Home owner fired at burglar- gets arrested

[quote name='kill3r7']A threat of imminent danger occurs when the attacker's intent is to cause bodily harm or death, and he has the means to do so. you are allowed to act in self defense.[/QUOTE]

Yep, even for police the standard is that they have to be able to show that they had probable cause that the person was armed and willing to kill or seriously injury them or others before they can use lethal force.

Some state's Castle laws give citizens more leeway when someone is on their home or property (with Texas's being the most extreme as that state is bat shit crazy on pretty much every dimension). But I don't think any state's laws allow shooting someone on a neighbor's property where there wasn't any clear indication that the person was armed or dangerous.

Nor should they. People (and the legal system) should have a pretty high burden for when they can use lethal force.
 
[quote name='kill3r7']A threat of imminent danger occurs when the attacker's intent is to cause bodily harm or death, and he has the means to do so. you are allowed to act in self defense.[/QUOTE]

I know what imminent danger is, my point was that you do not know the attacker's intent or ability especially in the heat of the moment.

It is easy to say after the fact when you have all the facts, however the guy was crawling out of a basement window, please explain to me how you know that he isn't a threat at all? If the victim was not armed and had said something to the thief like "freeze right there", does the thief now become an imminent threat because it is unarmed vs unarmed?

Also explain to me how you know the thief wasn't an imminent threat, using only facts you would have at the time of the incident.

Like I said, the only part that gives me pause is that it was the neighbors house, it could have been some family friend getting some heart medicine for the owner, but they didn't have a key. Who knows how the victim knew it was a burglar, but he could have been mistaken.
 
The standard for imminent danger is very high--even for police. If it's not in your house/property (and that only matters in states with Castle laws), you pretty much have to confirm they are armed and threatening if you want to be sure using lethal force will stand up as justified in court.

A person crawling out a neighbor's window doesn't meet that. They're not threatening you. There was no report the thief had a weapon, much less was brandishing it etc. So it wouldn't meet the standard of imminent danger.

Put more simply, you have to pretty much have proof their WAS imminent danger. Not just show that their COULD have been imminent danger. Which it should be as lethal force should be an absolute last resort in cases of clear danger, not just cases where there could possibly be danger. Some state Castle laws are the exception to this rule currently, but those are limited to your own property, and not a neighbor's.
 
[quote name='Knoell']And that is the one thing I said gives me pause.[/QUOTE]

There is no need for it to give you pause. You simply cannot defend the property of another in such a manner. He was in the wrong. Just let police do their job.
 
I think the person in the office across the hall might have a bomb. I'm going to go shoot them because they're an imminent danger.

Back in five.

****

Suspicion (in the form of conjecture) can have no place in defining imminent threat.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']I was robbed at gunpoint while a broke ass grad student. Lost a chunk of cash, cell phone in middle of contract so I had to spend a couple hundred bucks to get a new phone etc.

It sucked, but I wouldn't have shot the person in the back as they were fleeing if I was a person who carried a gun. The danger was past at that point, and no amount of property is worth killing someone over. And frankly, anyone who thinks it is is a miserable excuse for a human being.[/QUOTE]

First off, that sucks and I hope they caught the scumbag thief that ripped you off.

Back to the topic - noone was shot in the back. I bet this guy brought a gun because he was confronting a criminal in the boonies. I doubt that this guy would have shot the thief given that he said even firing it into the ground was a mistake.

It sounds to me like you're blaming the victim. Worse, you're making excuses for the thief. It's bizzaro world logic.
 
[quote name='Knoell']I know what imminent danger is, my point was that you do not know the attacker's intent or ability especially in the heat of the moment.

It is easy to say after the fact when you have all the facts, however the guy was crawling out of a basement window, please explain to me how you know that he isn't a threat at all? If the victim was not armed and had said something to the thief like "freeze right there", does the thief now become an imminent threat because it is unarmed vs unarmed?

Also explain to me how you know the thief wasn't an imminent threat, using only facts you would have at the time of the incident.

Like I said, the only part that gives me pause is that it was the neighbors house, it could have been some family friend getting some heart medicine for the owner, but they didn't have a key. Who knows how the victim knew it was a burglar, but he could have been mistaken.[/QUOTE]

1) The thief was not on his property.
2) He could not see the neighbor, so he couldn't tell if the neighbor was in danger.
3) The thief was fleeing or was about to escape posing no immediate threat to him.
4) stay home and call the cops.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I think the person in the office across the hall might have a bomb. I'm going to go shoot them because they're an imminent danger.

