies deadly force in your mind. At least you finally admitted you don't believe in the right of self defense.

Self defense and lethal force are two different things. I've defended myself loads of times, but I've never killed anyone. And I never want to kill someone. Killing someone is one of the most disgusting acts you can commit. Sometimes it's necessary, but it's still a terrible thing.

And Neal? No offense intended, but saying 'Good shot!' When someone has killed a fellow human being, even in defense of their property, is congratulating someone for killing a Human being, who had friends, family, and people he loved. I'm not making excuses for his actions, but he was still a Human being, and deserves respect.

Wolferz I wouldn't say that the thief's life was worthless. Every life, no matter who it's led, has worth. As people go, the car thief wasn't that bad. As far as I know, he wasn't a murderer, rapist, or anything else that could land him the death sentence if he'd lived long enough to face a court consisting of more one man with good aim and a gun. And as far as I know, WHY the man turned to a life of crime is unknown. He could've been doing it for his family for all we know. Again, I'm not making excuses. But it's no less improbable than your whole 'guy goes crazy and ends up hitting a car with a Mum and kids in it' theory. In fact, it's more probable. But I guess we can blame whoever's running the economy for all the desperate people turning to crime. Actually, what's the point of an economic system like the one we have? But that's something for another thread.

But as you said, we can only agree to disagree. We'll have to, or eventually we're all going to be banned after we snap from arguing with each other :D. And plus, I want to be part of that country I suggested you make in your 'Too much Alice Cooper' thread :salute: We just have to realise that some of us have different sensibilities and viewpoints on life due to our unique life experiences. I don't harbor any hard feeling against anyone I've disagreed with in this thread.

Good night everybody. I hope this thread is dead when I wake up tomorrow morning. Or at least a bit calmer. :salute:

Jimbuna

04-15-14, 07:04 AM

Good night everybody. I hope this thread is dead when I wake up tomorrow morning. Or at least a bit calmer. :salute:

So after all that text your condoning death as well :)

I've been watching this thread carefully and IMO the main contributors have done themselves no harm or disservice...a failure to agree in an adult like and sensible way is to the credit of them.

Tribesman

04-15-14, 09:35 AM

I've been watching this thread carefully and IMO the main contributors have done themselves no harm or disservice...a failure to agree in an adult like and sensible way is to the credit of them. I suppose its a matter of perspective. I would call this .....
And there we finally have the truth of it. Nothing justifies deadly force in your mind. At least you finally admitted you don't believe in the right of self defense...
extremely infantile, not adult at all as there is simply no logic in it.

CaptainHaplo

04-15-14, 01:31 PM

Again you are putting words in my mouth that I have not said. Try reading what I wrote and interpret it literally without your own extremist spin.

Tarjak...

You stated that it is your view that if a man chooses to pull a trigger - he is responsible for the death of the person he shoots. Your next statement was that there is no amount of justification that absolves him of that responsibility.

That isn't putting words in your mouth... it is what you stated. You tell me to interpret it literally - I did exactly that. When you say no amount of justification - I take you at your word. When you say the responsible party is the one who kills - I take you at your word. Thus - literal interpretation means that when someone takes the life of another with a firearm, there can be no justification that absolves them of the responsibility of taking that life.

It was his choice to use deadly force. So yes I do hold him responsible for his actions.

His choice to pull a gun, his choice to pull the trigger. No amount of justification or lawyering can change that.

Your words. Literally....

...without your own extremist spin.

And you still can't stop with the insults can you? Kind of funny that you keep that up after complaining that you were insulted... LOL

Tribesman

04-15-14, 04:18 PM

I see your problem there Haplo, it's English, you are mixing your articles.

Try this .
Tarjak doesn't like that cat
that cat has 4 legs
tarjak hates chairs
they have 4 legs.

TarJak

04-15-14, 04:54 PM

:doh: It is putting words into my mouth. Show me where I said that I don't believe in the right of self defence please.

Your comment was that I do not believe in the right to self defence. How can you know that from what I wrote? How does this:
It was his choice to use deadly force. So yes I do hold him responsible for his actions.

His choice to pull a gun, his choice to pull the trigger. No amount of justification or lawyering can change that.

equal this:

Nothing justifies deadly force in your mind. At least you finally admitted you don't believe in the right of self defense...

It's quite a leap of logic and certainly doesn't make any sense.

My comment makes no reference to the right to self defence and relates only to the responsibility of the person pulling the trigger. Can you deny that the person holding a gun and pulling the trigger is responsible for their actions? Unless someone is actually forcing you to fire by pushing your finger onto the trigger, how can that be? Who else made the choice to hold the weapon? Who else made the choice to pull the trigger?

If you take an extreme view, then you are extremist. I make no apology if you are insulted by that, however the fact remains you've repeatedly stated extreme views on a number of points. Most of which are actually irrelevant to my position.

If you think cheering on someone who takes a life for theft of property is a good thing, then you cannot be described as anything but an extremist.

TarJak

04-15-14, 04:55 PM

I see your problem there Haplo, it's English, you are mixing your articles.

Try this .
Tarjak doesn't like that cat
that cat has 4 legs
tarjak hates chairs
they have 4 legs.

:haha:

I don't like any cats, but chairs are a good thing.

Tribesman

04-15-14, 05:03 PM

:haha:

I don't like any cats, but chairs are a good thing.
But those are very definitive.
Have you met all cats ? there might be a nice one out there.
There are certainly some bad chairs around, they are not good.:03:

TarJak

04-15-14, 06:18 PM

But those are very definitive.
Have you met all cats ? there might be a nice one out there.
There are certainly some bad chairs around, they are not good.:03:

:hmmm:

I've met no good cats and all the chairs I've sat on have been good enough.:sunny:

Tribesman

04-15-14, 06:28 PM

:hmmm:

I've met no good cats and all the chairs I've sat on have been good enough.:sunny:
Have you met a lot of ocelots?
Beware the hazards of badly woven wicker.

TarJak

04-15-14, 06:35 PM

Have you met a lot of ocelots?
Beware the hazards of badly woven wicker.

One or two. They were not nice.
I avoid wicker chairs where possible. I don't like the marks it leaves on my skin when I stand up. :know:

CaptainHaplo

04-15-14, 09:05 PM

:doh: It is putting words into my mouth.
Your comment was that I do not believe in the right to self defence. How can you know that from what I wrote?

It is rather simple Tarjak. Perhaps if I type slowly you will get it...

Self defense is an action taken by a person to protect himself or herself from an attacker. Now - if you believe that a person is responsible for the outcome of choosing to pull a gun and squeeze the trigger and killing another person - as you put it - in a way that "no justification can change" (your words) - you are stating that there is absolutely no justification for killing for any reason - including self defense. While I believe that killing in self defense should generally be the "last option" - your claim that there is no justification that eases the responsibility of the act - removes the "last option". Ergo, while you can claim to believe in "self defense" - you position ends up gutting the entire premise - that you have the right to save your own life at the expense of those who would take it from you via criminal attack. You in essence make "self defense" equal to "murder" - and I highly doubt that you would claim that you or anyone else has the right to murder another person. Maybe this will help:

"He took my pencil so I shot him" + no justification = Murder
"He looked at me funny so I shot him" + no justification = Murder
"He was stealing my truck so I shot him" + no justification = Murder
"He was raping my wife/daughter so I shot him" + no justification = Murder
"He was raping me so I shot him" + no justification = Murder
"He was killing my wife/daughter so I shot him" + no justification = Murder
"He was killing me so I shot him" + no justification = Murder

No matter what you combine it with..... + no justification = Murder

Or would you claim you have the right to defend yourself as long as you do so in a way that does not take another life - ever? If that is the case, then you have the right to fight against your attacker until they kill you, but don't fight too hard or else + no justification = Murder.

Neither position is compatible with believing in the right to self defense. Simply put - self defense is in essence the position that the defender has more rights than the attacker - because the attacker abrogates his/her rights by the very action and intent of violating the rights of the defender.

You boxed yourself into a corner when you said "no justification". If you can't see the flaw in holding to that statement while attempting to say you believe in self defense, then you really should just continue as you have in the last few posts and keep on trying to learn from the "tribesman's school of ass-hattery" instead of actually trying to debate.

If you take an extreme view, then you are extremist. So saying that there is "no justication" for pulling a trigger is seen by many as an extreme view. So what did you just make yourself there?

I make no apology if you are insulted by that, however the fact remains you've repeatedly stated extreme views on a number of points. I am not in the least bit insulted - just was pointing out the irony of it all. However, my views are "extreme" by what definition? Yours or General Society? Given that society here in the US where I live finds my views on this subject generally acceptable, your claim of "extremist" is simply false.

If you think cheering on someone who takes a life for theft of property is a good thing, then you cannot be described as anything but an extremist.I don't recall every "cheering on" anyone. I did post a thank you to Mr. Gerlach on behalf of the future victims that now will not have to undergo that ordeal from the deceased. That is hardly "cheering on". In fact, I pointed out some grave concerns over how the law in Washington State was written.....

But then, you would have to understand how to debate a subject to understand how I could look at both sides and see problems on each....

Onkel Neal

04-15-14, 09:45 PM

It is rather simple Tarjak. Perhaps if I type slowly you will get it...

If you don't have the imagination....

I called what I saw. Your argument is a load of bollocks.

I see you grasping at straws.

.

Looks like we're getting personal.

I honestly don't understand why you accept people have different opinions but you cannot accept that not everyone thinks like you.

And Neal? No offense intended, but saying 'Good shot!' When someone has killed a fellow human being, even in defense of their property, is congratulating someone for killing a Human being, who had friends, family, and people he loved. I'm not making excuses for his actions, but he was still a Human being, and deserves respect.

Hmph. We give medals to people who kill other people. The more they kill, the more prestigious the medal.

I'll wade back into this argument; I don't hold the life of a car thief in high regard, and I don't apologize for that. If he wants my respect and he wants me to value his life, don't steal my car. Simple. Human being, pft, that's overrated.

CaptainHaplo

04-15-14, 10:10 PM

Looks like we're getting personal.

Message received loud and clear.

I honestly don't understand why you accept people have different opinions but you cannot accept that not everyone thinks like you.

As I said earlier. Everyone has a right to have a different opinion. They also have the right to be in error. :arrgh!:

TarJak

04-15-14, 10:27 PM

It is rather simple Tarjak. Perhaps if I type slowly you will get it...

Self defense is an action taken by a person to protect himself or herself from an attacker. Now - if you believe that a person is responsible for the outcome of choosing to pull a gun and squeeze the trigger and killing another person - as you put it - in a way that "no justification can change" (your words) - you are stating that there is absolutely no justification for killing for any reason - including self defense. While I believe that killing in self defense should generally be the "last option" - your claim that there is no justification that eases the responsibility of the act - removes the "last option". Ergo, while you can claim to believe in "self defense" - you position ends up gutting the entire premise - that you have the right to save your own life at the expense of those who would take it from you via criminal attack. You in essence make "self defense" equal to "murder" - and I highly doubt that you would claim that you or anyone else has the right to murder another person. Maybe this will help:

"He took my pencil so I shot him" + no justification = Murder
"He looked at me funny so I shot him" + no justification = Murder
"He was stealing my truck so I shot him" + no justification = Murder
"He was raping my wife/daughter so I shot him" + no justification = Murder
"He was raping me so I shot him" + no justification = Murder
"He was killing my wife/daughter so I shot him" + no justification = Murder
"He was killing me so I shot him" + no justification = Murder

No matter what you combine it with..... + no justification = Murder

Or would you claim you have the right to defend yourself as long as you do so in a way that does not take another life - ever? If that is the case, then you have the right to fight against your attacker until they kill you, but don't fight too hard or else + no justification = Murder.

