Man on trial for shooting car thief

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by TarJak

Killing in war is no less senseless than killing in the street. Medals though are usually for merit though getting notches on your belt can add to the objective of winning a war and there may be perceived merit in that.

Killing is killing, whether its some poor Schmoe who has been drafted by his government and would rather be anywhere else than at the end of your bayonet, or if its a lazy, drug-addicted scumbag who will be happy to punch your teeth out or stab you in the groin if you slow him down from stealing your property. I agree, killing in war is not exactly the same as killing a criminal who is stealing your property. But it's not all that different. We are always at war with criminals, but they are willing to disregard all rules of conduct while we are tying our hands with excessive rules. The only reason self-defense has been brought up in this case is because the property owner could be considered in trouble for fighting back against criminals. That's it--we all know it is not self-defense, and some of us (me for example) beleive its a travesty that he has to even go there to protect himself. He should be able to say "Guy was stealing my $30,000 car and I stopped him with a bullet", and there should be nothing to say except "good shot!".

Now, as I stated earlier, you may have a different belief about the value of this criminal's life, and you are entitled to believe that. You are entitled to act on this belief, allow a criminal to get away with stopping him, and relying on law enforcement and insurance to take care of this for you. But you are not allowed to tell me what I can believe, and the law in many places backs up a property owner who uses deadly force to stop the theft of his property. So, there are many who feel the same as me.

But we have very different rules for war as opposed to behaviour in your average suburban street.

Like I said, depends on where you live. In some states, the rules say yes, you can shoot a car thief or burglar. People who don't like this should find a state/region where criminals have more freedom.

I don't hold the thief in high regard either. But his life is not valued lower than a vehicle by your own legal system. If it was, you would have different penalties than those in place now. Would a court that put criminals to death for car theft be preferable?

Well, here's how I value an automobile that cost $20,000, $30,000 etc. That represents days and days of my work, showing up on time, getting the job done, avoiding mistakes, listening to PIA customers or bosses, being accountable for my work, thousands of hours of my time and life....and not being able to enjoy many of the things in life I would be able to enjoy if I was unemployed--screwing around all day, every day, doing what I like, no pressure, plenty of time to watch TV or surf the web, play games, listen to music, visit friends and family, smell the roses--all of this is severely limited by the time I have left after working.

So, yeah, that car is worth a LOT more to me than some car thief's life. Sorry, but I do have a right to this opinion, and it's no more right or wrong than yours. That's the way many people feel.

Death penalty for car thieves? Why not? Or, maybe I can compromise with you, how about 30 years in prison, no early release?

[CaptainHaplo]

Originally Posted by TarJak

Not one word I've written has anything to do with self defence. Every word I've written is about the choices made by someone. Why those choices were made is a very separate issue. The fact remains that no-one forced Mr. Gerlach to any of his decisions and he is therefore responsible for the outcomes.

And it is here that you continue to make the error. You claim no one forced Mr. Gerlach to any of his decisions. Yet Mr. Gerlach was deemed to have justifiably acted in self defense. So a jury of 12 peers found by preponderance of the evidence that Mr. Gerlach was forced into a decision by Mr. Kaluza-Graham.

You can claim it wasn't right, but both the law and society have spoken. You are entitled to your opinion - and your entitled to be wrong. You are choosing to do both simultaneously.

Cheering = encouraging
Thanking someone does nothing to discourage and could be considered encouraging.

Using your logic, a pharmacist does nothing to discourage the abuse of prescription medicine by choosing to dispense such medication, so they "could be considered" to be encouraging it. Not actively discouraging something is not the same as encouraging it.

When was the last time you actively discouraged someone from going out and having a few drinks before driving home? If you are not actively discouraging it - then you "could be encouraging" it using your line of reasoning.

Think about that for a moment. If you know your friend is going to go to a party and have a few drinks, but you don't intentionally call him up and remind him not to drink and drive - God help you if he gets in a car wreck and kills someone. After all - if the victim's family finds out - you could be sued for contributing (via your ENCOURAGEMENT) to his choice to drink and drive. Pretty ridiculous premise, yes? But that is the train of thought you are using when you say if your not discouraging someone then you could be viewed as encouraging them.

Note - there is a difference between encouragement and tacit approval. Perhaps that is what you meant?

Clearly we work with different logic patterns.

Well we can at least agree on that....

[Flamebatter90]

The American justice system is something I will never understand.

Tarjak or Tribesman made a good point by saying: If citizen can shoot someone who is stealing his car, then why car theft isn't punishable by death in court?

I think this is the main point of this.

Is life really so cheap over there?

[Wolferz]

Is life really so cheap over there?

Yes, the life of a common criminal is pretty damned cheap. If the criminal has such disrespect for himself or his peers, that he feels the need to deprive another man of the fruits of his labor because he is too lazy to cultivate his own fruit tree, then yes, he is going to be met with the ultimate resistance to his endeavors. So this particular crook actually committed suicide when he decided to steal this man's car. If the victim hadn't killed him, a Police officer surely would have.
Would you fellows feel this sorry for this criminal if a cop had shot him dead instead?

