PDA

View Full Version : L.A. Man Shoots Car Thief, Charged with Murder



badbart2000
04-08-2004, 11:01 AM
Bull****, he should have killed thme both.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1896&u=/nm/20040407/us_nm/crime_murder_dc_1&printer=1

chiba102
04-08-2004, 11:04 AM
He should have killed both.

Now watch him get sued by the guy that lived and the dead guys family

It would have been a one sided case if he smoked them both

JigaroKagan
04-08-2004, 11:05 AM
That's the American legal system for you.

Coliones
04-08-2004, 11:07 AM
Wow, the court system really does protect the criminals. He did use excessive force but what are the cops going to do? "We so sorry sir you car was stolen let me write a report and sit on my fat donut eating arse and do nothing". He did all of us a favor in getting rid of criminal.

bgzee
04-08-2004, 11:16 AM
First of all, why is he being charged with 1st degree murder? Obviously, it wasnt premeditated. My guess is this charge will be bumped down to 2nd degree.

bgzee
04-08-2004, 11:22 AM
Originally posted by Coliones
Wow, the court system really does protect the criminals. He did use excessive force but what are the cops going to do? "We so sorry sir you car was stolen let me write a report and sit on my fat donut eating arse and do nothing". He did all of us a favor in getting rid of criminal.

The court is not protecting criminals. At what point is it *not* ok to kill someone. If someone steals my pencil, does that give me the right to shoot and kill them? How about my calculator, my shoes, or my wallet? Basically what im asking, is at what point is it ok to kill a theif?

supergarr
04-08-2004, 11:28 AM
so they trespass, and take his property and he gets in trouble? Chances are this guy isnt someone trained as a police officer in using a gun. Chances are he came out, or saw them through a window, pointed and pulled the trigger. So the guy died, big deal - next time don't steal someones car from their ****ing driveway!

badbart2000
04-08-2004, 11:37 AM
Originally posted by bgzee
The court is not protecting criminals. At what point is it *not* ok to kill someone. If someone steals my pencil, does that give me the right to shoot and kill them? How about my calculator, my shoes, or my wallet? Basically what im asking, is at what point is it ok to kill a theif?

Simple don't steal and you have nothing to worry about.

JigaroKagan
04-08-2004, 11:42 AM
Originally posted by bgzee
The court is not protecting criminals. At what point is it *not* ok to kill someone. If someone steals my pencil, does that give me the right to shoot and kill them? How about my calculator, my shoes, or my wallet? Basically what im asking, is at what point is it ok to kill a theif?

Trespassing, theft, and then the fact remains that they could be armed. What isn't reasonable about killing them? They're lucky that they live in a country that does protect criminals. If they lived in the Middle East, one would be dead and the other would either be decapitated or his hands would be severed.

bgzee
04-08-2004, 11:43 AM
Originally posted by JigaroKagan
Trespassing, theft, and then the fact remains that they could be armed. What isn't reasonable about killing them? They're lucky that they live in a country that does protect criminals. If they lived in the Middle East, one would be dead and the other would either be decapitated or his hands would be severed.

You make a good point. Keep in mind I'm undecided on the issue.

JigaroKagan
04-08-2004, 11:44 AM
Originally posted by bgzee
You make a good point. Keep in mind I'm undecided on the issue.

Fast little bastard, aren't ya? :P

jestros
04-08-2004, 12:03 PM
Same kinda thing happened locally about a year ago.
Some kid stole a guys crappy 80's american car. The guy hopped into a buddys car, chased the kid down and shot him in the head.
This car couldnt have been worth more than a $1000.
The kid was 15.
So the guy gets charged by the police and everybody freaks out, "He was defending his property"
This aint the old freakin west, and no car is worth a kids life. I've never stolen a car but I know people who like to go "joy ridin" and it's definately not worth someone dieing.

BuckWyld
04-08-2004, 12:06 PM
I beleive that most states only allow lethal force when someone's life is indanger. In this situation they were not in his house and were not at that point a threat to him or his family. also the fact that the guy was shot in the back does not help his case. you can not shoot someone in the back as they were fleeing and call it self defense, someone running away from you down the street is not a threat .

badbart2000
04-08-2004, 12:18 PM
Originally posted by BuckWyld
I beleive that most states only allow lethal force when someone's life is indanger. In this situation they were not in his house and were not at that point a threat to him or his family. also the fact that the guy was shot in the back does not help his case. you can not shoot someone in the back as they were fleeing and call it self defense, someone running away from you down the street is not a threat .

I'd shoot the ****er if I could he got what was coming to him.

BuckWyld
04-08-2004, 12:19 PM
and then you would go to jail for murder just like this guy.

Jimineye
04-08-2004, 01:50 PM
Originally posted by BuckWyld
I beleive that most states only allow lethal force when someone's life is indanger. In this situation they were not in his house and were not at that point a threat to him or his family. also the fact that the guy was shot in the back does not help his case. you can not shoot someone in the back as they were fleeing and call it self defense, someone running away from you down the street is not a threat .

If the guy was armed and was using it to steal my vehicle it would be legal then to shoot him at least here in Oregon. Since you could argue that you felt your life was in danger.

luciferchrist
04-08-2004, 01:53 PM
THIS IS ****ING BULL****

I am going to be facing a similiar situation soon :(

BuckWyld
04-08-2004, 01:53 PM
well the article does not say anything about the thieves being armed, so I assume they were not. besides just about anytime you shoot someone in the back, it is generally seen as unjustified.

luciferchrist
04-08-2004, 01:56 PM
Originally posted by badbart2000
I'd shoot the ****er if I could he got what was coming to him.