Neither position is compatible with believing in the right to self defense. Simply put - self defense is in essence the position that the defender has more rights than the attacker - because the attacker abrogates his/her rights by the very action and intent of violating the rights of the defender.

You boxed yourself into a corner when you said "no justification". If you can't see the flaw in holding to that statement while attempting to say you believe in self defense, then you really should just continue as you have in the last few posts and keep on trying to learn from the "tribesman's school of ass-hattery" instead of actually trying to debate.

So saying that there is "no justication" for pulling a trigger is seen by many as an extreme view. So what did you just make yourself there?

I am not in the least bit insulted - just was pointing out the irony of it all. However, my views are "extreme" by what definition? Yours or General Society? Given that society here in the US where I live finds my views on this subject generally acceptable, your claim of "extremist" is simply false.

I don't recall every "cheering on" anyone. I did post a thank you to Mr. Gerlach on behalf of the future victims that now will not have to undergo that ordeal from the deceased. That is hardly "cheering on". In fact, I pointed out some grave concerns over how the law in Washington State was written.....

But then, you would have to understand how to debate a subject to understand how I could look at both sides and see problems on each....Personal attacks aside, you have yet again missed my point. My first point is that I'm not trying to have a debate with anyone. I'm attempting to make clear a comment which you have seized upon as a debate because you don't agree with it and you have repeatedly attempted to put words in my mouth that I have not said.

My second point is that responsibility for your actions can lie nowhere else but with you. Otherwise you are using the child's defence of "he made me do it."

Who decided take out his gun?

Who decided where to aim the gun?

Who decided to pull the trigger?

Who's responsible for that dead body being dead?

Not one word I've written has anything to do with self defence. Every word I've written is about the choices made by someone. Why those choices were made is a very separate issue. The fact remains that no-one forced Mr. Gerlach to any of his decisions and he is therefore responsible for the outcomes.

Cheering = encouraging
Thanking someone does nothing to discourage and could be considered encouraging.

Clearly we work with different logic patterns.

Looks like we're getting personal.

Understood.

Cybermat47

04-15-14, 10:33 PM

Hmph. We give medals to people who kill other people. The more they kill, the more prestigious the medal.

I think that they're rewarded more for bravery, rather than how many people they kill :hmmm: i
I mean, Keith Payne got the Victoria Cross for saving lives in Vietnam.

I'll wade back into this argument; I don't hold the life of a car thief in high regard, and I don't apologize for that. If he wants my respect and he wants me to value his life, don't steal my car. Simple. Human being, pft, that's overrated.

I disagree, as I value all human life, and would only consider killing in self-defense. And personally, I'd leave the 'This guy wasn't a human being' stuff to murderers, rapists, terrorists, and dictators. But I think we can agree to disagree, and respect each other's opinions, at the very least. After all, we've all lived different lives, so of course we're going to disagree a lot.

But I do agree with you that putting him on trial was unnecessary. The morality of his actions is debatable, but the legality isn't. It would've been better if the thief was arrested rather than shot, but I can hardly condemn Mr. Gherlach for defending his property. Hopefully we'll see a rapid drop of car thefts in the area.

Tribesman

04-16-14, 02:13 AM

You boxed yourself into a corner when you said "no justification". If you can't see the flaw in holding to that statement while attempting to say you believe in self defense, then you really should just continue as you have in the last few posts and keep on trying to learn from the "tribesman's school of ass-hattery" instead of actually trying to debate.

The school of ass-hattery?
You need a simple lesson from the school.:yep:
You are failing to understand English.
You are changing the articles to make what was written into something else.
You are mixing actions to blend them into other things.
You are taking specifics then generalising them, you are then taking the generalisations and oversimplifying them, your oversimplified generalisations bear no resemblance to the specifics you started with.
In other words, the basis of your position has been made completely rubbish by yourself.

No matter what you combine it with.....
There is your problem.

Self defense is an action taken by a person to protect himself or herself from an attacker.
Self defence is self defence.
Self defence may or may not involve killing someone.
Killing someone may or may not be self defence.
Property is not the self.
Objecting to someone killing another over a car is not a rejection of self defence.
Claiming that it is is bollox of an extremist nature.:know:

@tarjak
One or two. They were not nice.

one or two ocelots is not all ocelots, it is certainly not all cats, there may be a nice one out there somewhere.
I avoid wicker chairs where possible. I don't like the marks it leaves on my skin when I stand up.
See, not all chairs are nice:03:
So is it 4 legs bad, or is it 4 legs good?
Maybe its 4 legs not so bad or not so good depending on the specifics.

TarJak

04-16-14, 02:17 AM

Both and neither depending on your point of view.

And thanks for being logical. I didn't think I was being overly obtuse.

What are your school fees? Most of the lessons appear to be free.

Tribesman

04-16-14, 02:34 AM

And thanks for being logical. I didn't think I was being overly obtuse.

No, you were very clear.
What you encountered there with Haplo is fairly common, someone takes a rather extreme(depending on perspective) view.
Someone objects to that view.
To justify the extreme view in light of the opposing view the person takes the opposing view and changes it into an extreme view.

TarJak

04-16-14, 02:41 AM

Hmph. We give medals to people who kill other people. The more they kill, the more prestigious the medal.

I'll wade back into this argument; I don't hold the life of a car thief in high regard, and I don't apologize for that. If he wants my respect and he wants me to value his life, don't steal my car. Simple. Human being, pft, that's overrated.Killing in war is no less senseless than killing in the street. Medals though are usually for merit though getting notches on your belt can add to the objective of winning a war and there may be perceived merit in that.

But we have very different rules for war as opposed to behaviour in your average suburban street.

I don't hold the thief in high regard either. But his life is not valued lower than a vehicle by your own legal system. If it was, you would have different penalties than those in place now. Would a court that put criminals to death for car theft be preferable?

Being human may be overrated but it's all we've got.

Onkel Neal

04-16-14, 10:27 AM

Killing in war is no less senseless than killing in the street. Medals though are usually for merit though getting notches on your belt can add to the objective of winning a war and there may be perceived merit in that.

Killing is killing, whether its some poor Schmoe who has been drafted by his government and would rather be anywhere else than at the end of your bayonet, or if its a lazy, drug-addicted scumbag who will be happy to punch your teeth out or stab you in the groin if you slow him down from stealing your property. I agree, killing in war is not exactly the same as killing a criminal who is stealing your property. But it's not all that different. We are always at war with criminals, but they are willing to disregard all rules of conduct while we are tying our hands with excessive rules. The only reason self-defense has been brought up in this case is because the property owner could be considered in trouble for fighting back against criminals. That's it--we all know it is not self-defense, and some of us (me for example) beleive its a travesty that he has to even go there to protect himself. He should be able to say "Guy was stealing my $30,000 car and I stopped him with a bullet", and there should be nothing to say except "good shot!". :-?

Now, as I stated earlier, you may have a different belief about the value of this criminal's life, and you are entitled to believe that. You are entitled to act on this belief, allow a criminal to get away with stopping him, and relying on law enforcement and insurance to take care of this for you. But you are not allowed to tell me what I can believe, and the law in many places backs up a property owner who uses deadly force to stop the theft of his property. So, there are many who feel the same as me. :hmm2:

But we have very different rules for war as opposed to behaviour in your average suburban street.

Like I said, depends on where you live. In some states, the rules say yes, you can shoot a car thief or burglar. People who don't like this should find a state/region where criminals have more freedom.

I don't hold the thief in high regard either. But his life is not valued lower than a vehicle by your own legal system. If it was, you would have different penalties than those in place now. Would a court that put criminals to death for car theft be preferable?

Well, here's how I value an automobile that cost $20,000, $30,000 etc. That represents days and days of my work, showing up on time, getting the job done, avoiding mistakes, listening to PIA customers or bosses, being accountable for my work, thousands of hours of my time and life....and not being able to enjoy many of the things in life I would be able to enjoy if I was unemployed--screwing around all day, every day, doing what I like, no pressure, plenty of time to watch TV or surf the web, play games, listen to music, visit friends and family, smell the roses--all of this is severely limited by the time I have left after working.

So, yeah, that car is worth a LOT more to me than some car thief's life. Sorry, but I do have a right to this opinion, and it's no more right or wrong than yours. That's the way many people feel.

Death penalty for car thieves? Why not? Or, maybe I can compromise with you, how about 30 years in prison, no early release? :cool:

CaptainHaplo

04-16-14, 10:55 AM

Not one word I've written has anything to do with self defence. Every word I've written is about the choices made by someone. Why those choices were made is a very separate issue. The fact remains that no-one forced Mr. Gerlach to any of his decisions and he is therefore responsible for the outcomes.

And it is here that you continue to make the error. You claim no one forced Mr. Gerlach to any of his decisions. Yet Mr. Gerlach was deemed to have justifiably acted in self defense. So a jury of 12 peers found by preponderance of the evidence that Mr. Gerlach was forced into a decision by Mr. Kaluza-Graham.

You can claim it wasn't right, but both the law and society have spoken. You are entitled to your opinion - and your entitled to be wrong. You are choosing to do both simultaneously.

Cheering = encouraging
Thanking someone does nothing to discourage and could be considered encouraging.

Using your logic, a pharmacist does nothing to discourage the abuse of prescription medicine by choosing to dispense such medication, so they "could be considered" to be encouraging it. :o Not actively discouraging something is not the same as encouraging it.

When was the last time you actively discouraged someone from going out and having a few drinks before driving home? If you are not actively discouraging it - then you "could be encouraging" it using your line of reasoning.

Think about that for a moment. If you know your friend is going to go to a party and have a few drinks, but you don't intentionally call him up and remind him not to drink and drive - God help you if he gets in a car wreck and kills someone. After all - if the victim's family finds out - you could be sued for contributing (via your ENCOURAGEMENT) to his choice to drink and drive. Pretty ridiculous premise, yes? But that is the train of thought you are using when you say if your not discouraging someone then you could be viewed as encouraging them.

Note - there is a difference between encouragement and tacit approval. Perhaps that is what you meant?

Clearly we work with different logic patterns.
Well we can at least agree on that....

Flamebatter90

04-16-14, 11:32 AM

The American justice system is something I will never understand.

Tarjak or Tribesman made a good point by saying: If citizen can shoot someone who is stealing his car, then why car theft isn't punishable by death in court?

I think this is the main point of this.

Is life really so cheap over there?

Wolferz

04-16-14, 12:16 PM

Is life really so cheap over there?

Yes, the life of a common criminal is pretty damned cheap. If the criminal has such disrespect for himself or his peers, that he feels the need to deprive another man of the fruits of his labor because he is too lazy to cultivate his own fruit tree, then yes, he is going to be met with the ultimate resistance to his endeavors. So this particular crook actually committed suicide when he decided to steal this man's car. If the victim hadn't killed him, a Police officer surely would have.
Would you fellows feel this sorry for this criminal if a cop had shot him dead instead?

One thing you must admit, this career criminal was instantly cured of his recidivism and all it cost was the price of one 9mm round of ammo, saving the taxpayers of the state of Washington the great cost of prosecution and incarceration of a suicidal fool.

Schroeder

04-16-14, 02:00 PM

Flamebatter90

04-16-14, 02:06 PM

So, I steal a berry from you, you can shoot me? Right? Same freaking thing.
Self defence does not = Thief running on a car from the scene (Who pointed gun at the dude, which was never found.) Hard science...

Self Defence = I came you with a Samurai sword with clear intent to hit you and cause harm.

It's not rocket science.... or is it?!