One thing you must admit, this career criminal was instantly cured of his recidivism and all it cost was the price of one 9mm round of ammo, saving the taxpayers of the state of Washington the great cost of prosecution and incarceration of a suicidal fool.

[Schroeder]

It's from the funny picture thread but it fits so nicely here:


I wonder why we don't drown in violent crime as we don't kill our suspects...

[Flamebatter90]

So, I steal a berry from you, you can shoot me? Right? Same freaking thing.
Self defence does not = Thief running on a car from the scene (Who pointed gun at the dude, which was never found.) Hard science...

Self Defence = I came you with a Samurai sword with clear intent to hit you and cause harm.

It's not rocket science.... or is it?!

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by Schroeder

It's from the funny picture thread but it fits so nicely here:


I wonder why we don't drown in violent crime as we don't kill our suspects...

I congratulate you on your very low crime rate. I wish we had the same here. But there are differences between our two countries and the laws to punish criminals is not causing crime. it is a cultural difference and I don't think there's a hell of a lot we can do about it, except make it worse, which we seem to be bent on doing.

[Schroeder]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

I congratulate you on your very low crime rate. I wish we had the same here. But there are differences between our two countries and the laws to punish criminals is not causing crime. it is a cultural difference and I don't think there's a hell of a lot we can do about it, except make it worse, which we seem to be bent on doing.

Yes, there is a cultural difference and solutions from Europe don't necessarily work in the States and vice versa. But I find it still a bit over the top to kill someone for steeling ones car. I mean I would be mad as hell if someone stole my car but I wouldn't shoot to kill. If someone attacked me however I would probably use a gun on him (if it were allowed here to walk around with guns). This would also be the only way to make this count as self defence. As long as someone isn't attacking someone directly there is no way any court here would rule it as self defence.

[TarJak]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

I congratulate you on your very low crime rate. I wish we had the same here. But there are differences between our two countries and the laws to punish criminals is not causing crime. it is a cultural difference and I don't think there's a hell of a lot we can do about it, except make it worse, which we seem to be bent on doing.

Thats one of the saddest commentaries on America I've read. You make it sound like the land of the free and the home of the brave is actually the land of the imprisoned and the home of the fearful.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

I congratulate you on your very low crime rate.

We don't have. We just are mentally ill and have some of our essential priorities hopelessly messed up. In Germanyx you can beat a innocent on the streets to death because you are bored, and get away with that if you are a migrant by serving two years in prison. Even less.

But if you make a mistake - indeed a mistake - in your tax declaration , that can earn you prison time in excess of that.

I pretty much agree with all you said in reply to TarJak:

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

Well, here's how I value an automobile that cost $20,000, $30,000 etc. That represents days and days of my work, showing up on time, getting the job done, avoiding mistakes, listening to PIA customers or bosses, being accountable for my work, thousands of hours of my time and life....and not being able to enjoy many of the things in life I would be able to enjoy if I was unemployed--screwing around all day, every day, doing what I like, no pressure, plenty of time to watch TV or surf the web, play games, listen to music, visit friends and family, smell the roses--all of this is severely limited by the time I have left after working.

So, yeah, that car is worth a LOT more to me than some car thief's life.

^ Yep, this.

People speaking low of the value of property just cannot value the value of money, I think. Which today maybe is no surprise, since almost nobody knows anymore what money really is. I also don't think that human life has an absolute value that always automatically tends to be infinite.

Funny, we had a comparable discussion long time ago, you and me, must be ten years, more or less. I have dramatically changed some basic views of mine since then, it seems - while you were right form beginning on.

[Platapus]

So how about them Washington Redskins? They gonna suck next year?

[TarJak]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

And it is here that you continue to make the error. You claim no one forced Mr. Gerlach to any of his decisions. Yet Mr. Gerlach was deemed to have justifiably acted in self defense. So a jury of 12 peers found by preponderance of the evidence that Mr. Gerlach was forced into a decision by Mr. Kaluza-Graham.

You can claim it wasn't right, but both the law and society have spoken. You are entitled to your opinion - and your entitled to be wrong. You are choosing to do both simultaneously.

And again you're making a logic leap that is not implied by my previous posts.

You're also confirming that you're okay with the child's defence of " he made me do it".

Perhaps it's the culture of I have rights but not wanting the responsibility that comes with those rights that is driving the problems Neal mentioned.

Using your logic, a pharmacist does nothing to discourage the abuse of prescription medicine by choosing to dispense such medication, so they "could be considered" to be encouraging it. Not actively discouraging something is not the same as encouraging it.

When was the last time you actively discouraged someone from going out and having a few drinks before driving home? If you are not actively discouraging it - then you "could be encouraging" it using your line of reasoning.

Think about that for a moment. If you know your friend is going to go to a party and have a few drinks, but you don't intentionally call him up and remind him not to drink and drive - God help you if he gets in a car wreck and kills someone. After all - if the victim's family finds out - you could be sued for contributing (via your ENCOURAGEMENT) to his choice to drink and drive. Pretty ridiculous premise, yes? But that is the train of thought you are using when you say if your not discouraging someone then you could be viewed as encouraging them.

Again this is extremist and again it's bollocks with no relevance to the discussion.