I'd have to agree with you.

don't steal, and you won't be shot. If all criminal acts were handled like this, criminals would think twice about committing a crime. Just look at the Florida crime statistics since they have been allowed to carry concealed weapons

Coliones
04-08-2004, 02:07 PM
Originally posted by bgzee
The court is not protecting criminals. At what point is it *not* ok to kill someone. If someone steals my pencil, does that give me the right to shoot and kill them? How about my calculator, my shoes, or my wallet? Basically what im asking, is at what point is it ok to kill a theif?

How do you figure? Im not arguing with you here just pointing out what I see on TV / News / Real life etc. A car thief ALWAYS (99%) gets away and is able to chop the car and sell it off leaving the owner with a stripped hulk in ghettoville when they find it. My friend has his car stolen, he had to find it ... ****ing cops weren't even concerned about it. When the cops showed they were so afraid of the aread they called in a wrecker had it towed immediately no investigation. Sad thing about the whole ordeal the car parts were prompt up against a garage no more than 30 feet away, THE COPS DID NOTHING.

A rapist is allowed to repeatedly commit repeat offenses every time he is let out of jail cause he is "rehabilitated". What about the victims?

Murder victims are brushed under the carpet. A murderer gets 5 years for killing someone. 5 years thats insane. They should never see daylight again.

And lastly, the system supports these bastards while they are in lockdown. They have TV, books, computers, jobs, pay, money, phone conversations, email, pen pals, 3 square meals and no work ... Wheres the ****ing punishment, sounds like a good place to be.

BuckWyld
04-08-2004, 02:11 PM
so you dont like the legal system we have in this country and you think that murder is the answer?

Coliones
04-08-2004, 02:22 PM
Originally posted by BuckWyld
so you dont like the legal system we have in this country and you think that murder is the answer?

No, but I think the consequences should be much more harsh for the criminal and they should not have any types of recreation while in the system, they gave up their rights when they decided to interfere in the rights of someone else. In the long run I don't see the gov't fixing these problems and I think in instances like this one a bit a of vigilante justice is called for. You know for a fact both men were armed to the teeth and would have severely maimed or killed the owner of the car so I don't see a big deal with eliminating another criminal from the streets. Should have turned him over and shot him a few more times. :D

BuckWyld
04-08-2004, 02:25 PM
Originally posted by Coliones
You know for a fact both men were armed to the teeth and would have severely maimed or killed the owner of the car so I don't see a big deal with eliminating another criminal from the streets.

no I dont, infact it did not mention either one of them having any weapons, not even a knife.

Coliones
04-08-2004, 02:26 PM
Originally posted by BuckWyld
no I dont, infact it did not mention either one of them having any weapons, not even a knife.

Ok so it didn't say... but what kind of stupid car thief would jack a car without weapons ... the unsuccessful type that gets the sheeit beat out of them by a 45yo mother of 2.

BuckWyld
04-08-2004, 02:27 PM
Originally posted by Coliones
Ok so it didn't say... but what kind of stupid car thief would jack a car without weapons ... the unsuccessful type that gets the sheeit beat out of them by a 45yo mother of 2.

the sort that were not a threat to the owner of the car, which is where the murder charge is coming from.

bgzee
04-08-2004, 02:34 PM
The government could focus on longer prison sentences for rapists, theives and murderers if the system wasnt filled with so many non-violent offenders, my biggest example being those incarcerated for marijuana trade.

badbart2000
04-08-2004, 02:37 PM
Originally posted by bgzee
The government could focus on longer prison sentences for rapists, theives and murderers if the system wasnt filled with so many non-violent offenders, my biggest example being those incarcerated for marijuana trade.

Very true

kshatriya4life
04-08-2004, 09:33 PM
A very similar story happened in India recently. A couple were taking a stroll in the street during night time. A street rougue tried to tease/force himself upon the wife. The husband who was carrying a gun warned the rougue. But the man did not listen. So the husband pulled the trigger, the rogue dies on the spot.

Guess what. The husband goes scot free. No case registered against him . Cool system unlike U.S

Kane Fan
04-08-2004, 09:39 PM
in California they are not really sure if they want you to be able to legally defend yourself
sad really
criminals have more rights then law abiding citiziens

batfonso
04-09-2004, 04:08 AM
I would've murdered those hispanics for just calling me an essay.

CerealKiller
04-09-2004, 04:55 AM
Originally posted by batfonso
I would've murdered those hispanics for just calling me an essay.

Brilliant :rolleyes:

Liam Canning
04-09-2004, 05:53 AM
Originally posted by bgzee
The government could focus on longer prison sentences for rapists, theives and murderers if the system wasnt filled with so many non-violent offenders, my biggest example being those incarcerated for marijuana trade.

Well what do you suggest?

In my opinion, drug dealers are as low down as the rapists and murderers. Although I am not from America, but this applies to Ireland and other countries affected by these scum.

I think it is the dealers, even the marijuana dealers are dragging each and every country, and is the drug trade which is causing a lot of the murders and thefts in each of our towns and cities!!!

Sorry, but I just had to get that out of my system :D:D:D

BuckWyld
04-09-2004, 07:26 AM
Originally posted by kshatriya4life
A very similar story happened in India recently. A couple were taking a stroll in the street during night time. A street rougue tried to tease/force himself upon the wife. The husband who was carrying a gun warned the rougue. But the man did not listen. So the husband pulled the trigger, the rogue dies on the spot.

Guess what. The husband goes scot free. No case registered against him . Cool system unlike U.S

my guess is that in the US this would have been ok also, because there was a reason to fear that they would be physically harmed. The guy would have possibly gotten in to trouble if he did not warn the guy first, and the attacker was unarmed.