Back in five.

****

Suspicion (in the form of conjecture) can have no place in defining imminent threat.[/QUOTE]

If only this was how it actually worked.
 
[quote name='camoor']
It sounds to me like you're blaming the victim. Worse, you're making excuses for the thief. It's bizzaro world logic.[/QUOTE]

I'm doing neither

It's not the victim's fault his place and his neighbor's got burglarized. But he is still responsible for breaking the law in firing a shot at at a burglar on someone else's property. Making matters worse there was no clear probable cause that the person posed an imminent threat at the time. So the victim is responsible for that act.

And I'm not making any excuses for the thief. He broke laws by burglarizing at least two homes and deserves to be punished for those actions. No one has disputed that. We're just saying that it's the job of the police to catch the person--especially if firearm usage was needed. Not the victims.

And my other portion of my post was just ranting about how criminals are demonized, when they're just ordinary joe's and jane's most of the time. They deserve punished, but not shot for simple property crimes. And we shouldn't just be locking them up and not doing anything to rehabilitate them as that does nothing to reduce their chances of re-offending upon release. And moreover, it likely increases their chances of reoffending as most got no help while in prison and now have the ex-con stigma to make it even harder to get back on the right path.

So saying that we shouldn't be shooting property criminals (or having laws allowing citizens to do so), that we shouldn't demonize criminals to the extent we do, and that we need to do more to rehabilitate offenders isn't in anyway making excuses for criminals.

It's just saying if we really want to reduce the crime problem, the focus the criminal justice system has had for the past 40 years or so is not the way to go about it.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Suspicion (in the form of conjecture) can have no place in defining imminent threat.[/QUOTE]

First off, I don't like your example, it's ridiculous. Also noone was shot except for maybe a few worms.

Secondly, I disagree with the quoted text. We live in a post-911 world. The stakes are too high now. You can't play Batman - but if you see something say something.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']If a person is fleeing, there is no imminent threat. And that's what's being discussed here.[/QUOTE]

Agreed, but with clarification below.

If someone is in your home, people should be able to shoot first and ask questions later as you shouldn't have to take many chances when there's an intruder in your home and yourself and your family could be in danger.
Click to expand...

Also STRONGLY agree, but unfortunately this is not the law in many states. I can speak with certainty that in the State of Oregon you cannot shoot an intruder unless you think you or your family are life-threatened. This is obviously hard to legally define, and can get decided in court, but in the meantime you as the shooter will lose your weapon(s) and will have a court case to deal with. In fact, an example that was brought up in a course I took: you could come home, find a man running through your house escaping after raping your wife and you would not be within your legal rights to shoot the person. That is mindboggling to me. Oregon law says you always need to 1) try to escape, 2) decide if lives are in danger, and then you may consider defending yourself with lethal force. Even then charges could be pressed and you're at the mercy of a jury.

But there's never a cause to shoot a fleeing person, as at that point any imminent danger to yourself or your family is gone. Even a cop can't shoot a suspect at that point unless they have probable cause to believe that the person will injure or kill someone else if they get away.

So citizen's should NEVER have legal cause to shoot someone who's fleeing.
Click to expand...

Also tricky when we're talking about guns, and not all weapons, because a person who has threatened your life and still has a gun or other projectile weapon, could be considered a danger as they run away, since they could just as easily turn and shoot. To me, a clearer example would be if a guy has a bat or a knife, says he's going to kill you, then runs off. Clearly nobody should be shooting that guy.
 
[quote name='camoor']
Secondly, I disagree with the quoted text. We live in a post-911 world. The stakes are too high now. You can't play Batman - but if you see something say something.[/QUOTE]

Sure, if you see something say something. Call the fucking cops!

All Myke was saying is that suspicion of imminent danger isn't enough cause to use lethal force.

Even cops have to have probable cause of imminent danger before using lethal force, not just mere suspicion that there could be imminent danger. And the standard should certainly be at least that high for citizens to use lethal force.
 
1) Did the guy shoot at the theif or at the ground? Is shooting at the ground considered using lethal force?

Would he be in as much hot water if he used the excuse of "accidental discharge"?

Just curious?
 
[quote name='Javery']If only this was how it actually worked.[/QUOTE]

Don't like your coworkers?

