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.

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.

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.

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?

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.