Doctor Evil
04-09-2004, 07:37 AM
Originally posted by Coliones
Wow, the court system really does protect the criminals. He did use excessive force but what are the cops going to do? "We so sorry sir you car was stolen let me write a report and sit on my fat donut eating arse and do nothing". He did all of us a favor in getting rid of criminal.

Its not premeditated - but there is no legal justification whatsoever for opening fire on someone as they steal your car. Reasonable force is allowed, sure - but how is it reasonable to kill someone that is simply stealing a car? I hope this prick gets fifty years - then maybe all the gun happy ****s will realise that taking the law into their own hands, and potentially injuring other innocent civilians because of their gross miscinduct is wrong. Boo ****ing hoo to anyone who thinks that this guy was justified.

Willie_Bosket
04-09-2004, 09:06 AM
Its a common fact, if someone is stealing your car and you kill them, you best be prepared for the consequences, because the law isn't going to be to friendly, no matter how unfair it may seem. Yes its a dog act for someone to steal a car, but to shoot one of the thieves dead is retarded, the shooter deserves everything they get.

Woden
04-09-2004, 09:30 AM
IT was excessive force. He should do some time, from what I see he didn't tell them to stop or he'd shoot ect. He should have shot one in the leg.

badbart2000
04-09-2004, 09:49 AM
I would have shoot both of them in the head, two less pices of sh!t to worry about.

italian stallio
04-09-2004, 10:04 AM
What if he was afraid they were gunna come back when he wasn't home or if they were gunna come back with weapons. I would have shot em. He wouldn't have to deal with them again that way, think about it. You try to steal someone's car? You just forfeit your rights buddy, they should get zero compensation. If anything, the victim should sue the guy he left alive.

I'm also 100% sure that the prosecutors and everyone that says he was using excessive force is liberal.

BuckWyld
04-09-2004, 10:09 AM
Originally posted by italian stallio
What if he was afraid they were gunna come back when he wasn't home or if they were gunna come back with weapons. I would have shot em. He wouldn't have to deal with them again that way, think about it. You try to steal someone's car? You just forfeit your rights buddy, they should get zero compensation. If anything, the victim should sue the guy he left alive.

I'm also 100% sure that the prosecutors and everyone that says he was using excessive force is liberal.

1 they were unarmed
2 they were running away

there is no way in hell anyone with half a brain could call them an immediate thread. oh and BTW everyone in this country should have rights, that is the idea behind the ****ing bill of rights, even criminals.

I am also 100% sure that anyone who thinks this was not exessive force is a ****ing moron.

Woden
04-09-2004, 10:18 AM
Originally posted by italian stallio
What if he was afraid they were gunna come back when he wasn't home or if they were gunna come back with weapons. I would have shot em. He wouldn't have to deal with them again that way, think about it. You try to steal someone's car? You just forfeit your rights buddy, they should get zero compensation. If anything, the victim should sue the guy he left alive.

I'm also 100% sure that the prosecutors and everyone that says he was using excessive force is liberal.

I'm a conservative and I think he shoudl do time. Everyone is saying "two less peices of scum to worry about" or "You just forfiet your rights" , well peices of scum or not it's still murder. Now if someone came into your house at night you have every right to shoot them ect. ec.t but this is just unjustified.

italian stallio
04-09-2004, 10:34 AM
Originally posted by BuckWyld
1 they were unarmed
2 they were running away

there is no way in hell anyone with half a brain could call them an immediate thread. oh and BTW everyone in this country should have rights, that is the idea behind the ****ing bill of rights, even criminals.

I am also 100% sure that anyone who thinks this was not exessive force is a ****ing moron.

Well I didn't say they it was an immediate threat, but would you want to worry about it the next day or at night when you're sleeping that those two will come back for the car? You probably wouldn't be able to sleep at night for at least a week. Being a victim of a crime sometimes causes you to become a little paranoid. And I don't know about you, but I don't want my car stolen. And to the person who said he should have shot him in the leg, I agree with you but maybe he wasn't a good shot especially under pressure so he hit him in the back because it's a bigger target than the leg. Some may say he wasn't under pressure because they were running away, but my adrenaline would probably be rushing as soon as I realized my car was being stolen.

badbart2000
04-09-2004, 10:45 AM
Originally posted by italian stallio
What if he was afraid they were gunna come back when he wasn't home or if they were gunna come back with weapons. I would have shot em. He wouldn't have to deal with them again that way, think about it. You try to steal someone's car? You just forfeit your rights buddy, they should get zero compensation. If anything, the victim should sue the guy he left alive.

I'm also 100% sure that the prosecutors and everyone that says he was using excessive force is liberal.

Very true

honeybbqgrundle
04-09-2004, 03:41 PM
I don't see why he couldn't have just told the guys to leave. They're not gonna do anything with a gun pointed at them, and they're not gonna come back and terrorize the guy lol. They're just gonna find an easier car to steal.

Jimineye
04-09-2004, 04:00 PM
Originally posted by honeybbqgrundle
I don't see why he couldn't have just told the guys to leave. They're not gonna do anything with a gun pointed at them, and they're not gonna come back and terrorize the guy lol. They're just gonna find an easier car to steal.


*In a whiny nasally voice "Excuse me sir, will you please not steal my car, I would really appreciate it. Oh would you be so kind to leave as well. Thank you very much."*

I don't know about you but if I was stealing a car and someone said that to me I would just laugh in his face, and probably kick his ass for being so dumb.