;)

dmaul understands the point.

Vigilante is an arcade game, not a way of life.
 
[quote name='GBAstar']1) Did the guy shoot at the theif or at the ground? Is shooting at the ground considered using lethal force?
[/QUOTE]

Shooting at the ground makes it less severe than if he actually shot the person of course. But it's still discharging a firearm, he could have hit the person despite not trying to, their could have been ricochet etc.

But in any case, I think we're talking more generally about the issue now and not just this specific case. I think we've all agreed this guy shouldn't get some heavy handed punishment since it involved a warning shot into the ground.

We're just discussing more generally the issue of when lethal force should be permissible now.
 
[quote name='camoor']That's nice but I wonder how sympathetic you would be if you were working hard to make ends meet, living paycheck-to-paycheck, and somebody lifted your stuff.



I could live with that.



Well the guy had stolen his stuff.

And of course the law shouldn't be applied at all times. That would be a disaster.[/QUOTE]

So the law should be selectively applied whenever the police feel like it? Person A and person B committed the same crime, but we're only going to apply the law to person A because....why?
 
[quote name='Knoell']You don't know if he was a threat or not. The only thing stopping me from completely disagreeing with you is that it was someone in the neighbors house.

If the guy was robbing his house, and he was on his way out the door with a vcr, I would still hold him at gunpoint if I had the opportunity. The guy is on my property doing who knows what, not to mention the owner had a number of guns in his house. Who is to say the guy didn't steal them?

The point is, you don't know what this person is capable of. A harmless theif to you is an after the fact conclusion. In the heat of the moment the person breaking the law could do a number of things including taking your life. You don't know.[/QUOTE]

A person isn't a threat unless, well, they're a threat. A person crawling out someone else's window isn't a threat to you until they actually, ya know, threaten you. How hard is that to understand?
 
[quote name='Clak']So the law should be selectively applied whenever the police feel like it? Person A and person B committed the same crime, but we're only going to apply the law to person A because....why?[/QUOTE]

Laws shouldn't be selectively applied (though it happens every day in practice as police officers have tons of discretion) IMO.

I think what was meant is that the system has to account for mitigating and aggravating factors when it comes to giving out punishments. It would be a disaster if every instance of the same type of crime had to get the exact same sentence. Most every case has mitigating and aggravating factors that should legitimately be considered.

In this case, since it was a warning shot into the ground, you're not going to punish him in the same way you would someone who actually shot the burglar, or who tried to shoot them and just missed even.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']And my other portion of my post was just ranting about how criminals are demonized, when they're just ordinary joe's and jane's most of the time. They deserve punished, but not shot for simple property crimes. And we shouldn't just be locking them up and not doing anything to rehabilitate them as that does nothing to reduce their chances of re-offending upon release. And moreover, it likely increases their chances of reoffending as most got no help while in prison and now have the ex-con stigma to make it even harder to get back on the right path.[/QUOTE]

It's pretty traumatic when a stranger breaks into your home, where you and your loved ones typically feel safe, and takes your things. You have a very enlightened attitude about this but I would not blame the average American for feeling angry, upset, humiliated. I would not blame someone for wishing that they did not feel so helpless in such a situation. Those feelings don't make them "a miserable excuse for a human being". Impulsively acting on those feelings, going so far as to shoot their gun at the ground does not make them "a miserable excuse for a human being". Shooting someone in the back who is fleeing would be a tragic moral transgression. But that didn't happen here!

You say that 99% of thugs and thieves are "average joes and janes" but I doubt you feel so warmly towards those that own guns. I'm just asking you to be a little more fair about the situation.

This one isn't brain surgery. There is one thief and there is one victim. Don't get it twisted.
 
The last thing we need is citizens holding people at gunpoint because it appears as if a crime has been commited. No average citizen should ever even consider using lethal force unless the lives of themselves or their loved ones are definitely in jeopardy.

I know a guy who woke up one night and thought he heard someone in the other room. He grabs his gun and walks into the other room to see if someone is there. After a few minutes, his wife gets up to see what's going on. She ended up startling her husband who immediately shot and killed her. It was a tragic accident, but deaths like this could be easily avoided if people would get over this dumb idea that any intruder should be shot on the spot.
 
[quote name='Knoell']I know what imminent danger is, my point was that you do not know the attacker's intent or ability especially in the heat of the moment.