Onkel Neal

04-16-14, 03:09 PM

It's from the funny picture thread but it fits so nicely here:
http://foto.arcor-online.net/palb/alben/54/1012554/3134623632636664.jpg

I wonder why we don't drown in violent crime as we don't kill our suspects...:hmm2:

I congratulate you on your very low crime rate. :salute: I wish we had the same here. But there are differences between our two countries and the laws to punish criminals is not causing crime. it is a cultural difference and I don't think there's a hell of a lot we can do about it, except make it worse, which we seem to be bent on doing.

Schroeder

04-16-14, 03:45 PM

I congratulate you on your very low crime rate. :salute: I wish we had the same here. But there are differences between our two countries and the laws to punish criminals is not causing crime. it is a cultural difference and I don't think there's a hell of a lot we can do about it, except make it worse, which we seem to be bent on doing.
Yes, there is a cultural difference and solutions from Europe don't necessarily work in the States and vice versa. But I find it still a bit over the top to kill someone for steeling ones car. I mean I would be mad as hell if someone stole my car but I wouldn't shoot to kill. If someone attacked me however I would probably use a gun on him (if it were allowed here to walk around with guns). This would also be the only way to make this count as self defence. As long as someone isn't attacking someone directly there is no way any court here would rule it as self defence.

TarJak

04-16-14, 04:28 PM

Skybird

04-16-14, 04:30 PM

I congratulate you on your very low crime rate. :salute:

We don't have. We just are mentally ill and have some of our essential priorities hopelessly messed up. In Germanyx you can beat a innocent on the streets to death because you are bored, and get away with that if you are a migrant by serving two years in prison. Even less.

But if you make a mistake - indeed a mistake - in your tax declaration , that can earn you prison time in excess of that.

I pretty much agree with all you said in reply to TarJak:

Well, here's how I value an automobile that cost $20,000, $30,000 etc. That represents days and days of my work, showing up on time, getting the job done, avoiding mistakes, listening to PIA customers or bosses, being accountable for my work, thousands of hours of my time and life....and not being able to enjoy many of the things in life I would be able to enjoy if I was unemployed--screwing around all day, every day, doing what I like, no pressure, plenty of time to watch TV or surf the web, play games, listen to music, visit friends and family, smell the roses--all of this is severely limited by the time I have left after working.

So, yeah, that car is worth a LOT more to me than some car thief's life.
^ Yep, this.

People speaking low of the value of property just cannot value the value of money, I think. Which today maybe is no surprise, since almost nobody knows anymore what money really is. I also don't think that human life has an absolute value that always automatically tends to be infinite.

Funny, we had a comparable discussion long time ago, you and me, must be ten years, more or less. I have dramatically changed some basic views of mine since then, it seems - while you were right form beginning on. :up:

Platapus

04-16-14, 04:33 PM

So how about them Washington Redskins? They gonna suck next year? :D

TarJak

04-16-14, 04:42 PM

And it is here that you continue to make the error. You claim no one forced Mr. Gerlach to any of his decisions. Yet Mr. Gerlach was deemed to have justifiably acted in self defense. So a jury of 12 peers found by preponderance of the evidence that Mr. Gerlach was forced into a decision by Mr. Kaluza-Graham.

You can claim it wasn't right, but both the law and society have spoken. You are entitled to your opinion - and your entitled to be wrong. You are choosing to do both simultaneously.
And again you're making a logic leap that is not implied by my previous posts.

You're also confirming that you're okay with the child's defence of " he made me do it".

Perhaps it's the culture of I have rights but not wanting the responsibility that comes with those rights that is driving the problems Neal mentioned.

Using your logic, a pharmacist does nothing to discourage the abuse of prescription medicine by choosing to dispense such medication, so they "could be considered" to be encouraging it. :o Not actively discouraging something is not the same as encouraging it.

When was the last time you actively discouraged someone from going out and having a few drinks before driving home? If you are not actively discouraging it - then you "could be encouraging" it using your line of reasoning.

Think about that for a moment. If you know your friend is going to go to a party and have a few drinks, but you don't intentionally call him up and remind him not to drink and drive - God help you if he gets in a car wreck and kills someone. After all - if the victim's family finds out - you could be sued for contributing (via your ENCOURAGEMENT) to his choice to drink and drive. Pretty ridiculous premise, yes? But that is the train of thought you are using when you say if your not discouraging someone then you could be viewed as encouraging them.

Again this is extremist and again it's bollocks with no relevance to the discussion.

- there is a difference between encouragement and tacit approval. Perhaps that is what you meant?
Perhaps. But approval expressed on a public forum on the internet is hardly tacit.

Well we can at least agree on that....

Good to see we agree on some things.

CaptainHaplo

04-16-14, 04:46 PM

So, I steal a berry from you, you can shoot me? Right? Same freaking thing.

No - it isn't, on 2 counts. One - stealing a berry is not a felony. Stealing a car is. The reason for this is simple - a car can often be a necessity to survival here in the US. Without it, some people can not access the necessities of survival - for example: food or employment. The car is the modern day horse, and for folks outside the US - it is hard to understand why horse-thieving was a capital offense in many states in the 1800's.

Self defence does not = Thief running on a car from the scene (Who pointed gun at the dude, which was never found.) Hard science...

Here is the problem. You have the benefit of hindsight. Self defence is based not just on hindsight, but the fear created at what the victim THINKS and FEELS at the moment. If someone turns toward you and you think they have a gun and are about to shoot you, do you shoot first or wait? If you shoot first - as Mr. Gerlach did - and you later learn that they did not in fact have a weapon - then what? If you wait to find out - and they fire first - you may not have a chance to ever defend yourself. Self defense is thus predicated on what a reasonable person would feel given the circumstances. In this case, when Gerlach yelled "stop! stop!", the car thief put their arm back with something in their hand - appearing to point a gun (he could have even just been making a "gun hand" to intimidate - we will never know). At that moment, thinking the criminal had pulled a gun, Mr. Gerlach reasonably reacted to save his own life from a perceived threat. While you may not agree, 12 jurors unanimously did given the evidence.

Self Defence = I came you with a Samurai sword with clear intent to hit you and cause harm.

It's not rocket science.... or is it?!

Well, lets see....
It was dark and I woke up with you in my room. I could not see who it was, but I saw you had something about 3 feet in length and round. I thought it was a baseball bat. You lifted it high and were about to hit me with it, so I shot you in defense of my life. After all, getting my head bashed in by a stranger in the dark with a baseball bat is likely going to be fatal.

After you fall, I turn on the light and see that it is you, my friend and neighbor, still holding a piece of foam pipe insulation. You were at a wild party, let yourself in with the key I had given you when you watched my house during my last vacation and you intended to only wake me with the insulation in a big joke or gag.... But now your dead on my floor.

Am I guilty of murder? Or was it self defense? Hindsight is 20/20, but to the person facing what they THINK is a likelihood of death if they don't act - they are faced with the choice of act or die..... Which would you choose in that instant?

Dan D

04-16-14, 04:47 PM

No. If you consider a rightful use of self-defense, there, on that level, you never balance the affected legal interests, which would be here: „ life“ on the car-thieves' side and „car property“ on the other. That does not matter in a legal sense. It is your good right to defend your property as well as the legal order in general in such a situation, even with lethal force. That is a general priciple of law, already found out by the Romans („stand your ground“).

Famous case in Germany: „cherry tree“ case, Reichsgericht 1920:
a handicapped guy in a wheel-chair is protecting his garden with his K 98 rifle against starlings, the birds, your know.
Two children climb the cherry tree and start picking and eating the cherries. Guy tells them to stop, they make jokes of him, guy fires a warning shot, still no reaction. Guy shoots at target and hits one kid.

Decision by the court in 1920: rightful use of self-defense beacuse a balancing of the legal interests does not matter here.

Such a result is extremely hard to bare as being a rightful decision, come on, we have underage kids here who steal fruits. Does the legal order really ask for a stand your ground approach here?

Law development therefore: there is a very rare exemption that you go back looking at the legal interests affected. That is when it is a Bagatelle which you respond to with lethal force, But again, you can't expect a person in a self-defense situation to think long whether it is a better idea to shoot at the tyres instead of the thief.

So, under German law, it would be rightful self-defense, too, if an attempted car theft leads to a dead car thief because the car-owner was better armed.

And, George Zimmerman would have been justified here in Germany for his actions as well.

That there is more dead people in the US in such situations because people are armed, that is something else. Europe is not "more advanced" here.

Cybermat47

04-16-14, 06:08 PM

Ok, I'm in a more sober state of mind now, so I can express my opinion in a calmer manner, without overreacting to people's opinions :)

I think we can all agree that Mr. Gherlach was defending his property, and should be congratulated for doing so.

But could he have really thought that his life was in danger? The Police found no gun on the thief, and the windows were dirty, so that seems unlikely, but not impossible.

Personally, I find it excessive that a simple car thief be killed. I'm opposed to the death penalty, but not by a whole lot, (EDIT: To be honest, I'm more on the fence about it) seeing as the only people it really applies to are murderers and rapists. A car thief deserves a good beating and a ticket to the local jail (EDIT: Or prison, whichever one can hold prisoners more years) at the most. But, in the circumstances, Mr. Gherlach acted as he saw fit (and proved to be a hell of a shot). It's unfortunate that the thief ended up dead, but he shouldn't have turned to a life of crime in the first place.

BTW Neal, sorry for sort of exploding at you earlier. Puberty does weird things with your head, especially when you're thinking about deep stuff like this. :)

CaptainHaplo

04-16-14, 06:57 PM

I think we can all agree that Mr. Gherlach was defending his property, and should be congratulated for doing so.

No - Tarjak would call that encouraging such killings.

But could he have really thought that his life was in danger? The Police found no gun on the thief, and the windows were dirty, so that seems unlikely, but not impossible.
If anything, the dirty windows adds plausibility to the idea that Mr. Gerlach thought he saw a gun. His view was obscured, and he had to react to what he thought.

Personally, I find it excessive that a simple car thief be killed.
Would you feel the same way if he had been found with a gun?
Does his then "well founded" suspected intention of murder make it "more ok" to have been killed? What if he had been a simple car thief driving toward Mr. Gerlach instead of away?

I'm opposed to the death penalty, but not by a whole lot, seeing as the only people it really applies to are murderers and rapists. Would you be opposed to it if you were one of the victims? Or had the opportunity to put a stop to it during one of these acts? If you walked around a corner alley to see someone being raped or murdered, how would you react? What if it were you being murdered and you had to "impose the death penalty" to save your own life?

A car thief deserves a good beating and a ticket to the local jail at the most.
So a trip to the local jail? Usually jails only hold people for a max of 30 days. So the most a car thief should get is 30 days and a beating? What if it is - as in the case of Mr. Kaluza-Graham, not the first time?

But, in the circumstances, Mr. Gherlach acted as he saw fit (and proved to be a hell of a shot).
As he saw "fit"? Or as he felt necessary due to a perceived threat?

It's unfortunate that the thief ended up dead, but he shouldn't have turned to a life of crime in the first place.
Amen!

Cybermat47

04-16-14, 07:27 PM

If anything, the dirty windows adds plausibility to the idea that Mr. Gerlach thought he saw a gun. His view was obscured, and he had to react to what he thought.

True, true.

Would you feel the same way if he had been found with a gun?
Does his then "well founded" suspected intention of murder make it "more ok" to have been killed? What if he had been a simple car thief driving toward Mr. Gerlach instead of away?

Well, if he'd had a gun, he probably wouldn't have even ended up in court, as it would be concrete evidence that his life was in danger. The same thing goes if it had looked as though the thief was going to hit him with the car.

Would you be opposed to it if you were one of the victims? Or had the opportunity to put a stop to it during one of these acts? If you walked around a corner alley to see someone being raped or murdered, how would you react? What if it were you being murdered and you had to "impose the death penalty" to save your own life?

