Man on trial for shooting car thief

[CaptainHaplo]

Originally Posted by Cybermat47

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

No - Tarjak would call that encouraging such killings.

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.

If anything, the dirty windows adds plausibility to the idea that Mr. Gerlach thought he saw a gun. His view was obscured, and he had to react to what he thought.

Personally, I find it excessive that a simple car thief be killed.

Would you feel the same way if he had been found with a gun?
Does his then "well founded" suspected intention of murder make it "more ok" to have been killed? What if he had been a simple car thief driving toward Mr. Gerlach instead of away?

I'm opposed to the death penalty, but not by a whole lot, seeing as the only people it really applies to are murderers and rapists.

Would you be opposed to it if you were one of the victims? Or had the opportunity to put a stop to it during one of these acts? If you walked around a corner alley to see someone being raped or murdered, how would you react? What if it were you being murdered and you had to "impose the death penalty" to save your own life?

A car thief deserves a good beating and a ticket to the local jail at the most.

So a trip to the local jail? Usually jails only hold people for a max of 30 days. So the most a car thief should get is 30 days and a beating? What if it is - as in the case of Mr. Kaluza-Graham, not the first time?

But, in the circumstances, Mr. Gherlach acted as he saw fit (and proved to be a hell of a shot).

As he saw "fit"? Or as he felt necessary due to a perceived threat?

It's unfortunate that the thief ended up dead, but he shouldn't have turned to a life of crime in the first place.

Amen!

[Cybermat47]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

If anything, the dirty windows adds plausibility to the idea that Mr. Gerlach thought he saw a gun. His view was obscured, and he had to react to what he thought.

True, true.

Would you feel the same way if he had been found with a gun?
Does his then "well founded" suspected intention of murder make it "more ok" to have been killed? What if he had been a simple car thief driving toward Mr. Gerlach instead of away?

Well, if he'd had a gun, he probably wouldn't have even ended up in court, as it would be concrete evidence that his life was in danger. The same thing goes if it had looked as though the thief was going to hit him with the car.

Would you be opposed to it if you were one of the victims? Or had the opportunity to put a stop to it during one of these acts? If you walked around a corner alley to see someone being raped or murdered, how would you react? What if it were you being murdered and you had to "impose the death penalty" to save your own life?

Well, I'm not really opposed to the death penalty, I'm more on the fence about it. I personally consider life in prison to be a more fitting punishment, as death is too quick for rapists and murderers. But on the other hand, if they manage to escape incarceration, they could well claim more victims.

But if you're being raped or your life is in danger, you have every right to use deadly force to defend yourself. If I saw someone being raped or murdered, I'd want to tackle the assailant and beat the crap out if them, as I don't carry weapons.

So a trip to the local jail? Usually jails only hold people for a max of 30 days. So the most a car thief should get is 30 days and a beating? What if it is - as in the case of Mr. Kaluza-Graham, not the first time?

Wait, only 30 days? Then where the hell do people go when they get sentenced to life imprisonment? Are jail and prison to different things? If that's the case, then I meant prison.

As he saw "fit"? Or as he felt necessary due to a perceived threat?

Aren't 'fit' and 'necessary' the same thing?

Amen!

Nice to see we agree on something.

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

Its not hard to understand , other countries hung people for stealing horses in the 1800s, they also hung people for stealing rabbits, stealing firewood, chopping down trees, stealing bread, pickpocketing and damaging roads.
They have moved beyond that sillyness now.

But if you want to go all 1800s on it, stealing cotton was a capital offence in South Carolina wasn't it, but only if the thief was black.

[TarJak]

Originally Posted by Cybermat47

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

No we can't all agree with this.

Unless we all want to remain rooted in the 1800's.

[Cybermat47]

Originally Posted by TarJak

No we can't all agree with this.

Unless we all want to remain rooted in the 1800's.

I'm not saying that it's a good thing that the thief died, I'm saying that it's a good thing that Mr. Gherlach defended his property. It would've been better if he hadn't killed the thief, though. Personally, I would've aimed for the tires.

But you and Steve are right, not everyone has to agree.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Cybermat47

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

Not all of us. I try to look at it from the court punishment point of view. Would the court hand out a death sentence for property theft? Then neither would I. You say pretty much the same in the rest of your post, so basically we are in agreement. I'm just saying that I'm not congratulating the guy or declaring him a hero for shooting a thief in the back as the thief was fleeing the scene of the crime.