- there is a difference between encouragement and tacit approval. Perhaps that is what you meant?

Perhaps. But approval expressed on a public forum on the internet is hardly tacit.

Well we can at least agree on that....

Good to see we agree on some things.

[CaptainHaplo]

Originally Posted by Flamebatter90

So, I steal a berry from you, you can shoot me? Right? Same freaking thing.

No - it isn't, on 2 counts. One - stealing a berry is not a felony. Stealing a car is. The reason for this is simple - a car can often be a necessity to survival here in the US. Without it, some people can not access the necessities of survival - for example: food or employment. The car is the modern day horse, and for folks outside the US - it is hard to understand why horse-thieving was a capital offense in many states in the 1800's.

Self defence does not = Thief running on a car from the scene (Who pointed gun at the dude, which was never found.) Hard science...

Here is the problem. You have the benefit of hindsight. Self defence is based not just on hindsight, but the fear created at what the victim THINKS and FEELS at the moment. If someone turns toward you and you think they have a gun and are about to shoot you, do you shoot first or wait? If you shoot first - as Mr. Gerlach did - and you later learn that they did not in fact have a weapon - then what? If you wait to find out - and they fire first - you may not have a chance to ever defend yourself. Self defense is thus predicated on what a reasonable person would feel given the circumstances. In this case, when Gerlach yelled "stop! stop!", the car thief put their arm back with something in their hand - appearing to point a gun (he could have even just been making a "gun hand" to intimidate - we will never know). At that moment, thinking the criminal had pulled a gun, Mr. Gerlach reasonably reacted to save his own life from a perceived threat. While you may not agree, 12 jurors unanimously did given the evidence.

Self Defence = I came you with a Samurai sword with clear intent to hit you and cause harm.

It's not rocket science.... or is it?!

Well, lets see....
It was dark and I woke up with you in my room. I could not see who it was, but I saw you had something about 3 feet in length and round. I thought it was a baseball bat. You lifted it high and were about to hit me with it, so I shot you in defense of my life. After all, getting my head bashed in by a stranger in the dark with a baseball bat is likely going to be fatal.

After you fall, I turn on the light and see that it is you, my friend and neighbor, still holding a piece of foam pipe insulation. You were at a wild party, let yourself in with the key I had given you when you watched my house during my last vacation and you intended to only wake me with the insulation in a big joke or gag.... But now your dead on my floor.

Am I guilty of murder? Or was it self defense? Hindsight is 20/20, but to the person facing what they THINK is a likelihood of death if they don't act - they are faced with the choice of act or die..... Which would you choose in that instant?

[Dan D]

No. If you consider a rightful use of self-defense, there, on that level, you never balance the affected legal interests, which would be here: „ life“ on the car-thieves' side and „car property“ on the other. That does not matter in a legal sense. It is your good right to defend your property as well as the legal order in general in such a situation, even with lethal force. That is a general priciple of law, already found out by the Romans („stand your ground“).

Famous case in Germany: „cherry tree“ case, Reichsgericht 1920:
a handicapped guy in a wheel-chair is protecting his garden with his K 98 rifle against starlings, the birds, your know.
Two children climb the cherry tree and start picking and eating the cherries. Guy tells them to stop, they make jokes of him, guy fires a warning shot, still no reaction. Guy shoots at target and hits one kid.

Decision by the court in 1920: rightful use of self-defense beacuse a balancing of the legal interests does not matter here.

Such a result is extremely hard to bare as being a rightful decision, come on, we have underage kids here who steal fruits. Does the legal order really ask for a stand your ground approach here?

Law development therefore: there is a very rare exemption that you go back looking at the legal interests affected. That is when it is a Bagatelle which you respond to with lethal force, But again, you can't expect a person in a self-defense situation to think long whether it is a better idea to shoot at the tyres instead of the thief.

So, under German law, it would be rightful self-defense, too, if an attempted car theft leads to a dead car thief because the car-owner was better armed.

And, George Zimmerman would have been justified here in Germany for his actions as well.

That there is more dead people in the US in such situations because people are armed, that is something else. Europe is not "more advanced" here.

[Cybermat47]

Ok, I'm in a more sober state of mind now, so I can express my opinion in a calmer manner, without overreacting to people's opinions

I think we can all agree that Mr. Gherlach was defending his property, and should be congratulated for doing so.

But could he have really thought that his life was in danger? The Police found no gun on the thief, and the windows were dirty, so that seems unlikely, but not impossible.

Personally, I find it excessive that a simple car thief be killed. I'm opposed to the death penalty, but not by a whole lot, (EDIT: To be honest, I'm more on the fence about it) seeing as the only people it really applies to are murderers and rapists. A car thief deserves a good beating and a ticket to the local jail (EDIT: Or prison, whichever one can hold prisoners more years) at the most. But, in the circumstances, Mr. Gherlach acted as he saw fit (and proved to be a hell of a shot). It's unfortunate that the thief ended up dead, but he shouldn't have turned to a life of crime in the first place.

BTW Neal, sorry for sort of exploding at you earlier. Puberty does weird things with your head, especially when you're thinking about deep stuff like this.