It is easy to say after the fact when you have all the facts, however the guy was crawling out of a basement window, please explain to me how you know that he isn't a threat at all? If the victim was not armed and had said something to the thief like "freeze right there", does the thief now become an imminent threat because it is unarmed vs unarmed?

Also explain to me how you know the thief wasn't an imminent threat, using only facts you would have at the time of the incident.

Like I said, the only part that gives me pause is that it was the neighbors house, it could have been some family friend getting some heart medicine for the owner, but they didn't have a key. Who knows how the victim knew it was a burglar, but he could have been mistaken.[/QUOTE]
You know how the guy could have made sure that the thief wasn't a imminent threat? By leaving the guy alone, going back into his own home, and calling the police. Instead he confronted him, which is the last thing anyone should do if they're concerned about being harmed. Which this guy was apparently not too concerned about, or he wouldn't have involved himself in the first place.
 
[quote name='Clak']So the law should be selectively applied whenever the police feel like it? Person A and person B committed the same crime, but we're only going to apply the law to person A because....why?[/QUOTE]

Whether you like it or not, snitches serve a useful purpose.

Whether you like it or not, when you're trying to bust up a mafia organization it's often useful to trade up (let the little fish go so you can get the goods on the big fish)

There's a million more reasons I could come up with. But I think you get the point.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Sure, if you see something say something. Call the fucking cops!

All Myke was saying is that suspicion of imminent danger isn't enough cause to use lethal force.[/QUOTE]

I agree with this 100%
 
[quote name='camoor']It's pretty traumatic when a stranger breaks into your home, where you and your loved ones typically feel safe, and takes your things. You have a very enlightened attitude about this but I would not blame the average American for feeling angry, upset, humiliated. I would not blame someone for wishing that they did not feel so helpless in such a situation. Those feelings don't make them "a miserable excuse for a human being".
[/quote]

Of course not. But how we deal with, and respond to adversity and tragedies probably does more than any other aspect of our character to show our worth as a person.

Impulsively acting on those feelings, going so far as to shoot their gun at the ground does not make them "a miserable excuse for a human being". Shooting someone in the back who is fleeing would be a tragic moral transgression. But that didn't happen here!
Click to expand...

One has to be able to control their emotions and do the right thing. And of course that didn't happen here--again we're talking more generally now and just not about this one case.

Everyone is in agreement that they shouldn't throw the book at this guy for firing a warning shot.

You say that 99% of thugs and thieves are "average joes and janes" but I doubt you feel so warmly towards those that own guns. I'm just asking you to be a little more fair about the situation.
Click to expand...

I have no problem with gun owners. I grew up in a house full of rifles and shotguns as my dad and brother are avid hunters.

I only have a problem with people who have no qualms doing things like shooting fleeing thieves in the back, or those who think someone forfeits their life for things like stealing or damaging their property.

We have a right to have guns in this country, and I'm mostly ok with that. People should just have the view that using lethal force is an absolute last resort and used only when there is clear, imminent danger to yourself or others if the lethal force is not used.

This one isn't brain surgery. There is one thief and there is one victim. Don't get it twisted.
Click to expand...

And I never implied otherwise. There's one victim. And one main criminal. The victim unfortunately committed a crime himself in how he detained the criminal rather than just calling the cops etc.

But again, no one's suggesting he should have the book thrown at him for firing a warning shot.
 
[quote name='Clak']So the law should be selectively applied whenever the police feel like it? Person A and person B committed the same crime, but we're only going to apply the law to person A because....why?[/QUOTE]

Because he's black! Duh. Ask a tougher one.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Laws shouldn't be selectively applied (though it happens every day in practice as police officers have tons of discretion) IMO.

I think what was meant is that the system has to account for mitigating and aggravating factors when it comes to giving out punishments. It would be a disaster if every instance of the same type of crime had to get the exact same sentence. Most every case has mitigating and aggravating factors that should legitimately be considered.

In this case, since it was a warning shot into the ground, you're not going to punish him in the same way you would someone who actually shot the burglar, or who tried to shoot them and just missed even.[/QUOTE]
Oh well no, of course not. But then shooting the ground and shooting someone would be different crimes to begin with. But whether someone is arrested or not and charged shouldn't vary, if two people broke the same law they should both be held accountable for it. Like you said though, police have a ton of discretion, so I know that laws will likely never been evenly applied.
 