On the other hand, the jury came to the verdict they did for a reason. I can't disagree with it for the reason that I didn't hear all the evidence and they almost certainly have information that I don't.

What seems to be getting lost in the heat of argument is TarJak's basic question: Is it worth it to take someone's life over a property question, especially when the theft has already taken place?

[Cybermat47]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

What seems to be getting lost in the heat of argument is TarJak's basic question: Is it worth it to take someone's life over a property question, especially when the theft has already taken place?

Ok, then I'll answer that with my opinion. It's just my opinion, mind you.

No. Killing people for stealing from you is an unnecessary waste of life, even if they're a criminal. Killing should only be done when your or another's life is in danger (That said, if Mr. Gherlach did indeed believe his life was in danger, then he is justified in his actions. Wether or not he actually did think he was in danger, or made that up to support his case in court, is another question.)

I can understand why people disagree with me, though. I think that every life is precious, they think that a criminal's life is worthless. Perhaps I'm just too naive, or they're too cynical, or maybe a bit of both. Whatever, I'll still respect them after this argument.

[Aktungbby]

Originally Posted by Cybermat47

Puberty does weird things with your head, especially when you're thinking about deep stuff like this.

Just stay away from guns, 'likeminded' girls and 'badass falcons' and you'll make it! Forget deep stuff...shallow is good!

[CaptainHaplo]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

What seems to be getting lost in the heat of argument is TarJak's basic question: Is it worth it to take someone's life over a property question, especially when the theft has already taken place?

The law in many geographical areas - including this one - says yes. In some areas, it is no. The difference between "stand your ground" and "duty to retreat" laws are a perfect example.

If the theft already has taken place - then no, it should be a police matter. If the theft is taking place, then it can be. In the case that started this discussion, the theft had not "taken place" because criminal action is not complete until the criminal "gets away" from the scene of the crime. Because the criminal was still "at the scene" - he was still in the act of theft and had not completed his criminal actions.

Now that is all the legal wrangling behind it. But it is really a moral or ethical question as well as a legal one. So to answer I will ask (then answer) the questions behind this one...

Should I respect the rights of another who willfully and with malice aforethought chooses to violate my rights? Am I morally or ethically bound to offer them a level of rights they deny me when they are violating my own in an intentional, criminal manner?

No, I do not believe that I am morally or ethically bound to do so. I believe that when a person chooses to willfully violate the rights of another person, they are abrogating their own rights.

Now, before people start getting up in arms about this - realize that this is the basic premise behind the justice system as it is. If a criminal does not abrogate their rights by committing a crime, then what right does society have to incarcerate them when (in the US) a person's rights to "Liberty" are supposed to be guaranteed? Their right to liberty is deemed to have been cast aside because of their choice to act in a criminal manner. If you take away that - then a person who commits a crime and can escape the scene without pursuit should never be incarcerated - no matter what crime was committed.

So if you can accept that a criminal - by their own choice AND action - sets aside their rights in the violation of the rights of another, then you must ask the next set of questions....

Why should a person who is victimized by a crime be LESS authorized to act to protect his/her self or property during the commission of a crime than the judicial system is "after" a crime has been committed and the criminal caught? After all - many jurisdictions have the "three strikes and your out" law - which can result in permanent incarceration (a sentence many would consider worse than simple execution).

Why should the person who is being victimized have less authority than a governmental entity (police) responding to the call?

Because police respond AFTER a crime has started (generally speaking), they can not protect a victim undergoing a violent or serious crime at the time. Thus, does not the victim have the right to protect themselves (whether their person or their property)? If not, why are door locks legal, as they serve to bar entry and protect the homeowner and property?

Points to ponder....

[TarJak]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Not all of us. I try to look at it from the court punishment point of view. Would the court hand out a death sentence for property theft? Then neither would I. You say pretty much the same in the rest of your post, so basically we are in agreement. I'm just saying that I'm not congratulating the guy or declaring him a hero for shooting a thief in the back as the thief was fleeing the scene of the crime.

On the other hand, the jury came to the verdict they did for a reason. I can't disagree with it for the reason that I didn't hear all the evidence and they almost certainly have information that I don't.

What seems to be getting lost in the heat of argument is TarJak's basic question: Is it worth it to take someone's life over a property question, especially when the theft has already taken place?

