Quote:

---

Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Murdering someone with a gun.... wow. You didn't read the article at all, did you?

Man protecting himself, and his property, shoots at thieves.

---

Quote:

---

I read it, even the second paragraph:

"82-year-old Robert Wallace said in February that he looked out his window and saw two men hooking his flatbed trailer up to their pickup. He yelled at them to stop, but they sped away, stealing his trailer. He told police he fired two shots at the pickup."

Big man protecting himself as they sped away like that.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
they drive it into your skull that you never use deadly force unless confronted with deadly force.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:


Instead, it seems the person whose property was thieved is bearing the heaviest burden of the law, which seems particularly unjust.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Right Piz,

So by your logic, if one of these scumbags was raping your daughter/wife/sister, you shouldn't shoot them.

After all, its not like they are killing them, right?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Or, if someone is stealing your car, which you worked long, overtime hours, to be able to buy... which the insurance will not replace, and which will then cause you to loose your job because you can't get to work on time... nope. Don't shoot them, dont shoot at them. Especially if they are already running away.

Way to be a victim and allow these bastards to continue to victimize others.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:

Hello,

I think there is a clear disparity here, with the gentlemen who were committing felony theft thus far not charged with a crime, while the gentleman who tried to stop them is facing death in prison.

Yet oddly when a police officer shoots a bystander while trying to stop a felonious action, it is the criminal who is charged with the death.

I do not advocate shooting at fleeing suspects unless they are likely to commit violence, but I think the greater sin here was on the part of the thieves. It saddens me that charges were so quick to be brought upon the victim of this theft, and so slow to be brought against the criminals who instigated this affair.

--Anthony

Due to the use of Naomi 3.3.2 Beta web filtering, the following people may need to private-message me if they wish to contact me: Auraptor, Kaneman, Piratenews, Wulfenstar. I apologize for the inconvenience.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Bytemite:

Quote:

---

I read it, even the second paragraph:

"82-year-old Robert Wallace said in February that he looked out his window and saw two men hooking his flatbed trailer up to their pickup. He yelled at them to stop, but they sped away, stealing his trailer. He told police he fired two shots at the pickup."

Big man protecting himself as they sped away like that.

---

...What?

I mean, okay, it's not so great that the victim was apparently shooting to kill, if he was trying to stop the theft, a better target is the wheels of the pickup.

But, he didn't kill, and this was defense of property. "Big man?" Your statements are beyond my frame of reference. He was well within his rights to attempt a citizen's arrest because grand theft auto is a felony, and use of force is validated in a citizen's arrest.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Bytemite:
What we're getting into here is quibbling over strict liability, for damage caused by that use of force. As a citizen, he doesn't have the same privileges as police in regards to strict liability (IMO, a bunch of bullcrap). But technically, this should be a civil case, not a criminal case, because the man wasn't culpable, so this isn't going to fly. You'll see. Though he might end up paying the hospital bill for the thieves, depending on if they have good representation (insane, I know, but a likely outcome).

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

I honestly would have expected the property owner to be charged with 'unlawful discharge of a firearm' or some such, while the thieves would be charged with their felony thieft. The former charge would remind the property owner when not to shoot, while the latter would remind the thieves when not to steal.

Instead, it seems the person whose property was thieved is bearing the heaviest burden of the law, which seems particularly unjust.

--Anthony

Due to the use of Naomi 3.3.2 Beta web filtering, the following people may need to private-message me if they wish to contact me: Auraptor, Kaneman, Piratenews, Wulfenstar. I apologize for the inconvenience.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Pizz,

You obviously didnt read the article I posted, nor listen to the "mother".

But when/if you do. Let me ask... do you agree with iher?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Since when did we start living in Britain?

Welcome to the slippery slope of socialism.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by pizmobeach:


In the other one 2 guys are allegedly trying to hook up the guy's trailer and leave. Yeah, they were thieves it turns out, they are guilty, but they didn't try and enter the old guy's home with guns drawn. They deserve jail time for theft - simple.

---

Quote:

---

Motor vehicle theft, sometimes referred to as grand theft auto by the media and police departments in the US, is the criminal act of stealing or attempting to steal a motor vehicle, including an automobile, truck, bus, coach, motorcycle, snowmobile, trailer or any other motorized vehicle.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
"So you're ok with this 82 yr old pressuming they were guilty and trying to kill them... nice."

Hello,

I think this is a distortion of my opinion on the matter. I'm actually not 'okay' with him shooting at them, and stated so.
I'm even more not 'okay' with the victim of a crime paying a steeper penalty than the people he was trying to stop.

There's a lot here I'm not 'okay' with, okay?

--Anthony

Due to the use of Naomi 3.3.2 Beta web filtering, the following people may need to private-message me if they wish to contact me: Auraptor, Kaneman, Piratenews, Wulfenstar. I apologize for the inconvenience.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Bytemite:
Doesn't really matter the condition of the trailer.

Quote:

---

Motor vehicle theft, sometimes referred to as grand theft auto by the media and police departments in the US, is the criminal act of stealing or attempting to steal a motor vehicle, including an automobile, truck, bus, coach, motorcycle, snowmobile, trailer or any other motorized vehicle.

---

Used to be "grand theft auto" came from the definition for "grand theft" which was distinguished from petty theft by the worth of the item. the value to cut off grand theft varies by state, but in California it's $400. The trailer's probably still worth more than that, even if it's completely junked.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
It is a case of prosecutorial over reach. Plain and simple. Some fucktard prosecutor is trying to make a name for themselves, and this poor guy is going to have to deal with it.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
No, not backing away. The very idea of prosecutorial overreach is very socialistic. Those in authority, telling you how to live, when its "ok" to protect yourself...

What to think, what to eat, how to behave... same damn thing.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Never forget, it was Ted Kennedy who wanted to make it the law for home owners to flee their own homes when faced with a home invasion.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by dreamtrove:
"good is whatever creates life, evil is whatever destroys it" - albert schweitzer

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by dreamtrove:
"good is whatever creates life, evil is whatever destroys it" - albert schweitzer

---

It *IS* rather disquieting to see a man willing to KILL for set of old wheels. Anger I can understand, even a beating, but death?
He shoulda shot the tires, I say again.


The laughing Chrisisall

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:

I don't understand how your justice system works

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:
He shoulda shot the tires, I say again.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
once you pull the trigger, YOU are responsible for where your bullets go, not the gun, not society, not shit happens, not even the bad guys... YOU.

On that, I will not budge, not for no one.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Someone trys to hurt me or mine, I shoot them.

Someone trys to steal from me or mine, I shoot them.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
"When in fact he tried to kill them."

Hello,

Now you are divining into the property owner's intentions, a failure of assumption identical to the one you spoke out against. If a person can take property without trying to steal it (a possibility you raised) then it's equally plausible for someone to shoot at someone without trying to kill them.

I suspect he wanted to stop them from stealing his property, and would have been well satisfied if they were merely wounded, surrendered, etc. I will be the first to speak out against shooting at people when there is no present threat of violence and I agree his actions were irresponsible and dangerous, but for him to be charged as extensively as he was while they were not yet charged at all seems like a terrible disparity.

Indeed, I feel that the thieves bear not only the weight of their theft, but also a portion of the weight for the attempt to stop their theft. It is they, and not the property owner, who should be dealt with most harshly. If you find this glib or dismissive, then I am sorry. The whole fruit of this matter stemmed from their lawlessness, and they deserve the greater portion of its yield. The property owner is not innocent, but neither does he seem as deeply guilty of lawbreaking as the thieves.

.

---