[quote name='Clak']Oh well no, of course not. But then shooting the ground and shooting someone would be different crimes to begin with. [/QUOTE]

Well the act of shooting at someone vs. shooting someone are different.

But if there's a castle law doctrine in this state, the the two acts are both considered under that statute in terms of whether he had authority to use lethal force at all. In this case he wouldn't regardless since it wasn't on his property.

[quote name='Clak']Like you said though, police have a ton of discretion, so I know that laws will likely never been evenly applied.[/QUOTE]


That's just the way it has to be. The system is already overwhelmed, no way they can process every law violator. And there are mitigating and aggravating circumstances that should go into it.

i.e. it may not be the best thing to arrest a first time juvenile shoplifter and give them the stigma of a Juvie record etc., where as you'd probably want to arrest the repeat offending adult for shoplifting.

Police discretion can certainly be abused, but it is a necessary part of the system for caseload, and for outcomes as tons of research suggest formally entering the system increases odds of re-offending.
 
[quote name='camoor']Whether you like it or not, snitches serve a useful purpose.

Whether you like it or not, when you're trying to bust up a mafia organization it's often useful to trade up (let the little fish go so you can get the goods on the big fish)

There's a million more reasons I could come up with. But I think you get the point.[/QUOTE]

Those are extreme situations and you know it though. For the most part the law shouldn't be selectively applied.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Well the act of shooting at someone vs. shooting someone are different.

But if there's a castle law doctrine in this state, the the two acts are both considered under that statute in terms of whether he had authority to use lethal force at all. In this case he wouldn't regardless since it wasn't on his property.




That's just the way it has to be. The system is already overwhelmed, no way they can process every law violator. And there are mitigating and aggravating circumstances that should go into it.

i.e. it may not be the best thing to arrest a first time juvenile shoplifter and give them the stigma of a Juvie record etc., where as you'd probably want to arrest the repeat offending adult for shoplifting.

Police discretion can certainly be abused, but it is a necessary part of the system for caseload, and for outcomes as tons of research suggest formally entering the system increases odds of re-offending.[/QUOTE]
I'm not necessarily talking about punishment for the crimes, because like you've said, there a varying circumstances in each case. But as far as actually arresting and charging people, I do think it should be as evenly applied as possible. Simply because laws are pointless if they're not going to be applied when applicable. Writing laws and then ignoring them simply makes no sense. If we don't want the law to apply in a particular situation, make that a part of the law.
 
[quote name='Clak']I'm not necessarily talking about punishment for the crimes, because like you've said, there a varying circumstances in each case. But as far as actually arresting and charging people, I do think it should be as evenly applied as possible. Simply because laws are pointless if they're not going to be applied when applicable. Writing laws and then ignoring them simply makes no sense. If we don't want the law to apply in a particular situation, make that a part of the law.[/QUOTE]

You can make the law not apply to first time offenders or other things like that.

There just needs to be some selective enforcement at times, ideally with formal diversion programs where police can refer first time, minor offenders (particularly juveniles) for treatment and help rather than just arresting them and generating a criminal record that will if anything increase odds of future offending.

It wouldn't be an issue if we were a country like Japan that had a system where offenders are punished in a restorative way by shaming them, rehabilitating them and welcoming them back into the community after they did their time.

But we're not, we're a bible thumping, eye for an eye country that really only cares about punishment for retributions sake. We demonize criminals, don't give them much treatment, and aren't big on second chances or welcoming offenders back into the community.

So discretion and diversion are the best we can do with our fucked up criminal justice system to try to diver some minor offenders from the system and not subject them to the criminalizing effects of a criminal record, jail time etc.
 
And that's fine too, make it a part of the law that first time minor offenders will be referred for treatment. Granted some people might see that as a free ticket to commit that one crime, but at least then there can be consistent enforcement. And I know there are always going to be the extreme situations, but those are few and far between.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']But we're not, we're a bible thumping, eye for an eye country that really only cares about punishment for retributions sake. We demonize criminals, don't give them much treatment, and aren't big on second chances or welcoming offenders back into the community.

So discretion and diversion are the best we can do with our fucked up criminal justice system to try to diver some minor offenders from the system and not subject them to the criminalizing effects of a criminal record, jail time etc.[/QUOTE]

This is definitely your field of expertise and not mine, but I would offer the opinion that the nature of the crime is really what drives how welcoming we are of criminals who served their sentence. Rapists, people who commit sex crimes against kids, are stigmatized, and rightfully so IMO. But on the flip side, people laugh off DUIs and enjoy stories by their friends about how drunk they were when they drove home. Both crimes could ruin lives.

