Man on trial for shooting car thief

[Onkel Neal]

http://www.karnnewsradio.com/common/...DE6840A&mode=2


What a shot! I cannot see why he is on trial. He wasn't stealing anything. Just protecting his property.

Just imagine the message this sends criminals in Washington: don't worry, if the owner catches you in the act, you can kill him, but he'll be arrested if he shoots at you.

[Jimbuna]

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

I'm wondering if this will be the focal point of his defence

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by Jimbuna

I'm wondering if this will be the focal point of his defence

It pretty much has to be. Its no defense to say I don't want to let people take my property that I have to spend months working to pay for

[MH]

I would never shoot anyone over a car or property unless my life was in danger.
Also..there is a difference using a gun to deter ...and legitimacy to shoot on sight.

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

[STEED]

Was it worth killing him over a car?

[Catfish]

Originally Posted by STEED

Was it worth killing him over a car?

^ This. I do not think so.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by STEED

Was it worth killing him over a car?

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.

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by STEED

Was it worth killing him over a car?

Depends on the car......

In all reality, it is just a car. This is what insurance is for. Certainly a pain in the butt getting it sorted once the car is found, if ever. But, what ordeal this guy is going through now far outweighs just letting it go and dealing with the insurance folks.

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by STEED

Was it worth killing him over a car?

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

Originally Posted by MH

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?

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

Yeah? If you play with fire....

Originally Posted by Skybird

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.

Always the philosopher

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by MH

No my point is that if you go to rob someone you better do it with a gun.

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

So is some sucker steals you car and you shoot him you supposed to be proud of it?

No. Even here, where you're free to shoot someone in your house, that is only in your house, where you can claim self-defense. You're not free to shoot him in the back as he's running down the street with your stuff, just as your not free to chase somebody down and beat him to death if he's running away from a fight.

Originally Posted by MH

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

That's why our particular law only involves home invasions.

Also..there is a difference using a gun to deter ...and legitimacy to shoot on sight.

Also true, but a gun is only a deterrent if the guy facing it knows you'll use it. Pointing a gun at somebody and saying you'll shoot him is a sure way to convince him you won't. You can tell if someone is willing to pull the trigger or not.

[em2nought]

Nice shot! Kudos, I hope he gets the benefit of the doubt.

[Wolferz]

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.

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

Just imagine the message this sends criminals in Washington: don't worry, if the owner catches you in the act, you can kill him, but he'll be arrested if he shoots at you.

More time is spent protecting the perp than the victim.

[Rhodes]

It happens here also!
Our law system has a very diffrent concept in such situations. If some one force entry in my home or car, to rob, damage, violate, assault, rape, kill; I have to do defend myself in the least damage way for the perpetrator. Above that, I will have to justify why I puch him, kick him, manage to brake every bone of him or even kill him, defending me, or my family, home, etc.
So many times the news broadcast burglers that were shot by the owner of the business or home and he was trial by homicide. Of course our legal system is very diffrent of the USA (per example), but some commom sense has to exist.
Normaly one of the parts fails to have some proof to support what is on trial. And if I have to defend myself or my family inside of a bad situation, I have to pray that there is no witness or I just do have to give a damn about it. But I know that I will have to some kind of unpleasantness!

[Wolferz]

This unfortunate fellow was living in the wrong state.
He should've been in Texas where it's still legal to shoot a horse thief.