Trust me I've not lost sight of it.

I don't dispute the legal decision and as long as there are no questions around the investigation and prosecution of the case am satisfied that the right result was achieved.

I'm more interested in exploring the moral question particularly around the choice of pulling out a weapon and using it to end someone's life.

Certainly to me, celebration, congratulation, thanking, encouragement are all inappropriate responses to the verdict.

On Neal's comment that the shooter should not have been prosecuted in the first place; if it had been my child shot dead by someone, with no other witnesses around, I'd want to make sure that the police and prosecution did their job, to make sure that the death of my child was properly investigated and prosecuted. Anything less and anyone could claim anything to avoid prosecution in a similar situation where there was no evidence of theft.


That said, if I knew my child was stealing cars, they would be getting a visit from the law.

[Cybermat47]

I'd also like to add, and this isn't me arguing with anyone, that another reasons that I, personally, would not shoot a thief who wasn't threatening my life, would be that the thief could well be a good person who's been forced in to crime by poverty. After all, surely a Father would choose his family's wellbeing over regard for the law if he and his family were broke, and they couldn't get a job. That's one of the terrible things about poverty But judging from CaptainHaplo's comments about the car thief being a 'repeat offender', that doesn't seem to be the case here arguably that's a good thing.

I don't know why I'm saying this, BTW. It doesn't have a lot to do with the topic.

Now, before people start getting up in arms about this - realize that this is the basic premise behind the justice system as it is. If a criminal does not abrogate their rights by committing a crime, then what right does society have to incarcerate them when (in the US) a person's rights to "Liberty" are supposed to be guaranteed? Their right to liberty is deemed to have been cast aside because of their choice to act in a criminal manner. If you take away that - then a person who commits a crime and can escape the scene without pursuit should never be incarcerated - no matter what crime was committed.

Now, if you want rights, there I this thing called a right to due process, there is also this right to not have cruel or unusual punishments , it is rather unusual to be punished by summary execution for theft when theft is not a capital crime anymore.

If not, why are door locks legal, as they serve to bar entry and protect the homeowner and property?

Once again into extremist bollocks, if your argument cannot stand without taking it to ridiculous extremes then you have a very poor argument.

But if you want to take it to extremes on defending property, how about that crazy old coot who shot a kid because he had an issue over some kids walking on his lawn?
He thought he was morally right because he believed he had a right to defend his property.

[Onkel Neal]

Not guilty

http://www.krem.com/news/Gerlach-att...255416571.html

And the taxpayers get to pay for his defense.

[Cybermat47]

I think Mr. Gerlach's quote is spot on:

Originally Posted by Gail Gerlach

The greatest tragedy is that Mr. Brendon Kaluza-Graham will not have a chance to turn his life around.

A bit sad that some people here don't regard Kaluza-Graham as a Human, when THE GUY HE WAS STEALING FROM clearly considers him one I'm not saying that you're not entitled to your opinions, I'm just pointing out that the guy you're defending disagrees with you.

I also feel sorry for Brendon Kaluza-Graham's family.

Gerlach’s wife, Sharon, wept and embraced her family as the verdict, not guilty on both a first-degree and second-degree manslaughter charge, was read in open court. Ann Kaluza-Graham, grandmother of the man shot dead trying to steal Gerlach’s SUV, burst into tears as she said her grandson never got a chance to answer theft charges or prove himself a changed person.

(I'm not sure why a changed person would steal someone else's car, but whatever...)

The family of the 25-year-old said they were disgusted with the way the media has portrayed Kaluza-Graham, saying their relative was made into a “one-dimensional thief.”

“He had hopes, and dreams,” Ann Kaluza said. She added “he was made into a poster boy for the angst of the community, a sacrificial lamb. That’s not right.”

Think about it. What do we know about Kaluza-Graham, part from him being a thief? I'm not saying he's innocent or anything, but he was still a Human being. It's a shame he turned to a life of crime. It doesn't seem he was in poverty or anything, so I don't know why he did it

[Schroeder]

Originally Posted by Dan D

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.

I think shooting a car thief in the back while he's trying to get away would be regarded as excessive force in a German court. I believe it would be called "Extensiver Notwehrexzess".
Have a look at this link (German only) and the example on the bottom of the page.
http://www.juraforum.de/lexikon/notwehrexzess

It stands in stark contrast to your 1920 case.