LordNeon
04-09-2004, 04:14 PM
Originally posted by Jimineye
*In a whiny nasally voice "Excuse me sir, will you please not steal my car, I would really appreciate it. Oh would you be so kind to leave as well. Thank you very much."*

I don't know about you but if I was stealing a car and someone said that to me I would just laugh in his face, and probably kick his ass for being so dumb.

Well, yeah, but say that in a whiny nasally voice with a gun in your hand and it's a little more menacing.

honeybbqgrundle
04-09-2004, 04:25 PM
Originally posted by Jimineye
*In a whiny nasally voice "Excuse me sir, will you please not steal my car, I would really appreciate it. Oh would you be so kind to leave as well. Thank you very much."*

I don't know about you but if I was stealing a car and someone said that to me I would just laugh in his face, and probably kick his ass for being so dumb.

Yeah you'd laugh in the guy's face if he had a gun pointed at you. Did you even read my post?

Doctor Evil
04-09-2004, 06:39 PM
Originally posted by italian stallio
Well I didn't say they it was an immediate threat, but would you want to worry about it the next day or at night when you're sleeping that those two will come back for the car? You probably wouldn't be able to sleep at night for at least a week. Being a victim of a crime sometimes causes you to become a little paranoid. And I don't know about you, but I don't want my car stolen. And to the person who said he should have shot him in the leg, I agree with you but maybe he wasn't a good shot especially under pressure so he hit him in the back because it's a bigger target than the leg. Some may say he wasn't under pressure because they were running away, but my adrenaline would probably be rushing as soon as I realized my car was being stolen.

You don't think things through, do you? Shooting someone without lawful justification is going to be murder or manslaughter. There was clearly no lawful justification. There may have been no mens rea - thats an arguable point - fact is, shooting someone as they run for breaking into a car is excessive. Like I said, taking someones life is only justifiable in extreme circumstances. Even shooting someone in the leg may constitute greivous bodily harm. You gun happy fools....

Benjammin73
04-09-2004, 10:16 PM
Should he have tried to aim for a shoulder, leg, kneecap? Yes, should he go to jail? No, I don't know about you, but If I saw somebody messing with my car, I don't know what theyre doing, Im assuming if they know I've seen them, that they might try to harm me.
The ones that get me is when people are prosecuted for shooting when people break into your homes, threaten your family, jury tells me Im guilty of murder cuz I shot somebody threatening my family in my house, I'll tell them straight up they are the dumbest people in the world. I don't thin the U.S govt is that bad, but our entire judicial system is screwed. Stupid people constantly win lawsuits, victims are sued by criminals , and judges make decisions going completley against laws the people chose. And they call it the Justice system...?

Doctor Evil
04-10-2004, 12:38 AM
Originally posted by Benjammin73
Should he have tried to aim for a shoulder, leg, kneecap? Yes, should he go to jail? No, I don't know about you, but If I saw somebody messing with my car, I don't know what theyre doing, Im assuming if they know I've seen them, that they might try to harm me.
The ones that get me is when people are prosecuted for shooting when people break into your homes, threaten your family, jury tells me Im guilty of murder cuz I shot somebody threatening my family in my house, I'll tell them straight up they are the dumbest people in the world. I don't thin the U.S govt is that bad, but our entire judicial system is screwed. Stupid people constantly win lawsuits, victims are sued by criminals , and judges make decisions going completley against laws the people chose. And they call it the Justice system...?

:rolleyes: Should he have showed some restraint and not opened fire at all? Yes. Should he go to jail as a result of his conduct? Yes. If you assume they are going to harm you, you wait until that assumption is certain. When they attempt to attack you, then you are justified in using reasonable force to prevent the attack.

If someone breaks into your home, again - you are justified in using reasonable force to protect your property. If the person is unarmed, or they pose no immediate danger of physical threat, you cannot open fire on them, beat them senseless or stab them. You can only restrain them using reasonable force - and if you cannot determine reasonable force, you deserve to be thrown in jail.

Judges are not making decisions against what the people determined as the laws they want to live by - if people want criminals persecuted for killing without lawful justification, the decisions are being made according to public will. Notice lawful justification; that means with lawful excuse. The law dictates reasonable force is to be used only. Thats why there is a perception that the legal system is screwed; because they have no idea how the legal system actually works.

Benjammin73
04-10-2004, 06:23 AM
Actually I was referring to the gay marriage issue lately, where judges and mayors have ignored the city or states defense of marriage act, but they think they know better than the people know for themselves.

Bakira
04-10-2004, 06:35 PM
They should let the guy go.

I would have probably done the same thing. The message I would be sending is, "Don't come on my ****ing property to commit a crime unless you want to get shot/killed." Go ahead and say that he wasn't justified to kill the guy, but the guy's shouldn't have trespassed and tried to steal his car. You try to commit a crime, you suffer the consequences. No questions asked. Even if it means getting shot in the back. Maybe you'll learn not to commit anymore crimes.

If more people did this, less crimes would be commited because people would be afraid to get shot for even taking a step on someone's property when they wanted to steal the person's car or break into the person's house.

honeybbqgrundle
04-10-2004, 07:23 PM
I can pretty much guarantee that everyone here saying "I would shoot the guy" really wouldn't, and you all know it too.

Jcfreak_02
04-11-2004, 01:03 AM
This is incredible. Start the countdown when California will be cast into the ocean if he gets convicted.

Doctor Evil
04-11-2004, 07:46 AM
Originally posted by Bakira
They should let the guy go.