Well, I'm not really opposed to the death penalty, I'm more on the fence about it. I personally consider life in prison to be a more fitting punishment, as death is too quick for rapists and murderers. But on the other hand, if they manage to escape incarceration, they could well claim more victims.

But if you're being raped or your life is in danger, you have every right to use deadly force to defend yourself. If I saw someone being raped or murdered, I'd want to tackle the assailant and beat the crap out if them, as I don't carry weapons.

So a trip to the local jail? Usually jails only hold people for a max of 30 days. So the most a car thief should get is 30 days and a beating? What if it is - as in the case of Mr. Kaluza-Graham, not the first time?

Wait, only 30 days? Then where the hell do people go when they get sentenced to life imprisonment? Are jail and prison to different things? If that's the case, then I meant prison.

As he saw "fit"? Or as he felt necessary due to a perceived threat?

Aren't 'fit' and 'necessary' the same thing?

Amen!

Nice to see we agree on something.

Tribesman

04-16-14, 07:55 PM

The car is the modern day horse, and for folks outside the US - it is hard to understand why horse-thieving was a capital offense in many states in the 1800's
Its not hard to understand , other countries hung people for stealing horses in the 1800s, they also hung people for stealing rabbits, stealing firewood, chopping down trees, stealing bread, pickpocketing and damaging roads.
They have moved beyond that sillyness now.

But if you want to go all 1800s on it, stealing cotton was a capital offence in South Carolina wasn't it, but only if the thief was black.:yep:

TarJak

04-16-14, 09:28 PM

I think we can all agree that Mr. Gherlach was defending his property, and should be congratulated for doing so.

No we can't all agree with this. :nope:

Unless we all want to remain rooted in the 1800's.

Cybermat47

04-16-14, 09:48 PM

No we can't all agree with this. :nope:

Unless we all want to remain rooted in the 1800's.

I'm not saying that it's a good thing that the thief died, I'm saying that it's a good thing that Mr. Gherlach defended his property. It would've been better if he hadn't killed the thief, though. Personally, I would've aimed for the tires.

But you and Steve are right, not everyone has to agree.

Sailor Steve

04-16-14, 09:57 PM

I think we can all agree that Mr. Gherlach was defending his property, and should be congratulated for doing so.
Not all of us. I try to look at it from the court punishment point of view. Would the court hand out a death sentence for property theft? Then neither would I. You say pretty much the same in the rest of your post, so basically we are in agreement. I'm just saying that I'm not congratulating the guy or declaring him a hero for shooting a thief in the back as the thief was fleeing the scene of the crime.

On the other hand, the jury came to the verdict they did for a reason. I can't disagree with it for the reason that I didn't hear all the evidence and they almost certainly have information that I don't.

What seems to be getting lost in the heat of argument is TarJak's basic question: Is it worth it to take someone's life over a property question, especially when the theft has already taken place?

Cybermat47

04-16-14, 10:21 PM

What seems to be getting lost in the heat of argument is TarJak's basic question: Is it worth it to take someone's life over a property question, especially when the theft has already taken place?

Ok, then I'll answer that with my opinion. It's just my opinion, mind you.

No. Killing people for stealing from you is an unnecessary waste of life, even if they're a criminal. Killing should only be done when your or another's life is in danger (That said, if Mr. Gherlach did indeed believe his life was in danger, then he is justified in his actions. Wether or not he actually did think he was in danger, or made that up to support his case in court, is another question.)

I can understand why people disagree with me, though. I think that every life is precious, they think that a criminal's life is worthless. Perhaps I'm just too naive, or they're too cynical, or maybe a bit of both. Whatever, I'll still respect them after this argument.

Aktungbby

04-16-14, 11:09 PM

Puberty does weird things with your head, especially when you're thinking about deep stuff like this. :)

Just stay away from guns, 'likeminded' girls and 'badass falcons' and you'll make it! Forget deep stuff...shallow is good!:O:

CaptainHaplo

04-17-14, 12:29 AM

What seems to be getting lost in the heat of argument is TarJak's basic question: Is it worth it to take someone's life over a property question, especially when the theft has already taken place?

The law in many geographical areas - including this one - says yes. In some areas, it is no. The difference between "stand your ground" and "duty to retreat" laws are a perfect example.

If the theft already has taken place - then no, it should be a police matter. If the theft is taking place, then it can be. In the case that started this discussion, the theft had not "taken place" because criminal action is not complete until the criminal "gets away" from the scene of the crime. Because the criminal was still "at the scene" - he was still in the act of theft and had not completed his criminal actions.

Now that is all the legal wrangling behind it. But it is really a moral or ethical question as well as a legal one. So to answer I will ask (then answer) the questions behind this one...

Should I respect the rights of another who willfully and with malice aforethought chooses to violate my rights? Am I morally or ethically bound to offer them a level of rights they deny me when they are violating my own in an intentional, criminal manner?

No, I do not believe that I am morally or ethically bound to do so. I believe that when a person chooses to willfully violate the rights of another person, they are abrogating their own rights.

Now, before people start getting up in arms about this - realize that this is the basic premise behind the justice system as it is. If a criminal does not abrogate their rights by committing a crime, then what right does society have to incarcerate them when (in the US) a person's rights to "Liberty" are supposed to be guaranteed? Their right to liberty is deemed to have been cast aside because of their choice to act in a criminal manner. If you take away that - then a person who commits a crime and can escape the scene without pursuit should never be incarcerated - no matter what crime was committed.

So if you can accept that a criminal - by their own choice AND action - sets aside their rights in the violation of the rights of another, then you must ask the next set of questions....

Why should a person who is victimized by a crime be LESS authorized to act to protect his/her self or property during the commission of a crime than the judicial system is "after" a crime has been committed and the criminal caught? After all - many jurisdictions have the "three strikes and your out" law - which can result in permanent incarceration (a sentence many would consider worse than simple execution).

Why should the person who is being victimized have less authority than a governmental entity (police) responding to the call?

Because police respond AFTER a crime has started (generally speaking), they can not protect a victim undergoing a violent or serious crime at the time. Thus, does not the victim have the right to protect themselves (whether their person or their property)? If not, why are door locks legal, as they serve to bar entry and protect the homeowner and property?

Points to ponder....

TarJak

04-17-14, 12:39 AM

Not all of us. I try to look at it from the court punishment point of view. Would the court hand out a death sentence for property theft? Then neither would I. You say pretty much the same in the rest of your post, so basically we are in agreement. I'm just saying that I'm not congratulating the guy or declaring him a hero for shooting a thief in the back as the thief was fleeing the scene of the crime.

On the other hand, the jury came to the verdict they did for a reason. I can't disagree with it for the reason that I didn't hear all the evidence and they almost certainly have information that I don't.

What seems to be getting lost in the heat of argument is TarJak's basic question: Is it worth it to take someone's life over a property question, especially when the theft has already taken place?

Trust me I've not lost sight of it. ;)

I don't dispute the legal decision and as long as there are no questions around the investigation and prosecution of the case am satisfied that the right result was achieved.

I'm more interested in exploring the moral question particularly around the choice of pulling out a weapon and using it to end someone's life.

Certainly to me, celebration, congratulation, thanking, encouragement are all inappropriate responses to the verdict.

On Neal's comment that the shooter should not have been prosecuted in the first place; if it had been my child shot dead by someone, with no other witnesses around, I'd want to make sure that the police and prosecution did their job, to make sure that the death of my child was properly investigated and prosecuted. Anything less and anyone could claim anything to avoid prosecution in a similar situation where there was no evidence of theft.

That said, if I knew my child was stealing cars, they would be getting a visit from the law.

Cybermat47

04-17-14, 12:43 AM

I'd also like to add, and this isn't me arguing with anyone, that another reasons that I, personally, would not shoot a thief who wasn't threatening my life, would be that the thief could well be a good person who's been forced in to crime by poverty. After all, surely a Father would choose his family's wellbeing over regard for the law if he and his family were broke, and they couldn't get a job. That's one of the terrible things about poverty :nope: But judging from CaptainHaplo's comments about the car thief being a 'repeat offender', that doesn't seem to be the case here :nope::down: arguably that's a good thing.

I don't know why I'm saying this, BTW. It doesn't have a lot to do with the topic.

Tribesman

04-17-14, 02:13 AM

Now, before people start getting up in arms about this - realize that this is the basic premise behind the justice system as it is. If a criminal does not abrogate their rights by committing a crime, then what right does society have to incarcerate them when (in the US) a person's rights to "Liberty" are supposed to be guaranteed? Their right to liberty is deemed to have been cast aside because of their choice to act in a criminal manner. If you take away that - then a person who commits a crime and can escape the scene without pursuit should never be incarcerated - no matter what crime was committed.

Now, if you want rights, there I this thing called a right to due process, there is also this right to not have cruel or unusual punishments , it is rather unusual to be punished by summary execution for theft when theft is not a capital crime anymore.:hmmm:

If not, why are door locks legal, as they serve to bar entry and protect the homeowner and property?

Once again into extremist bollocks, if your argument cannot stand without taking it to ridiculous extremes then you have a very poor argument.

But if you want to take it to extremes on defending property, how about that crazy old coot who shot a kid because he had an issue over some kids walking on his lawn?
He thought he was morally right because he believed he had a right to defend his property.

Onkel Neal

04-17-14, 02:30 AM

Not guilty

http://www.krem.com/news/Gerlach-attorney-estimates-trial-will-cost-taxpayers-about-300000-255416571.html

And the taxpayers get to pay for his defense.:O:

Cybermat47

04-17-14, 02:53 AM

I think Mr. Gerlach's quote is spot on:

The greatest tragedy is that Mr. Brendon Kaluza-Graham will not have a chance to turn his life around.

A bit sad that some people here don't regard Kaluza-Graham as a Human, when THE GUY HE WAS STEALING FROM clearly considers him one :hmmm: I'm not saying that you're not entitled to your opinions, I'm just pointing out that the guy you're defending disagrees with you.

I also feel sorry for Brendon Kaluza-Graham's family.

Gerlach’s wife, Sharon, wept and embraced her family as the verdict, not guilty on both a first-degree and second-degree manslaughter charge, was read in open court. Ann Kaluza-Graham, grandmother of the man shot dead trying to steal Gerlach’s SUV, burst into tears as she said her grandson never got a chance to answer theft charges or prove himself a changed person.

(I'm not sure why a changed person would steal someone else's car, but whatever...)

The family of the 25-year-old said they were disgusted with the way the media has portrayed Kaluza-Graham, saying their relative was made into a “one-dimensional thief.”

“He had hopes, and dreams,” Ann Kaluza said. She added “he was made into a poster boy for the angst of the community, a sacrificial lamb. That’s not right.”

Think about it. What do we know about Kaluza-Graham, part from him being a thief? I'm not saying he's innocent or anything, but he was still a Human being. It's a shame he turned to a life of crime. It doesn't seem he was in poverty or anything, so I don't know why he did it :nope:

Schroeder

04-17-14, 04:57 AM

So, under German law, it would be rightful self-defense, too, if an attempted car theft leads to a dead car thief because the car-owner was better armed.

I think shooting a car thief in the back while he's trying to get away would be regarded as excessive force in a German court. I believe it would be called "Extensiver Notwehrexzess".
Have a look at this link (German only) and the example on the bottom of the page.
http://www.juraforum.de/lexikon/notwehrexzess

It stands in stark contrast to your 1920 case.

