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.

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:

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.

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.

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

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.
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!

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-Extrem...ravest+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:

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.


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.

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.

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.

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:

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.

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.

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

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