I would have probably done the same thing. The message I would be sending is, "Don't come on my ****ing property to commit a crime unless you want to get shot/killed." Go ahead and say that he wasn't justified to kill the guy, but the guy's shouldn't have trespassed and tried to steal his car. You try to commit a crime, you suffer the consequences. No questions asked. Even if it means getting shot in the back. Maybe you'll learn not to commit anymore crimes.

If more people did this, less crimes would be commited because people would be afraid to get shot for even taking a step on someone's property when they wanted to steal the person's car or break into the person's house.

Yeah, and taking the law into your own hands is acceptable in society. It would make the world a better place. It would prevent all crime. What you fail to mention is that you are trying to fight crime with crime. There are already deterrents in place for people who trespass onto other peoples properties, and people who commit crimes. We don't need trigger happy rednecks to accentuate this. Amending legislation to allow people to openly attack anyone that enters their land will result in anarchy, plain and simple. Killing someone for trying to steal a car is downright reprehensible.



Originally posted by Jcfreak_02
This is incredible. Start the countdown when California will be cast into the ocean if he gets convicted.

And this is the reason people who cannot control their religious convictions are rarely allowed to pass major judgments.

luciferchrist
04-11-2004, 07:56 AM
Originally posted by Jcfreak_02
This is incredible. Start the countdown when California will be cast into the ocean if he gets convicted.


:eek:

you out of all people think this was justified?

I personally do. Just thought you were into unconditional positive regard,

luciferchrist
04-11-2004, 08:10 AM
Originally posted by Doctor Evil
Yeah, and taking the law into your own hands is acceptable in society. It would make the world a better place. It would prevent all crime. What you fail to mention is that you are trying to fight crime with crime. There are already deterrents in place for people who trespass onto other peoples properties, and people who commit crimes. We don't need trigger happy rednecks to accentuate this. Amending legislation to allow people to openly attack anyone that enters their land will result in anarchy, plain and simple. Killing someone for trying to steal a car is downright reprehensible.




And this is the reason people who cannot control their religious convictions are rarely allowed to pass major judgments.


you are claiming anarchy would follow, I am claiming peace would follow. Its not plain in simple, it is a logical fallacy to make such blind assumptions (cum hoc ergo procter hoc I believe.) People being able to protect themselves does not follow with anarchy. You are making a prediction based on evidence which cannot be proven.

No one is calling for legislation that allows people to attack anyone whom enters their land. This would, however, probally cause anarchy. If someone is taking someones personal property or on someones land for the sole purpose of causing harm to that person, we should be allowed to protect ourselves.

Think for a minute about the possibilities that could arise from two men on your property with the intent to steal from you. You come out with a gun and scare them off. Now we have an infinite combinations of cause and effect that could arise out of this If you allow them to peacefully leave.
1. They could be pissed someone pointed a gun at them, and in a fit of pride go back to the house and harm the man.
2. They could have had guns on them and run for cover, hide and wait untill you go back in the house and shoot you in the back.
3. you might never see them again.

Even if you shoot them you are ****ed cause their boys could get revenge on you in any combination of ways.

Now if we create a system that prevents such things from ever even being a possibility, we create a system where the only option is "peace or death". Simple. This would quickly weed out all the garbage, and place people in a more positive society.

Doctor Evil
04-11-2004, 08:27 AM
Originally posted by luciferchrist
you are claiming anarchy would follow, I am claiming peace would follow. Its not plain in simple, it is a logical fallacy to make such blind assumptions (cum hoc ergo procter hoc I believe.) People being able to protect themselves does not follow with anarchy. You are making a prediction based on evidence which cannot be proven.

Protection can be given at law anyway, using reasonable force. That does not include bludgeoning someone who enters your land or shooting them. Reasonable force is dependant on the situation, and if someone has a flawed perception of reasonable, then unnecessary damage ind injury is going to be perpetuated - leading to people defending themselves in return, eventually resulting in anarchy. Its not too hard to foresee this.


Originally posted by luciferchrist
No one is calling for legislation that allows people to attack anyone whom enters their land. This would, however, probally cause anarchy. If someone is taking someones personal property or on someones land for the sole purpose of causing harm to that person, we should be allowed to protect ourselves.

Again - you can, with reasonable force. This is not necessarily a subjective perception by the person protecting themselves either. Quite simply, if someone is taking something of yours in order to cause you personal damage, you are not justified in killing them or harming them seriously. You may stop them, and that is it. And using guns or other dangerous weapons is not a justifiable way of doing so.


Originally posted by luciferchrist
Think for a minute about the possibilities that could arise from two men on your property with the intent to steal from you. You come out with a gun and scare them off. Now we have an infinite combinations of cause and effect that could arise out of this If you allow them to peacefully leave.
1. They could be pissed someone pointed a gun at them, and in a fit of pride go back to the house and harm the man.
2. They could have had guns on them and run for cover, hide and wait untill you go back in the house and shoot you in the back.
3. you might never see them again.

Even if you shoot them you are ****ed cause their boys could get revenge on you in any combination of ways.

Problem number one: you come out wielding a gun. At common law, if you do so and the trespassers reasonably fear that you intended to injure them - i.e. pulling a gun on them and threatening you to leave your land - they have a prima facie case of assault (the tort of assault here is different to criminal assault - criminal assumes bodily contact, tort is the perception of injury due to conduct). I agree with the possible consequences, but this entirely negates your last paragraph. Shooting them would constitute your 'peace or death' analysis. According to what you say, shooting would result in the people being ****ed. Not shooting results in them being ****ed.

