Why bother...
You can always earn a great headshot...boom yeah.:haha::doh:

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

The guy should have ran up to the car and thrown it in reverse.
"He was trying to run me over when I shot him."

The police will kill you for less. All you need these days is a toy assault rifle or just be mentally ill.:hmmm:

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


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 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.

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

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.


http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/pict...&pictureid=802


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.

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

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

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

http://076dd0a50e0c1255009e-bd4b8aab...l/original.jpg

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.

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/upl...ghbor-sign.jpg

Yeah? If you play with fire....

:har: Always the philosopher :up:

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

:yeah:Gotta love it!:yeah:

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.

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

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..

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.

@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:


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.

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

I see no reason in this case.

Just a note ... self-defense is an 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.

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.

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.

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/4878...%202_full.jpeg

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.