Skybird

04-17-14, 05:20 AM

I think shooting a car thief in the back while he's trying to get away would be regarded as excessive force in a German court. I believe it would be called "Extensiver Notwehrexcess".
Have a look at this link (German only) and the example on the bottom of the page.
http://www.juraforum.de/lexikon/notwehrexzess

It stands in stark contrast to your 1920 case.

Correct.

http://www.rechtslexikon.net/d/notwehr/notwehr.htm

Sailor Steve

04-17-14, 12:11 PM

The law in many geographical areas - including this one - says yes. In some areas, it is no. The difference between "stand your ground" and "duty to retreat" laws are a perfect example.
I fully understand that. I, like TarJak, was speaking to the moral issue. If I wake up to find someone in my home in the middle of the night, I would probably shoot without thinking. Were I to come home to find someone in the act of stealing my stuff, then I would try to hold him until the police could get there, but I doubt I would try to kill or even harm him unless he actually threatened my life. If I found someone carrying my stuff down the street I certainly would not think it was worth it.

If the theft already has taken place - then no, it should be a police matter. If the theft is taking place, then it can be. In the case that started this discussion, the theft had not "taken place" because criminal action is not complete until the criminal "gets away" from the scene of the crime. Because the criminal was still "at the scene" - he was still in the act of theft and had not completed his criminal actions.
That of course depends on how you define "the scene". The guy is sixty feet down the road and running (or driving) then to my mind he is "fleeing the scene". As I said, I recognize the legality of the act, but the question raised was whether the person deserves to lose his life over lost property.

My opinion is that you use the correct logic to reach a wrong conclusion. This is best illustrated by this part of your argument:
Now, before people start getting up in arms about this - realize that this is the basic premise behind the justice system as it is. If a criminal does not abrogate their rights by committing a crime, then what right does society have to incarcerate them when (in the US) a person's rights to "Liberty" are supposed to be guaranteed? Their right to liberty is deemed to have been cast aside because of their choice to act in a criminal manner. If you take away that - then a person who commits a crime and can escape the scene without pursuit should never be incarcerated - no matter what crime was committed.
While that is, on the face of it, true, it leaves open the possibility of taking the argument to its logical, but ridiculous, extreme. You say that the logical result is that a person who gets away should never be incarcerated. The flip-side of that same argument is that a person who jaywalks should get life in prison, or even the death penalty. "Let the punishment fit the crime" is an old saying, but a valid one. As I asked before, would the court give the death penalty for property theft? If not, then why should you or I?

You can argue that this guy will never steal again, but stealing is not in the same class as killing. He will also never get the chance to reform.

CaptainHaplo

04-18-14, 07:53 AM

If I wake up to find someone in my home in the middle of the night, I would probably shoot without thinking. Were I to come home to find someone in the act of stealing my stuff, then I would try to hold him until the police could get there, but I doubt I would try to kill or even harm him unless he actually threatened my life.

So what if the person in your home in the middle of the night is just trying to steal your stuff? You say you would probably shoot without thinking - so your saying you would dispense the death penalty without thought. Would you be immoral for having done so?

If I found someone carrying my stuff down the street I certainly would not think it was worth it.

And I can understand that. You have every right to think "That sorry so in so - I am gonna make sure the cops arrest him!" and just choose to follow the guy and help lead police to him - or you could just choose to ignore the whole thing - or anything in between.

The guy is sixty feet down the road and running (or driving) then to my mind he is "fleeing the scene"
Glad you recognize the legality - because "fleeing" is a present tense verb.

but the question raised was whether the person deserves to lose his life over lost property.

Is one right more inviolate than the others? Some people say yes, and others say no. People value things differently. For example, you view your possessions as less important than the life of someone who would violate your rights. I do not. I do believe that if you refuse to respect my rights, I have no moral obligation to respect yours. I can accept that you and others disagree with me on that.

While that is, on the face of it, true, it leaves open the possibility of taking the argument to its logical, but ridiculous, extreme. You say that the logical result is that a person who gets away should never be incarcerated. The flip-side of that same argument is that a person who jaywalks should get life in prison, or even the death penalty. "Let the punishment fit the crime" is an old saying, but a valid one. As I asked before, would the court give the death penalty for property theft? If not, then why should you or I?

2 reasons. First, the "let the punishment fit the crime" issue - which delves into legalistic grounds. As I said earlier, some would say that a life sentence in prison is more cruel than simple execution. Yet many states have a habitual offender or "3 strikes" law. The Supreme Court has stated that a life sentence for such is reasonable and legal. Take the case of Curtis Wilkerson, who is serving a life sentence for 2 strikes and then stealing a $2.50 pair of socks.... Did that punishment fit the crime? Does the lifelong removal of freedom and condemnation to a lifetime of prison fit the crime? Is it not more cruel than a slug to the back of the head that would end the day in and day out "justice" that was inflicted? Would death not be a mercy in such a case?

Next you asked why the victim should have more right than society in general - because it is through the authority of general society that a Court imposes punishment. Simply answered - the Court, as a representation of society, has not been the one directly harmed whereas the victim iss directly harmed. This is the second reason why a victim has a greater "right to act" - because they are acting "as the wrong is committed upon them".

Let's use your earlier example - you wake up in the middle of the night and someone is in your home. If you call the cops and the cops show up, do they have the moral right to shoot someone in your home if they do not see an imminent threat? You said you would shoot someone without thinking. Do the cops have the right to shoot someone in your home without thinking? In your home, you can morally and ethically assume that the prowler is a danger to you, whereas the police are supposed to only react with deadly force if faced with an imminent threat to themselves or others.

You can argue that this guy will never steal again, but stealing is not in the same class as killing. He will also never get the chance to reform.

Take the "stuff" out of the equation. It doesn't matter whether he is trying to kill, kidnap or steal. He is violating the innate rights of the victim. The victim has no moral obligation to respect the criminal's rights when that criminal is violating the victim's rights and causing harm directly to the intended victim.

Tribesman

04-18-14, 08:37 AM

Is one right more inviolate than the others? Some people say yes, and others say no. People value things differently. For example, you view your possessions as less important than the life of someone who would violate your rights. I do not. I do believe that if you refuse to respect my rights, I have no moral obligation to respect yours. I can accept that you and others disagree with me on that.

Now that is interesting. I know little baby Jesus didn't say much but big beardy Jesus said plenty about life and possessions.
Could you remind me what value he placed on possessions and what value he placed on even the lowest life?:hmmm:

Sailor Steve

04-18-14, 09:05 AM

So what if the person in your home in the middle of the night is just trying to steal your stuff? You say you would probably shoot without thinking - so your saying you would dispense the death penalty without thought. Would you be immoral for having done so?
Possibly. If he's in my bedroom and if I have time to react it would be safe to assume that my life is in danger. If I wake up and realize there's someone in my living room? It's been my experience that the sound of a .45 slide racking is enough to make most burglars head for the door at mach speed. Shoot him as he's running out the door? I say that if someone is not an immediate danger to anyone, shooting him in the back is murder.

Glad you recognize the legality - because "fleeing" is a present tense verb.
But we're not talking about legalities, just moralities.

Is one right more inviolate than the others? Some people say yes, and others say no. People value things differently. For example, you view your possessions as less important than the life of someone who would violate your rights. I do not. I do believe that if you refuse to respect my rights, I have no moral obligation to respect yours. I can accept that you and others disagree with me on that.
So it's okay to kill someone if you can prove he's violating your right to free speech?

Did that punishment fit the crime?
To my mind, no. But then the courts make many decisions I believe are wrong.

Would death not be a mercy in such a case?
No, because in prison there is the chance that the criminal might genuinely reform. That might earn him an early release to a productive life. Even if he's never released he might go on to a life of helping other prisoners. Taking his life denies any possibility of that happening.

Next you asked why the victim should have more right than society in general
Where did I ask that?

In your home, you can morally and ethically assume that the prowler is a danger to you, whereas the police are supposed to only react with deadly force if faced with an imminent threat to themselves or others.
I can act if the prowler is a danger to me, but the police can only act if the prowler is a danger to me? I don't get it.

Take the "stuff" out of the equation. It doesn't matter whether he is trying to kill, kidnap or steal. He is violating the innate rights of the victim. The victim has no moral obligation to respect the criminal's rights when that criminal is violating the victim's rights and causing harm directly to the intended victim.
So again, if someone punches me in the face I have the right to kill him? If he punches me in the face and runs away I have the right to shoot him as he's running? He violated my rights and caused me harm.

The only point I'm trying to make, and as I understand it the point TarJak was trying to make, was whether it is worth it to take someone's life when your own is in no danger. You seem to think it's okay to shoot someone in the back just because he has wronged you. I don't.

Onkel Neal

04-18-14, 01:57 PM

Thats one of the saddest commentaries on America I've read. You make it sound like the land of the free and the home of the brave is actually the land of the imprisoned and the home of the fearful.

That would be like saying the land down under is the home of oversimplification and generalization. :03:

Yes, it is a sad commentary. I prefer to accept the reality as it is, and America has a lot of incarcerated people because we have a lot of criminals. Someone said to me once, America has the most prisons in the world. I said, yeah? Well we need more, because there are too many criminals running free.

As for "fearful"; nah, most of the people I know are pissed and ready to strike back. We are not going to roll over and let other's rob us without a fight.

Trust me I've not lost sight of it. ;)

I don't dispute the legal decision and as long as there are no questions around the investigation and prosecution of the case am satisfied that the right result was achieved.

Certainly to me, celebration, congratulation, thanking, encouragement are all inappropriate responses to the verdict.

On Neal's comment that the shooter should not have been prosecuted in the first place; if it had been my child shot dead by someone, with no other witnesses around, I'd want to make sure that the police and prosecution did their job, to make sure that the death of my child was properly investigated and prosecuted. Anything less and anyone could claim anything to avoid prosecution in a similar situation where there was no evidence of theft.

That said, if I knew my child was stealing cars, they would be getting a visit from the law.

Ok, I'm not sure what you mean here, Tarjak. I said the shooter should not have been prosecuted, I did not say he should not be investigated. Certainly the case should have been investigated thoroughly. I suggested that if the investigation proved he was defending his property and the victim was a criminal with a record, there should not have been any prosecution.

As for I'm more interested in exploring the moral question particularly around the choice of pulling out a weapon and using it to end someone's life.

Can we agree that people have different morals? You are free to handle the situation as you prefer, as for me.... don't let me catch someone stealing my car. They're betting with their life.

Of course, if they throw their hands up and say, "don't shoot! I'll go quietly" I would cut them some slack and hold them till the police arrived. I would also order a pizza, they guarantee delivery within 30 minutes, which would probably beat the cops.

TarJak

04-18-14, 04:44 PM

That would be like saying the land down under is the home of oversimplification and generalization. :03
But it is you should see our media.:D

Given some of the rhetoric in this thread so far I didn't think the generalisation was too far from the mark ;) Though I know it challenges some dearly held beliefs.

Yes, it is a sad commentary. I prefer to accept the reality as it is, and America has a lot of incarcerated people because we have a lot of criminals. Someone said to me once, America has the most prisons in the world. I said, yeah? Well we need more, because there are too many criminals running free.

As for "fearful"; nah, most of the people I know are pissed and ready to strike back. We are not going to roll over and let other's rob us without a fight It sounds like Great Britain in the 18th century. Maybe you should transport your convicts to one of your overseas colonies.

Or look deeper at the societal issues that are causing the production of so many criminals.

Ok, I'm not sure what you mean here, Tarjak. I said the shooter should not have been prosecuted, I did not say he should not be investigated. Certainly the case should have been investigated thoroughly. I suggested that if the investigation proved he was defending his property and the victim was a criminal with a record, there should not have been any prosecution.
I read your statement as the police should have patted Mr. Gerlach on the back said "good shot sir" and not done much more.