Again, there is no justification for letting people take the law into their own hands. I don't care what the situation is - if you commit a crime in order to prevent a crime, you should be punished to the full extent of the law - otherwise, law reform would have been a major issue many, many years ago.

italian stallio
04-12-2004, 10:41 AM
Originally posted by Doctor Evil
:rolleyes: Should he have showed some restraint and not opened fire at all? Yes. Should he go to jail as a result of his conduct? Yes. If you assume they are going to harm you, you wait until that assumption is certain. When they attempt to attack you, then you are justified in using reasonable force to prevent the attack.

If someone breaks into your home, again - you are justified in using reasonable force to protect your property. If the person is unarmed, or they pose no immediate danger of physical threat, you cannot open fire on them, beat them senseless or stab them. You can only restrain them using reasonable force - and if you cannot determine reasonable force, you deserve to be thrown in jail.

Judges are not making decisions against what the people determined as the laws they want to live by - if people want criminals persecuted for killing without lawful justification, the decisions are being made according to public will. Notice lawful justification; that means with lawful excuse. The law dictates reasonable force is to be used only. Thats why there is a perception that the legal system is screwed; because they have no idea how the legal system actually works.

"If you assume they are going to harm you, you wait until that assumption is certain. When they attempt to attack you"

Man some people. So you are saying that you will wait until someone comes up to you and stabs you, that you will fight back??? You go ahead and do that ahaha. Only liberals...

Did you know that you can hit the other person first and it is in self defence if it looks like the other guy is threatening you or your property? If those car-jackers were threatening my car I would have done the same thing.

Coliones
04-12-2004, 11:05 AM
Originally posted by Doctor Evil
Its not premeditated - but there is no legal justification whatsoever for opening fire on someone as they steal your car. Reasonable force is allowed, sure - but how is it reasonable to kill someone that is simply stealing a car? I hope this prick gets fifty years - then maybe all the gun happy ****s will realise that taking the law into their own hands, and potentially injuring other innocent civilians because of their gross miscinduct is wrong. Boo ****ing hoo to anyone who thinks that this guy was justified.

Hmm, simply stealing a car. Lets analyze this one. 1.) You work your arse off to buy a car. A car is the second largest investment made by a person nowadays. 2.) You rely on your car for everything (shopping ,getting to/from work etc). 3.) Someone stealing your car is directly attacking you in a matter of speaking (not physically but mentally).

Sure the car can be replaced, let them have it so they can steal your next ride. Should he have shot the guy HELL YEAH, BUT he should not have killed him. That would have made the SOB really think about stealing another car again. I DID NOT hint at anything premeditated that came out of your hole. I did say he used excessive force DONE end of argument but wait you start slamming everyone with your "Gun Happy C**** quote. WTF? Oh yeah you're one of those people who think is cool for the gov't to march in and take your rights and think for you and all that other fun stuff. Your attacking everyone in here shows hot in depth your thought process goes (not very :sad:). You're probably one of those people who think guns are dangerous aren't you. Lock em up Uncie Sam make us safe ... pacifist.

Jcfreak_02
04-12-2004, 04:43 PM
Originally posted by Doctor Evil

And this is the reason people who cannot control their religious convictions are rarely allowed to pass major judgments.
You didn't catch the sarcasm I am guessing... I was just astonished how sad california is becoming, even worse I live here.

Jcfreak_02
04-12-2004, 04:45 PM
Originally posted by luciferchrist
:eek:

you out of all people think this was justified?

I personally do. Just thought you were into unconditional positive regard,

huh? I thought I was stating that I thought the man on trial was justified. As I recall, self defense was categorized as the "protection of one's life, limb or property" maybe that was a little old style of thinking... but hey I am a tradional kind of guy.

Doctor Evil
04-12-2004, 06:41 PM
Originally posted by Coliones
Hmm, simply stealing a car. Lets analyze this one. 1.) You work your arse off to buy a car. A car is the second largest investment made by a person nowadays. 2.) You rely on your car for everything (shopping ,getting to/from work etc). 3.) Someone stealing your car is directly attacking you in a matter of speaking (not physically but mentally).

Sure the car can be replaced, let them have it so they can steal your next ride. Should he have shot the guy HELL YEAH, BUT he should not have killed him. That would have made the SOB really think about stealing another car again. I DID NOT hint at anything premeditated that came out of your hole. I did say he used excessive force DONE end of argument but wait you start slamming everyone with your "Gun Happy C**** quote. WTF? Oh yeah you're one of those people who think is cool for the gov't to march in and take your rights and think for you and all that other fun stuff. Your attacking everyone in here shows hot in depth your thought process goes (not very :sad:). You're probably one of those people who think guns are dangerous aren't you. Lock em up Uncie Sam make us safe ... pacifist.

Nope - I'm a third year Law student. What I am saying has **** all to do with Politics - what I am discussing relates to the Criminal Law and Common Law systems. Sorry to disappoint anyone who thinks I am speaking Politics - it all has to do with the fact that I am studying the law, I am familiar with how it works and the reasons why it works like that, and if you have no knowledge of the subject I suggest you keep your mouth shut.

Debaser
04-12-2004, 08:12 PM
Originally posted by Jcfreak_02
huh? I thought I was stating that I thought the man on trial was justified. As I recall, self defense was categorized as the "protection of one's life, limb or property" maybe that was a little old style of thinking... but hey I am a tradional kind of guy.

So where do we draw the line? Someone steals your pencil in school, do you go beat the crap out of them? Taking a person's life is a tad extreme, wouldn't you say?

badbart2000
04-12-2004, 08:41 PM
Originally posted by Debaser
So where do we draw the line? Someone steals your pencil in school, do you go beat the crap out of them? Taking a person's life is a tad extreme, wouldn't you say?

If you are a grown man and steal you should be shot.

irpker
04-12-2004, 09:16 PM
Just think of the situation as a grave lesson for respect of property rights.

