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

[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.

[swamprat69er]

This is going to send a wrong message to the crooks. 'Go ahead and do your worst, the victim of your wrong doing will get the worse punishment.'

[Wolferz]

The crooklins already know that fact, Swamprat. Yhat's why they do what they do. They know that only the cops are authorized to touch them.
"When seconds count. The police are only ten minutes away"

There's a town in Tennessee where almost all the citizens are openly packing heat. The rest probably concealed.
They have a 0% crime rate.
This guy in Washington should have a medal pinned on his chest. Just for the accuracy of the shot.
The message needs to be hammered home to these crooks.
"Don't worry about the time. Worry about your life"

[MH]

The guy shot the thief from 60 ft away in the back while the thief was driving off so it seems that the shooter is lying about his life being in danger.

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.

On the flip side guns law in USA send message to criminals when you steal something and get caught shoot first because your life might be at danger and there is nothing to lose....
So at the end property crimes easily escalate into gunfights.
It also gives legitimacy for trigger happy people to kill others over TV set.
So ... happy shooting.

Im far from being anti gun hippie or whatever you might call it lol but some of that self defense laws let you shoot each other mindlessly and unnecessarily.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by MH

On the flip side guns law in USA send message to criminals when you steal something and get caught shoot first because your life might be at danger and there is nothing to lose....
So at the end property crimes easily escalate into gunfights.
It also gives legitimacy for trigger happy people to kill others over TV set.
So ... happy shooting.

A nice psuedo-philosophy, but where I live if someone is in your home without your permission it's legal for you to shoot him, and while we have had many cases of homeowners shooting burglars, we have never had a single case of a burglar shooting a homeowner pre-emptively, as you suggest.

So your point is wrong, and in this case so are you.

[MH]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

A nice psuedo-philosophy, but where I live if someone is in your home without your permission it's legal for you to shoot him, and while we have had many cases of homeowners shooting burglars, we have never had a single case of a burglar shooting a homeowner pre-emptively, as you suggest.

So your point is wrong, and in this case so are you.

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

....
and while we have had many cases of homeowners shooting burglars, we have never had a single case of a burglar shooting a homeowner pre-emptively, as you suggest.

exactly....
You still end up with dead bodies.
So is some sucker steals you car and you shoot him you supposed to be proud of it?
Dont you have insurance?

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

I'm wondering if that claim he made is the entire reason why he is facing charges.

[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?

[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.