Given the police investigation must have shown that a prosecution was required, I'm confused by your statement that there should not have been a prosecution. Otherwise why would the case have been brought if the police investigation showed he had nothing to answer for?

Can we agree that people have different morals? You are free to handle the situation as you prefer, as for me.... don't let me catch someone stealing my car. They're betting with their life.

Of course, if they throw their hands up and say, "don't shoot! I'll go quietly" I would cut them some slack and hold them till the police arrived. I would also order a pizza, they guarantee delivery within 30 minutes, which would probably beat the cops.I don't think that the fact that people have different morals is in dispute. There would be no criminals otherwise.

The fact remains that shooting someone dead is the ultimate punishment. I hope that you never deem it necessary to mete it out.

Onkel Neal

04-18-14, 05:59 PM

Or look deeper at the societal issues that are causing the production of so many criminals.

I'm no expert on societal issues, et all, but I'm willing to guess the left has exhausted every opportunity to examine them, and the problem remains. What causes a man to take another man's property? Bad upbringing? How do we fix that, people can breed at will with no real consequences, and many think the taxpayer should shoulder the burden of feeding them, housing them, providing their health care, and re-educating them after they get into trouble with the law. Where does it end? I really don't know.

I read your statement as the police should have patted Mr. Gerlach on the back said "good shot sir" and not done much more.

Given the police investigation must have shown that a prosecution was required, I'm confused by your statement that there should not have been a prosecution. Otherwise why would the case have been brought if the police investigation showed he had nothing to answer for?

Well, that's what I am saying, the police investigation probably was in error, a prosecution was not required, as the verdict confirmed. But to be safe, I suppose it's better to prosecute a man protecting his property just to serve notice to other homeowners and citizens that they should think twice before confronting a burglar. I don't feel this way, but I can go along with it.

The fact remains that shooting someone dead is the ultimate punishment. I hope that you never deem it necessary to mete it out.

Oh, me too. I really dread being in that situation. If the police, courts, and prisons would do their jobs, the chance would be very small that I will ever find out.

The car thief made a fatal mistake, that's sad, but I do not blame the guy who owned the car. Blame the thief, Brendon Kaluza-Graham (https://www.facebook.com/brendon.kaluzagraham), or his parents, or his teachers, or his siblings, or his church leaders, or rap music, or his community activists. But stealing someone's property ought to be very dangerous, not something a guy does when he's bored and he knows he can get away with it easily.

Anyway! That's my opinion. :cool: That and a dollar will get you a cup of coffee!

TarJak

04-18-14, 06:38 PM

Well if you can be convinced into visiting York in July, I'll buy you one. But I bet you that dollar it'll cost more than $1.:)

Aktungbby

04-18-14, 11:24 PM

That's my opinion. :cool: That and a dollar will get you a cup of coffee!

Well if you can be convinced into visiting York in July, I'll buy you one. But I bet you that dollar it'll cost more than $1.:)
Just don't cringe when the 'Big Apple' waitress asks : "Leaded or unleaded gents?":huh: :rotfl2:http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=unleaded (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=unleaded)

TarJak

04-18-14, 11:44 PM

Not Noo York. The original one.

magic452

04-19-14, 02:08 AM

That would be Old York I assume. :haha::haha:

Magic

Aktungbby

04-19-14, 03:25 AM

Not Noo York. The original one.

That's Nieuw-Amsterdam to my people; we been there that long(1600's)"zijn nog steeds rotzak!":shucks:

TarJak

04-19-14, 05:02 AM

Jimbuna

04-19-14, 05:18 AM

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b5/The_Shambles_Overhangs.jpg/220px-The_Shambles_Overhangs.jpg not http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9e/StreetScenes3285.JPG/220px-StreetScenes3285.JPG

Or http://s3.postimg.org/3x1n3r7df/image.jpg (http://postimage.org/) and not http://s8.postimg.org/6su4hjzg5/image.jpg (http://postimage.org/) :)

swamprat69er

04-19-14, 05:28 AM

Or http://s3.postimg.org/3x1n3r7df/image.jpg (http://postimage.org/)
That is a nice looking shack. I bet it is a bear to heat!

Jimbuna

04-19-14, 05:40 AM

That is a nice looking shack. I bet it is a bear to heat!

Much dependant on how much hot air the choir can generate :03:

Onkel Neal

04-19-14, 07:46 AM

Well if you can be convinced into visiting York in July, I'll buy you one. But I bet you that dollar it'll cost more than $1.:)

Thanks, buddy. Someday, i hope.

CaptainHaplo

04-19-14, 12:13 PM

I say that if someone is not an immediate danger to anyone, shooting him in the back is murder.

I can think of a lot of situations where I would disagree, but we differ.

So it's okay to kill someone if you can prove he's violating your right to free speech?

Of if he is stealing from you. You are fan of history Steve... Did not the Stamp Act (attempt to) do both? Did not the entire Revolution and the founding of this country happen - including all the death (murder?) that came with it - occur because of the violation of free speech, illegal taxation (aka theft) and the lack of the right to control (own) your own property through things like the Stamp and Quartering Acts?

Think about it this way. If you have no right to protect your property with deadly force, then you have to say that the founding of the US and the Revolutionary War were immoral acts because they did exactly that.

Where did I ask that? When you asked why a victim should be allowed to take a life when the courts can not.

I can act if the prowler is a danger to me, but the police can only act if the prowler is a danger to me? I don't get it. Your initial statement did not indicate the prowler was a danger, merely that he was in your room. I asked if he was JUST stealing stuff, therefore presenting no danger to you.

So again, if someone punches me in the face I have the right to kill him? If he punches me in the face and runs away I have the right to shoot him as he's running? He violated my rights and caused me harm. Do you have reason to believe that he creates a danger for the rest of society? Did he say he is going to go beat up the little old lady down the street next? So many permutations that there is no "simple" answer.

The only point I'm trying to make, and as I understand it the point TarJak was trying to make, was whether it is worth it to take someone's life when your own is in no danger. You seem to think it's okay to shoot someone in the back just because he has wronged you. I don't.No, I agree with you and Tarjak that there needs to be a level of common sense applied. Where that line is - is where we differ. It doesn't have to be your life in danger, it could be someone else's. It does not have to be another life in danger necessarily.

I will put it this way. Use this case in relation to another one. This guy had a car that a teenager basically would come and take anytime he wanted, without permission and not return it. Never harm it, just basically take it for a joyride and leave it wherever he didn't need it again. No relationship between the two other than the one was victimizing the other by taking his car.

One day the guy comes out, his car is gone yet again. Instead of calling the cops, he tracks down the teen who was stealing his car, finds him a few miles down the road and shoots him dead. He was held accountable for murder - which was right and proper - because the crime itself was not in process. The kid was just walking down the street basically and the car was nowhere in sight. In essence, the crime had been completed and thus the action was considered vigilante in nature.

I totally agree with that outcome. Protecting your life, liberty or property is an ACTIVE thing - it must occur when the threat to those things are immediate. That means while the crime occurs.

The radio show I mentioned earlier had the prosecutor on as I said. He was asked - if I chase a thief who has my stuff 5 blocks down the road before I shoot him, is that murder? The answer was - if he has not gotten away - lost all active pursuit - then the crime is still ongoing and there would be no prosecution by his office. I agree with that too.

Ultimately, I am in agreement with Neal on this. A violation of my rights is an abrogation of yours. That doesn't absolve me of common sense, but it does make the criminal responsible for the results of his actions. In this case, the criminal chose the wrong guy.

Consider this.... If a criminal looks down a street of similar homes and knows that one house on a street has no guns in it, and the one next to it does - what house do you thing he is going to burglarize when he knows which is which? Chances are high it won't be the one with the gun in it.
The danger to the criminal is too high - and it should be. Claiming that you can't shoot someone unless they present a danger to life means he could bust in and say "nobody move, I am just here to steal stuff" and if you shot him your the one that is more liable than he is. Is that the society you want?

Moralistic high stances are great - and I approve of them. But when they lose sight of the reality of life, they are not much use.

Unless you would prefer to still be paying taxes to the British Empire.

Sailor Steve

04-19-14, 02:48 PM

I can think of a lot of situations where I would disagree, but we differ.
And that's the long and short of it. And it should have been short. But you want to make it longer (which I admit I always enjoy), so here we go.

First, don't forget that I started with "I say". That's my opinion. That's my belief. That's why I would never do something like that. The original question was whether it's morally justifiable to shoot someone in the back...or even in the front if he has your property but is no immediate threat to you.

Of if he is stealing from you.
You already said that. My point was to carry your argument to the extreme, i.e. the violation of rights that do not involve loss of life, liberty or property.

You are fan of history Steve... Did not the Stamp Act (attempt to) do both? Did not the entire Revolution and the founding of this country happen - including all the death (murder?) that came with it - occur because of the violation of free speech, illegal taxation (aka theft) and the lack of the right to control (own) your own property through things like the Stamp and Quartering Acts?
No. Because:
Think about it this way. If you have no right to protect your property with deadly force, then you have to say that the founding of the US and the Revolutionary War were immoral acts because they did exactly that.
Not at all. They protested those acts for years without going to war. Some acts of violence were perpetrated, such as tarring and feathering tax collectors, but those were also wrong and not justifiable. They didn't go to war until troops were sent to confiscate a privately owned armory. Even then armed citizens opposed the troops. No one knows who fired the first shot, but they were facing each other, both sides were armed, and the intention was fully stated and known.

When you asked why a victim should be allowed to take a life when the courts can not.
But I didn't ask that question as a challenge to you or anyone, but as a statement of my own personal belief. My original statement:
Would the court hand out a death sentence for property theft? Then neither would I.
And as restated:

As I asked before, would the court give the death penalty for property theft? If not, then why should you or I?
The second time I did include "you" as a generality, but even taken specifically I'm still talking about morality, not the law. My stated belief was, and still is, that it's morally wrong to kill someone over a piece of property.

Your initial statement did not indicate the prowler was a danger, merely that he was in your room. I asked if he was JUST stealing stuff, therefore presenting no danger to you.
In the middle of the night, in the dark, you can't tell if the person is armed or not. You can't tell if he is JUST stealing stuff, or if he is there for a more serious purpose. Assuming he is JUST stealing stuff, or that he is unarmed, is asking for trouble. Hence, if I wake up to find someone in my house, in the middle of the night, and I can't see if he is armed or not, and he can't see if I'm armed or not, yes, I'll shoot first. If I can see that he's not armed and he can see that I am, or if when I show myself he runs, then no, I won't.

Do you have reason to believe that he creates a danger for the rest of society? Did he say he is going to go beat up the little old lady down the street next? So many permutations that there is no "simple" answer.
The permutations are irrelevant. He "violated my rights". By your statement I now have the right to kill him.

No, I agree with you and Tarjak that there needs to be a level of common sense applied. Where that line is - is where we differ. It doesn't have to be your life in danger, it could be someone else's. It does not have to be another life in danger necessarily.
For me it does. If someone's safety was in danger, but possibly not their life, I would probably show the weapon and demand he stop, just as a policeman would. If that didn't work I would likely shoot at that point.

But if he stopped harming the person and ran away, I still wouldn't shoot him in the back, "little old lady down the sreet" notwithstanding.

I will put it this way.
If he never did anything about it before then he gave his tacit approval and to suddenly decide to hunt the kid down now is wrong, at least to my mind. Also, hunting somebody down after the fact is the cop's job, so I would never do that.

The radio show I mentioned earlier had the prosecutor on as I said. He was asked - if I chase a thief who has my stuff 5 blocks down the road before I shoot him, is that murder? The answer was - if he has not gotten away - lost all active pursuit - then the crime is still ongoing and there would be no prosecution by his office. I agree with that too.
But that's a legal statement. I'm only talking about morality - right and wrong.

