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

I'll keep that in mind :hmmm:

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.

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.

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 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

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?

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.

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.

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?

What an extremist load of bollocks.


I've made no claim. Merely expressed a sarcastic opinion. You're now bordering on veiled insult.






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.

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:

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.

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.

Calling names because you can't argue substance....

Wrong.... see:
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.

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.

Who is being the insulting one?

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.

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....

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 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.

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

I see you grasping at straws.

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

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.

Again calling it as I see it. You're argument is still a load of bollocks.

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


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.

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....

Yelling "bollocks" and "extremist" does not a convincing argument make....

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.

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".

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.

And yet you still fail to articulate why, instead spewing the generic dismissiveness with no factual or reasonable logic behind it.

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.

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

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 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.

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.