Woden
04-13-2004, 12:29 PM
Originally posted by badbart2000
If you are a grown man and steal you should be shot.

No. That is ridiculous.

XEastCoastHateX
04-13-2004, 12:37 PM
I really dont even no what to say....Wtf some guy defends his hard earned property from idiots.....this makes me so pissed....I just dont get it.....

Jcfreak_02
04-13-2004, 12:45 PM
Originally posted by Debaser
So where do we draw the line? Someone steals your pencil in school, do you go beat the crap out of them? Taking a person's life is a tad extreme, wouldn't you say? Well no I do not beat people for taking pencils nor do I advocate it. However, I think the property owner should have the discretion to handle the situation. I do not think the man wanted to kill the thief. Yes taking their life is a tad extreme, but we should not make laws in place or exercise policies to protect criminals. At worst, I think the man should be charged with involuntary man slaughter if not freed. The murder charge is WAY too extreme also.

I think the property owners should be given the discretion of force needed/necessary to protect their property. What ensues from that, I would be willing to risk what can happen. Why am I confident to do that, because I respect other people and their property.

badbart2000
04-13-2004, 12:49 PM
Originally posted by Woden
No. That is ridiculous.

Yes, their might be a lot of dead criminals if that happened.

Jimineye
04-13-2004, 01:48 PM
Originally posted by Debaser
So where do we draw the line? Someone steals your pencil in school, do you go beat the crap out of them? Taking a person's life is a tad extreme, wouldn't you say?


Depends on how expensive the pencil is... if it was one of those Dr. Grip ones I might be inclined to :D

luciferchrist
04-13-2004, 01:55 PM
Originally posted by Jcfreak_02
Well no I do not beat people for taking pencils nor do I advocate it. However, I think the property owner should have the discretion to handle the situation. I do not think the man wanted to kill the thief. Yes taking their life is a tad extreme, but we should not make laws in place or exercise policies to protect criminals. At worst, I think the man should be charged with involuntary man slaughter if not freed. The murder charge is WAY too extreme also.

I think the property owners should be given the discretion of force needed/necessary to protect their property. What ensues from that, I would be willing to risk what can happen. Why am I confident to do that, because I respect other people and their property.

holy ****, I actually agree with you on something :cool:

Kane Fan
04-13-2004, 01:59 PM
Originally posted by BuckWyld
1 they were unarmed
2 they were running away

there is no way in hell anyone with half a brain could call them an immediate thread. oh and BTW everyone in this country should have rights, that is the idea behind the ****ing bill of rights, even criminals.

I am also 100% sure that anyone who thinks this was not exessive force is a ****ing moron.

1.) he didn't know they were unarmed
2.) he didn't know they wouldn't come back

I'm 100% sure that your inability to discuss something logical proves your an idiot
but I wasn't going to say it till you said everyone who disagrees with you is a moron...
now keep your mouth shut or I'll embarass you again kid

Kane Fan
04-13-2004, 02:01 PM
Originally posted by honeybbqgrundle
I don't see why he couldn't have just told the guys to leave. They're not gonna do anything with a gun pointed at them, and they're not gonna come back and terrorize the guy lol. They're just gonna find an easier car to steal.

yah
maybe they'd have found a little old guy with no gun
or a woman to steal the car of
maybe they wouldn't have been as gentle on someone less able to defend themselves....

Jimineye
04-13-2004, 02:11 PM
Originally posted by honeybbqgrundle
I can pretty much guarantee that everyone here saying "I would shoot the guy" really wouldn't, and you all know it too.


Actually I would. If I feel my life is in danger, then yes I will shoot the bastard.

honeybbqgrundle
04-13-2004, 05:45 PM
Originally posted by Jimineye
Actually I would. If I feel my life is in danger, then yes I will shoot the bastard.

Well obviously if you feel your life is in danger you will, but when you have a gun pointed at 2 people and are fully capable of shooting them if they react aggressively, your life isn't really in danger at all

Spastic
04-13-2004, 08:40 PM
Originally posted by Jcfreak_02
Well no I do not beat people for taking pencils nor do I advocate it. However, I think the property owner should have the discretion to handle the situation. I do not think the man wanted to kill the thief. Yes taking their life is a tad extreme, but we should not make laws in place or exercise policies to protect criminals. At worst, I think the man should be charged with involuntary man slaughter if not freed. The murder charge is WAY too extreme also.

I think the property owners should be given the discretion of force needed/necessary to protect their property. What ensues from that, I would be willing to risk what can happen. Why am I confident to do that, because I respect other people and their property.

Property owners do have the discretion of force needed to subdue someone attempting to damage or take their property. The force may be reasonable only; firing a weapon at someone is flat out unjustifiable unless that person poses an immediate and very real threat to your life.
His charge will come down to a question of intention. If he had an intention to kill, he is gone. If he intended to fire the gun, and as a result of the intention to fire he hits another person, and there was a risk of killing someone and he took that risk recklessly, he is gone. To threaten the criminal with the gun would have been enough to take care of the situation immediately at hand I believe - but the risk he took when he fired that gun was clearly reckless and as a result, he committed murder.

Jcfreak_02
04-13-2004, 11:23 PM
Originally posted by honeybbqgrundle
I can pretty much guarantee that everyone here saying "I would shoot the guy" really wouldn't, and you all know it too. Well... I can say there is some truth to that, mainly because every time I have been on the range I am a terrible shot. I would've shot at them, and more than likely not hit them.

honeybbqgrundle
04-14-2004, 11:32 AM
I was thinking and now I realize what I would do. I would chase them off with my gun, calculate their paths of escape, and fire my gun into the air so that the bullets would fall on their heads a few hundred feet away. Let's see the detectives figure that one out!