Ultimately, I am in agreement with Neal on this. A violation of my rights is an abrogation of yours. That doesn't absolve me of common sense, but it does make the criminal responsible for the results of his actions. In this case, the criminal chose the wrong guy.
And that's still a legal question.

Consider this....
You keep coming up with these scenarios to prove your point, and to justify the taking of a life when yours is not threatened.

Moralistic high stances are great - and I approve of them. But when they lose sight of the reality of life, they are not much use.
It's not a moralistic stance. It's a moral question. Do you believe it's okay to kill someone over a piece of property? I don't.

Unless you would prefer to still be paying taxes to the British Empire.
Which, though I chose to answer you on it before, mainly because you were wrong about the reasons the shooting started, has absolutely nothing to do with the question at hand.

CaptainHaplo

04-19-14, 04:03 PM

Some good points Steve, and like with Tarjak, I will have to simply agree that we see somethings differently. But that is ok, I consider you both online friends even if we disagree. :yeah:

Historically, the Revolution was in the end, about protecting personal property. As you said, the colonists protested significantly before most serious action. The Declaration of Arms is probably the most historically significant of those official attempts at redress.

However, an individual who is victimized by another individual has very little time or opportunity to "protest" compared to the colonists against their government. Even so, cries of "stop" that are not heeded are comparable to the protests of a society against a wrong perpetrated by a government. In most cases, neither the individual criminal or the government choose to desist their actions. Thus, stronger action was taken. In the case of the 13 colonies, everything from the tarring of tax collectors to the boston tea party were such actions.

They didn't go to war until troops were sent to confiscate a privately owned armory. Even then armed citizens opposed the troops. No one knows who fired the first shot, but they were facing each other, both sides were armed, and the intention was fully stated and known.

So one group of someones (British government) was out to take the privately owned property of someone else. Private citizens stood in defense of private property, resulting in death. According to the premise that it was purely about "stuff" and the soldiers were not there to kill, wouldn't the outcome - especially in that it led to a war over who controlled the property of this land - immoral on its face?

The right to own a firearm, the right to be secure in your own home without invasion by a third party, even the freedom of speech were specifically the reasons in which America declared independence. For an example of the speech issue, check what General Gage (Royal Governor of Mass.) did when he declared town meetings could only occur once a year. When he heard of one in Salem, he sent soldiers to break it up. 3000 armed colonists arose in response. While no one lost their life in that incident, the founders fought, killed and died to secure the freedoms and liberty of free speech and property rights.

Why is killing on a grand scale to protect your property and rights perfectly moral, but to do so on a small scale immoral? Or do you believe that the British intent was ultimately genocide against the colonies? Only then - under threat of imminent death - should the colonies have risen up and used deadly force - yes? Anything else is immoral?

Sailor Steve

04-19-14, 04:16 PM

Why is killing on a grand scale to protect your property and rights perfectly moral, but to do so on a small scale immoral? Or do you believe that the British intent was ultimately genocide against the colonies? Only then - under threat of imminent death - should the colonies have risen up and used deadly force - yes? Anything else is immoral?
It's not. Standing up to tyrrany, or standing up to an individual, is not wrong. The example you make here, however, is. In this last instance you answer your own question. Despite all the protests they didn't use deadly force until faced with the same. What you suggest is the equivalent of the British backing down and starting to pull out, then the colonies start shooting.

Again, my point is that using violence where violence is reqired, i.e. the only option, is not morally wrong. Using violence where violence is not required is morally wrong. Shooting someone in the back as he runs away is not required to protect myself, therefore is morally wrong.

Onkel Neal

04-19-14, 04:49 PM

Using violence where violence is not required is morally wrong. Shooting someone in the back as he runs away is not required to protect myself, therefore is morally wrong.

In your opinion. ;)

As long as he drops my stuff, he might get away in one piece.

Ya know, when we all talk about societal issues, and we try to decide how best to manage our criminal population... we don't always agree on the best approach, but we work together and compromise, trying to find a workable solution...

....and then I come across something like this (http://time.com/65682/face-to-face-with-a-psychopath/).

And for me, the key phrase is When Richie had been released the last time from prison...

Why do we release these people at all? Our criminal code and laws need to be adjusted. After one of these type of crimes, this guy should have never seen the free world again.:shifty:

CaptainHaplo

04-19-14, 05:00 PM

Again, my point is that using violence where violence is reqired, i.e. the only option, is not morally wrong. Using violence where violence is not required is morally wrong. Shooting someone in the back as he runs away is not required to protect myself, therefore is morally wrong.

So choosing to use force to protect stuff is ok if its "required" - like the colonists did in using force to try and protect the powder supplies @ Lexington and Concord - which is generally considered the start of the Revolutionary War? So what makes violence "required"? Are you saying it is ok to use violence when no other option will put a stop to the wrongdoing as it happens? This is what occurred in Lexington and Concord, isn't it?

Sailor Steve

04-19-14, 06:27 PM

In your opinion. ;)
Of course it's my opinion. I'm only talking about myself. That was the whole point.

So choosing to use force to protect stuff is ok if its "required"
No, you missed it again. Using deadly force to protect "stuff" is never required.

like the colonists did in using force to try and protect the powder supplies @ Lexington and Concord - which is generally considered the start of the Revolutionary War?
Are you intentionally missing this? The equivalent to that in the terms of this thread would be if someone came into your house to steal your stuff and pulled a gun. You pull yours and shoot first. Otherwise your example of the revolution has no bearing on this discussion.

So what makes violence "required"? Are you saying it is ok to use violence when no other option will put a stop to the wrongdoing as it happens?
No. I'm saying you are only justified in killing someone when your life, or another life can be saved no other way.

This is what occurred in Lexington and Concord, isn't it?
No. see above.

You seem to be doing everything in your power to justify killing. Do you want to kill someone? It sure sounds like it.

I'll now go out on a limb and express a moral, and yes, moralistic, viewpoint.

It is never okay to kill. It is never right to kill. It is, however, sometimes necessary. When it is necessary, do it swiftly and do it efficiently, but don't take relish in it. If you are willing to kill when it's not necessary, then you need to think about whether you enjoy killing, because if you enjoy killing then you are a killer. That makes you no better than any other killer.

The only reason one should ever take a life is when your life, or someone else's life, is at stake.

CaptainHaplo

04-19-14, 08:32 PM

No, you missed it again. Using deadly force to protect "stuff" is never required.

Isn't that what occurred though? The colonists could have just let the british come on in and seize the gunpowder. They chose to resist and thus escalated the confrontation. They were WILLING to use force to protect "stuff" - otherwise they had no reason to bring guns.

Are you intentionally missing this? The equivalent to that in the terms of this thread would be if someone came into your house to steal your stuff and pulled a gun. You pull yours and shoot first. Otherwise your example of the revolution has no bearing on this discussion. No - it is not. It is the equivalent to an armed someone walking into your yard and you knowing they intend to steal your stuff. So you confront them on the porch with your gun. If you don't intend on using deadly force to stop them - why do you even have your gun on you?

The reason this is analogous is because the militia confronted the British BEFORE the British reached their destination. The militia grabbed their guns and met the thief on the porch LITERALLY - by facing the British at Lexington Green and again at the Concord Bridge - making it clear they would NOT allow the theft without deadly violence.

The British were coming to take property. Not kill people. The colonists KNEW this - but showed up armed on the doorstep anyway. Are you going to tell me that they were unwilling to use deadly violence to protect property? Obviously not, because they showed up with loaded weapons against a known armed opponent and proceeded to have a staredown to see if one side would blink. When neither did - a war began. How "moral" is that? Wouldn't the moral choice have been to stand aside and let the British have the powder? It would seem so given one of your later statements...

No. I'm saying you are only justified in killing someone when your life, or another life can be saved no other way. That would indicate that you personally believe in what is known as "The duty to retreat". Is that correct?

So the colonists, by confronting an armed thief (yet knowing they could retreat in peace) were immoral since they were intentionally escalating the situation knowing it could lead to deadly force?

You seem to be doing everything in your power to justify killing. Do you want to kill someone? It sure sounds like it.

No Steve, I have seen more than enough death in my time. Death is no friend of mine and I will be happy to never see it again until it is my time to go. However, I have seen more than my share of repression and victimization as well. I would prefer to not ever see that either. Yet like the colonists of old, I believe that we do not have the duty to be bullied and victimized, but rather that we have the right to stand up and say "enough" when it comes to our homes and livelihoods. Even if that means death must be seen again.

I accept we see things differently. I respect your view just as I do Tarjaks. I know you served as I and many others have, so while we view things differently, remember that many people gave their lives to win the history we discuss - by standing up to a thief in the night with a willingness to kill and die to protect "stuff".

I'll now go out on a limb and express a moral, and yes, moralistic, viewpoint. It is never okay to kill. It is never right to kill. It is, however, sometimes necessary.

Doesn't that contradict itself? If it is never ok..... I mean - it is really "never" necessary. One could always choose to die instead of kill. iI it is never moral to kill, isn't the only moral choice the one that lets the other person kill you instead?

When it is necessary, do it swiftly and do it efficiently, but don't take relish in it. If you are willing to kill when it's not necessary, then you need to think about whether you enjoy killing, because if you enjoy killing then you are a killer. That makes you no better than any other killer.

In that you will find me in total agreement.

The only reason one should ever take a life is when your life, or someone else's life, is at stake. Our forefathers disagreed, as do I. But it is a respectable position to hold. Would that no one would ever have to take another person's life for any reason. Sadly, that is highly unlikely.

Sailor Steve

04-19-14, 10:15 PM

Isn't that what occurred though? The colonists could have just let the british come on in and seize the gunpowder. They chose to resist and thus escalated the confrontation. They were WILLING to use force to protect "stuff" - otherwise they had no reason to bring guns.
The difference is that they faced them and gave them a chance to change their minds.

No - it is not. It is the equivalent to an armed someone walking into your yard and you knowing they intend to steal your stuff. So you confront them on the porch with your gun. If you don't intend on using deadly force to stop them - why do you even have your gun on you?
You're still stretching the issue to suit your argument. If someone comes on my property with gun in hand, I don't know what his intentions are. Even if he says if I stand aside he won't hurt me, I don't know that he's telling the truth. So I have my gun ready, just in case. It's still not the same as shooting a man in the back as he runs away with your property.

The reason this is analogous is because the militia confronted the British BEFORE the British reached their destination. The militia grabbed their guns and met the thief on the porch LITERALLY - by facing the British at Lexington Green and again at the Concord Bridge - making it clear they would NOT allow the theft without deadly violence.
You're leaving out the part where Boston was already under martial law, and the locals had come to the point of considering the British to be tyrants of the worst sort. It wasn't just about property, and it wasn't just about taxes. By that time they considered themselves to be enslaved, servants under a harsh master.

Again you're trying to come up with comparisons that don't work. There was a whole lot more going on than just property.

The British were coming to take property. Not kill people. The colonists KNEW this - but showed up armed on the doorstep anyway. Are you going to tell me that they were unwilling to use deadly violence to protect property? Obviously not, because they showed up with loaded weapons against a known armed opponent and proceeded to have a staredown to see if one side would blink. When neither did - a war began. How "moral" is that? Wouldn't the moral choice have been to stand aside and let the British have the powder?
Again this has relevance only in your own mind. They didn't see it that way, and I'm not sure I would have either. That said, they didn't see someone coming to steal their property, they saw an army sent by a tyrant coming to take by force the only means they had of defending themselves against said tyrant. The shooting started that day. The war started long before. The met the troops with armed force because they believed this was just one more atrocity intended to keep them subservient to their foreign masters. The also were convinced that sooner or later their lives would be at stake.