If I found out that a parent of my son's friend stole a car 15 years ago, I'm far less concerned than if he raped a child.

Then you have lifelong criminals who have chosen that path due to a dependency on substances. Assault, theft, possession, etc., but oftentimes these people look like they've spent a life using drugs, so they too are stigmatized, even if they are clean later in life. It's tough. We're a very image-conscious society, and for most, the idea of being associated with criminals is not desirable.
 
You're talking extreme stigmatization though.

People with a record and jail term for things like burglary or car theft may not have the extreme stigmatization that registered sex offenders etc. get.

But they still have the felony record that makes it hard to get a job, which makes it tough to turn their life around and more likely that they get involved in crime again etc.
 
I've always assumed that was done with the intent of making life after crime so scary that people wouldn't commit crimes, but that obviously doesn't work. I do think we basically sabotage criminals from the moment they're incarcerated. We act like they can serve their time and then get out and start over, but that just isn't the case a good amount of the time. If we're going to let people back out into society they need to be able to actually function and be a part of society. It's hard to do that if you can't even find good work because of your record.
 
Yep. As one of the leading correctional researchers in the world, Joan Petersila, put it: "We couldn't have designed a more ineffective system if we tried."

Speaking to how we put offenders in shitty conditions (rampant drug abuse, physical abuse etc.) in prisons for long-terms in close contact with other offenders (including those with much more serious records), give them very little treatment, education etc. while in prison, and do very little to help them get back on their feet upon release (and nothing if they've served their full time and thus aren't on parole!).
 
I'm with GBAStar. You have to shoot these guys if they rob you, possibly even to kill. I wish the kill part didn't have to be added but when you can get sued if a BURGLAR injures him or herself in your home and get money that's a real problem.
 
This story is absolute bullshit. I see someone coming outta my house with my stuff or even a neighbors' house and I have some way to stop/hold them there I'm gonna use it. If they try to flee or come after me, then they're getting taken down by whatever means I have at my disposal.
 
[quote name='IAmTheCheapestGamer']This story is absolute bullshit. I see someone coming outta my house with my stuff or even a neighbors' house and I have some way to stop/hold them there I'm gonna use it. If they try to flee or come after me, then they're getting taken down by whatever means I have at my disposal.[/QUOTE]

Well, then the only question to ask is: Do you prefer top bunk or bottom bunk?
 
Gonna drop this one here:

http://www.14news.com/story/16970770/early-morning-break-in-leads-to-deadly-crash

According to both police and Beumer, four or five males attacked Beumer at gun point, just outside of his home.

Forced to let the suspects inside the house, Beumer said he was hit in the face by a hand gun and was locked inside of the bathroom. Moments later, Beumer said that his wife arrived at the home and the suspects threatened to kill her and Beumer. The suspects did not follow through on their threat, but Beumer says they did run away with money and weapons.

Beumer's 12-year-old daughter had been staying at his godson's home for the night, but Beumer didn't know that. Uncertain if the suspects had grabbed his daughter, Beumer chased and collided with them in his vehicle.

One suspect, Antuan Jenkins, 22, was pronounced dead at the scene, and another was taken to Deaconess Hospital in critical condition.
Click to expand...
 
[quote name='dohdough']Question: How do you NOT know where the fuck your daughter is? Was it because he was at a Casino? And IF the daughter WAS in the car, I'd feel kinda weird about ramming it...justsayin...[/QUOTE]

Yeah - there's a lot to that story that leaves me scratching my head.

The only thing I can figure about not knowing where the daughter is - perhaps the mother made/approved the sleep over arrangements last minute and hadn't informed the father.

**** went down as soon as the father got home and once the bad guys left, the mother was too hysterical to convey any useful information to the father - so he cowboy'd up and went after 'em.

But that's just guesswork on my part.
 
[quote name='dohdough']Question: How do you NOT know where the fuck your daughter is? Was it because he was at a Casino? And IF the daughter WAS in the car, I'd feel kinda weird about ramming it...justsayin...[/QUOTE]

Yeah, considering he killed one guy and another in crit condition, she would probably be dead if she was in that car too.
 