Jcfreak_02
04-14-2004, 12:25 PM
That would be some very impressive physics if you could pull that off, BTW you would also be "drafted" by the military to show them how or work for them too:D.

CITADEL
04-14-2004, 01:30 PM
Damn, you gotta be pretty liberal to actually think this guy deserves to go to jail even for a day. I've become a liberal and I still think he shouldn't be punished.

BuckWyld
04-14-2004, 01:35 PM
He shot an UNARMED man in the BACK. I don't see any reason not to try him, if a jury finds him innocent so be it, otherwise he can go to jail like any other criminal.

Jcfreak_02
04-15-2004, 12:36 AM
That unarmed man was attempting to commit grand theft auto... Last time I checked that does not meet the criteria for a pre-meditated murder... MAYBE manslaughter, but not murder in any way.

Spastic
04-15-2004, 01:40 AM
Originally posted by CITADEL
Damn, you gotta be pretty liberal to actually think this guy deserves to go to jail even for a day. I've become a liberal and I still think he shouldn't be punished.

:rolleyes: Learn something about Law, its operation, the rights of protecting your property and pay a bit of attention to the crime of murder and its definitions then come back and speak about it, Mr I've Become A Liberal. If you don't know what you are talking about, shut up tard.

BuckWyld
04-15-2004, 08:57 AM
Originally posted by Kane Fan
1.) he didn't know they were unarmed
2.) he didn't know they wouldn't come back

I'm 100% sure that your inability to discuss something logical proves your an idiot
but I wasn't going to say it till you said everyone who disagrees with you is a moron...
now keep your mouth shut or I'll embarass you again kid

1 They were running away, not threatening him, so it does not really matter if they were armed or not.
2 As far as I know anybody could come to my house with a weapon and try to hurt me, that does not mean i can start shooting anyone I see.

get some decent arguments or I will make you look stupid again boy.

Jcfreak_02
04-15-2004, 02:04 PM
Originally posted by BuckWyld
1 They were running away, not threatening him, so it does not really matter if they were armed or not.
2 As far as I know anybody could come to my house with a weapon and try to hurt me, that does not mean i can start shooting anyone I see.

get some decent arguments or I will make you look stupid again boy. Being that he shot the car thief I don't think he was shooting at anyone he saw... No it does not mean you can start shooting at anyone you see, but you bet it means I can start shooting at that person in my house with a weapon.

BuckWyld
04-15-2004, 02:17 PM
Originally posted by Jcfreak_02
Being that he shot the car thief I don't think he was shooting at anyone he saw... No it does not mean you can start shooting at anyone you see, but you bet it means I can start shooting at that person in my house with a weapon.

execpt they were not in his house, my point was that almost anybody could be a threat in the future, that does not mean you can shoot them

CITADEL
04-15-2004, 07:09 PM
Originally posted by Spastic
:rolleyes: Learn something about Law, its operation, the rights of protecting your property and pay a bit of attention to the crime of murder and its definitions then come back and speak about it, Mr I've Become A Liberal. If you don't know what you are talking about, shut up tard.

Oh ok, 27 posts a day AND a keyboard warrior. I feel sorry for you. Do you really have no life outside these forums so you have to come here to name call? *shakes head*

Al_Bundy
04-16-2004, 09:37 PM
Originally posted by CITADEL
Oh ok, 27 posts a day AND a keyboard warrior. I feel sorry for you. Do you really have no life outside these forums so you have to come here to name call? *shakes head*

Nice to see you again el cid. I see you have toned down on the flaming a bit, but you still seem to rely on someones post count in order to attack their credibility....

CITADEL
04-16-2004, 09:52 PM
Originally posted by Al_Bundy
Nice to see you again el cid. I see you have toned down on the flaming a bit, but you still seem to rely on someones post count in order to attack their credibility....

Hah did I do that before? You have a better memory than I do.

Al_Bundy
04-16-2004, 09:56 PM
Originally posted by CITADEL
Hah did I do that before? You have a better memory than I do.

You used to do it to IHE all the time :D

CITADEL
04-16-2004, 10:00 PM
Originally posted by Al_Bundy
You used to do it to IHE all the time :D

The guy had like 45 posts a day and claimed he only spent a little while a day on here. I mean come on.

Al_Bundy
04-16-2004, 10:06 PM
Originally posted by CITADEL
The guy had like 45 posts a day and claimed he only spent a little while a day on here. I mean come on.

He never claimed to spend a little while.

CITADEL
04-16-2004, 10:12 PM
Originally posted by Al_Bundy
He never claimed to spend a little while.

He said he spent less than an hour here a day, or something of that nature.

Al_Bundy
04-16-2004, 10:14 PM
Originally posted by CITADEL
He said he spent less than an hour here a day, or something of that nature.

I don't think so. But given the way he used to post, you know - one after the other with those other guys, 45 times in an hour isn't impossible - even with the 65 second rule.

CITADEL
04-16-2004, 10:33 PM
Originally posted by Al_Bundy
I don't think so. But given the way he used to post, you know - one after the other with those other guys, 45 times in an hour isn't impossible - even with the 65 second rule.

Yeah I guess. Never really got along with him too much.

Al_Bundy
04-16-2004, 10:38 PM
Originally posted by CITADEL
Yeah I guess. Never really got along with him too much.

Heh.

n00b_101
04-17-2004, 02:26 PM
I think if u cant live within the societys laws then there is 2 places for ya ... jail or dead.