So it wasn't about property, it was about a way of life, and life itself.

That would indicate that you personally believe in what is known as "The duty to retreat". Is that correct?
Not at all. I've already said that if I confronted a thief I could see was unarmed, I would try to restrain him while I called the police. If he offered resistance I would shoot him if I thought I was in danger. If he ran I'd let him.

So the colonists, by confronting an armed thief (yet knowing they could retreat in peace) were immoral since they were intentionally escalating the situation knowing it could lead to deadly force?
But by their lights they couldn't retreat in peace. They were already at war.

Yet like the colonists of old, I believe that we do not have the duty to be bullied and victimized, but rather that we have the right to stand up and say "enough" when it comes to our homes and livelihoods. Even if that means death must be seen again.
Homilies and preaching sound good, and I'm sure you mean it, but that's not what the original question was about. The question was, is it morally right to shoot a man in the back? Okay, he has your property in his hands, or he's driving away in your car. Does that justify killing someone? Is it okay to shoot an unarmed man as he's running away? That's the only question on the table. You claim that it is. I say it's not. I'm not trying to convince you, I'm just stating my belief.

remember that many people gave their lives to win the history we discuss - by standing up to a thief in the night with a willingness to kill and die to protect "stuff".
And that's where the difference becomes extreme. People never go to war to protect "stuff". The do so because they are convince their way of life, and indeed their very lives, and the lives of those they love, are threatened. Was 1812 about "stuff"? Was Pearl Harbor about "stuff"? Not in the least. We may go to war for the wrong reasons sometimes, but the people who have to do the fighting do so they are convinced the survival of their country depends on it. It's not about "stuff".

Doesn't that contradict itself? If it is never ok..... I mean - it is really "never" necessary. One could always choose to die instead of kill. iI it is never moral to kill, isn't the only moral choice the one that lets the other person kill you instead?
When I was a Christian I believed that very thing, though I found myself more than willing to threaten violence to a guy who offended my wife.

I've since come to believe that violence is only justified in the face of violence. Violence to protect another life is always necessary, and it reaches the point of killing when the perpetrator leaves only the choice between his life and the victim's. At that point the victim's life is always the prefered option. If the violence can be stopped with the threat of ultimate force, so much the better, but if there's a reasonable chance the victim's life is at stake, then killing the perpetrator is still morally justified. Better that than even risking the victims life.

Our forefathers disagreed
I think not. They spent years exhausting every other possibility, over and over again. When it became obvious there would be no redress or change, they finally went to war, but even then it took an armed force attempting not to "steal their stuff", but to take away their means of defending themselves agains that same enemy.

Would that no one would ever have to take another person's life for any reason. Sadly, that is highly unlikely.
But you, and some others here, are more than willing to take another person's life because they dared to take what amounts to dross, and to shoot them in the back to do it. Your computer, or your car, might be worth somebody's life. Mine isn't.

Tribesman

04-20-14, 03:42 AM

Doesn't that contradict itself? If it is never ok..... I mean - it is really "never" necessary. One could always choose to die instead of kill. iI it is never moral to kill, isn't the only moral choice the one that lets the other person kill you instead?

Since it's Easter, what would Jesus do?:hmmm:
It's strange but not surprising that a "christian " is taking a rather unChristian view and an ex-Christian is taking a rather Christian one.
As I mentioned earlier life and "stuff" were applied values by that carpenter fellow from Nazareth. Since it has become a disagreement on morals rather than legality then surely the new testament would be seen by some as their guide to morals.
Someone seems to be reversing those values entirely in his statements.

CaptainHaplo

04-20-14, 09:55 AM

It's still not the same as shooting a man in the back as he runs away with your property.

The question was, is it morally right to shoot a man in the back? Okay, he has your property in his hands, or he's driving away in your car. Does that justify killing someone? Is it okay to shoot an unarmed man as he's running away? That's the only question on the table. Yes. Again, look at Concord. The British, having burned what powder they found left at Concord, were in full retreat back to Boston. Many actually threw down their gear - including musket, powder and shot. Yet they were harassed with fire and death during the retreat.

You're leaving out the part where Boston was already under martial law, and the locals had come to the point of considering the British to be tyrants of the worst sort. It wasn't just about property, and it wasn't just about taxes. By that time they considered themselves to be enslaved, servants under a harsh master. So they considered themselves deeply wronged and were mad as heck about it. We can agree on that point. Pretty much how I would feel catching a thief in my home or car too!

The shooting started that day. The war started long before. The moment someone tries to take my stuff, they are declaring a very personal war against me. Shooting would hopefully never take place, but morally if it does, I have the high ground. Even if I shoot a fleeing thief.

Again you're trying to come up with comparisons that don't work. There was a whole lot more going on than just property.
The also were convinced that sooner or later their lives would be at stake.
So it wasn't about property, it was about a way of life, and life itself. Well, here we have a heck of a dilemma. See - you say they were convinced that "sooner or later" their lives would be at stake. Well, without imminent (immediate) threat to their lives, grabbing a gun to shoot a fellow British citizen was immoral, wasn't it? It was not really about life itself - no one in the colonies thought the British intention was ultimately genocide. You are more correct when you say it was about a WAY of life - and that way of life was FOUNDED on the rights of personal property. The right not to have it stolen via taxation. The right to not have it violated by forced quartering of soldiers. The right to not have it violated by "general" search.

So the entire conflict was in fact about the right to control PROPERTY.

James Madison, in Address at the Virginia Convention, stated property rights were in fact equal to and intertwined with personal rights:

These rights cannot well be separated. The personal right to acquire property, which is a natural right, gives to property, when acquired, a right to protection, as a social right. To Madison, one right was not lesser than any other. The taking of property was no less abhorrent a violation of rights than the taking of life.

The alternative to private ownership is to confiscate property through force of arms, taxes, or legislation. It doesn’t matter if the property is confiscated by bullies, warlords, or government. It’s all the same -individual liberty is destroyed at the cost of personal rights.

Read: Property; 29 March 1792 (Papers 14:266--68 ) by Madison sometime.....

Not at all. I've already said that if I confronted a thief I could see was unarmed, I would try to restrain him while I called the police. If he offered resistance I would shoot him if I thought I was in danger. If he ran I'd let him. And that is your choice. As I said - a respectable one. However, my choice to protect my property is no less moral than your choice to let him steal it.

But by their lights they couldn't retreat in peace. They were already at war. And by mine, a person choosing to violate me in such a way has declared a very personal war on me. Thus I retain the moral right to act as such. Doesn't mean I will, but I sure as heck have the right to do so!

I'm just stating my belief.
And that's where the difference becomes extreme. And I am stating mine - with historical references that predate my existence that show my view is not as "extreme" as you make it out to be.

People never go to war to protect "stuff". The do so because they are convince their way of life, and indeed their very lives, and the lives of those they love, are threatened. Was 1812 about "stuff"? Was Pearl Harbor about "stuff"? Not in the least. We may go to war for the wrong reasons sometimes, but the people who have to do the fighting do so they are convinced the survival of their country depends on it. It's not about "stuff".
On the contrary Steve - every war is about "stuff". Either "religious" stuff (for example - who will control Jerusalem?), or other stuff. The war of 1812? It was fought over trade restrictions - meaning money (stuff), as well as British support of the Indians (land = stuff) and the possibility of America expanding. The war of 1812 led to Florida ultimately being part of America today. Pearl Harbor? Really? The Japanese attacked us in an attempt to control the Pacific - or if you take the more learned view, to keep us from getting involved in their expansionism by threatening their access to oil and metals. Again - it all boils down to "stuff".

When I was a Christian I believed that very thing, though I found myself more than willing to threaten violence to a guy who offended my wife. What your religious views past and present have to do with this - I have no clue.....

I've since come to believe that violence is only justified in the face of violence. Very eye for an eye kind of viewpoint.

Violence to protect another life is always necessary, and it reaches the point of killing when the perpetrator leaves only the choice between his life and the victim's. At that point the victim's life is always the prefered option. If the violence can be stopped with the threat of ultimate force, so much the better, but if there's a reasonable chance the victim's life is at stake, then killing the perpetrator is still morally justified. Better that than even risking the victims life. I would concur with most of this. The thing is, like Madison, I do not limit this to the life of the victim. But with that said - as in the case that started this - the "risk" to the victim's life is enough in your view. So Gerlach - thinking he saw a gun, was morally justified in your mind?

I think not. They spent years exhausting every other possibility, over and over again. When it became obvious there would be no redress or change, they finally went to war, but even then it took an armed force attempting not to "steal their stuff", but to take away their means of defending themselves agains that same enemy. The ability to defend themselves rested on their "stuff" - so it all boils down to the same thing. Property is more than just "stuff" - it is what CREATES the "way of life" that you so valiantly claim is what they colonists were justified in protecting. My car, my tv, my computer, my whatever else - are what creates the way of life I lead. So they were morally justified in using deadly force to protect it, but people in today's world are not?

But you, and some others here, are more than willing to take another person's life because they dared to take what amounts to dross, and to shoot them in the back to do it. Your computer, or your car, might be worth somebody's life. Mine isn't. And so a loyalist in 1794 might have said: "But you, and some others here - are more than willing to take many mens lives because they dare to enforce a taking to what amounts to mere money through taxation and guns and powder, and to shoot them in the back as they retreat. Your money and guns and home may be worth someone else's life to you, but it is not to me."

I am not slamming you - just using historical perspective. I respect your very moral choice. I find it unfortunate that you find mine morally insufficient, but we are allowed to differ.

Sailor Steve

04-20-14, 11:44 AM

I am not slamming you - just using historical perspective. I respect your very moral choice. I find it unfortunate that you find mine morally insufficient, but we are allowed to differ.
I don't find your moral choice insuffecient. I'm entertained by the lengths you'll go to to try to convince me it's the right one, offering justifications right and left. Is it me you're trying to convince? I don't need convincing. The question is "Would you shoot a man in the back over a piece of dross - computer, TV, car, whatever?" I have no quarrel with those who would, it's a moral question. I don't judge other people's morals, I only ever spoke for myself. I consider Neal a close friend. That he disagrees with me is nothing, a question to disagree on. I said my piece and was willing to let it go, but you keep trying to win an argument that doesn't really exist. I've answered you points because I enjoy doing so.

Way back when I was a Christian I firmly believed in the "earthly treasures vs treasures in heaven" parts. Now that I no longer believe I find myself still affected by that statement. Everything I own, no matter how much it may mean to me, in the end it's just junk. I recently spent several years "owning" my property, yet unable to use it, as it was in storage and I was homeless. I discovered that as much as I missed playing Silent Hunter and building models, in the end it really meant nothing. I stayed online thanks to the local library's computer system, but that was only an hour per day, and the rest of the time I found I really didn't need it at all. Miss it? Sure, but it wasn't really all that important. A home invasion is not only a violation of my natural rights, but a potential threat to my life. A thief in my home should be stopped, or chased away. With deadly force? If possible, no. If forced, then yes.

So, the only question is this: Would I shoot a man in my home as he was stealing my stuff? Alone, in the dark where I couldn't tell if his intent was theft or murder, I would most definitely shoot without warning. In the daylight, where I could see if he was armed or not? If not, I'd give him the chance to surrender. If he chose to attack, I would shoot him whether he was armed or not. If he chose to run? Never. My morals, my beliefs, my actions. I'm not trying to convince you I'm right. Your beliefs and your conscience are your own, and I wouldn't dream of saying you're wrong. Yet you keep trying to convince me and anyone who feels as I do that you're right. Why? I don't need justifications for my moral stance. Why do you feel you do?