[quote name='kill3r7']1) The thief was not on his property.
2) He could not see the neighbor, so he couldn't tell if the neighbor was in danger.
3) The thief was fleeing or was about to escape posing no immediate threat to him.
4) stay home and call the cops.[/QUOTE]

You aren't reading what I am writing.

How many times do I have to say, that the person being on the neighbors property changes things.

Someone else brought up shooting people over a vcr. That is why I brought up the fact that it doesn't matter if its a vcr or a toothpick, you don't know what is going on most of the time until after the fact.

Climbing out of a window is not fleeing. If he was climbing out of the victims window, and the victim caught him, he should most certainly be allowed to hold him at gunpoint.

Do you people even know why the guy shot a warning shot?

"I didn't think I could handle this guy physically, so I fired into the ground," "He stopped. He knew I was serious. I was angry … and I was worried that this guy was going to come after me."

It is so funny how you all play as if you were there, and are thinking the victim must have just been paranoid that the perp was going to come after him. After all, in your guys mind gun > melee, so the perp was absolutely no threat.

Again, it is different because it was a neighbors, but a few of you were arguing the idea of it if it were his own house.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I think the person in the office across the hall might have a bomb. I'm going to go shoot them because they're an imminent danger.

Back in five.

****

Suspicion (in the form of conjecture) can have no place in defining imminent threat.[/QUOTE]

Let's replace office with your house, and person with a bomb with someone who is climbing out of the basement window where you know you store your guns.

I'm guessing you would greet them as you watch them climb out, and warn them that you are calling the cops huh?

Something tells me that it is in mosts peoples instincts to be a little more confrontational. And that isn't a bad thing.
 
You know if the homeowner had any inclination that the theifs hand would be cut off for stealing... or something else of a serious nature were to occur then he should have let him go.

The reality is the theif most likely would not have gotten caught or even if he had would do something like 72 hours in local jail and be back out stealing again.

We live in a country where 100% of the time it is unnecessary to steal. 100% of the time. We have so many hand out programs for food, clothes, shelter, hell even DRUGS that only the scummiest people of soceity would steal, from a home at night for that matter.

But instead of hold the theif accountable lets feel bad because I'm sure he had a tough childhood, or didn't have the latest video game console or pain medication that he wanted.. i mean needed.

100 years ago people weren't brazen about committing crimes like they do today because it was considered bad and if caught they were liable to get their head kicked in.

Today we give them a mini vacation at the local jail with free food, tv and healthcare. Not to mention it's cold in the northeast so they get to stay warm while they're in there as well. All while feeling bad for the accussed because they were yelled at too much while a kid.

Anyone see any follow up stories on this? Is the criminal out on bail? If NH is anything like Maine his bail was likely $100
 
Last edited by a moderator:
And guys I mentioned this in another thread. I work(ed) at Job Corps for several years in a prominently white area however our mini community was a melting pot of diversity shut off from the rest of the neighborhood so it was fascinating at times to see how the young adults were able to coexist despite their many obvious differences.

The two things I and my Center had absolutely no tolerance for were bullying and theft because their was no excuse for it. Students at Job Corps are provided everything they want and more along with a living expense stiped; they pay absolutely nothing to go there.

Furthermore they are there to get a basic education and learn vocational skills in the hopes of getting immediate job placement after the graduate.

While not the same there are similar social programs for the rest of society.

Why the hell should we tolerate stealing? I see it all the time in my local newspaper... these idiots are dumb enough to steal single DVD's and candybars from Target, Liquor and makeup from the Grocery stores. WTF? None of that stuff is necessary to live on a day to basis.

This isn't a story of poor "Aladdin" stealing for his own well being. These are scumbags stealing things they want NOT need. Show me a story about someone stealing from a store or homeowner and leaving with with milk, bread, diapers, childrens books, water, shampoo etc and I'll have a little sympathy.
 
[quote name='Knoell']Let's replace office with your house, and person with a bomb with someone who is climbing out of the basement window where you know you store your guns.

I'm guessing you would greet them as you watch them climb out, and warn them that you are calling the cops huh?

Something tells me that it is in mosts peoples instincts to be a little more confrontational. And that isn't a bad thing.[/QUOTE]

Did they break into my gun safe? Or are my guns safe!

Pun!

Or are you the only one allowed to set conditions of hypotheticals around here?

EDIT: General point is, you're still trying to mold this bit of play-doh into a form that fits your ideology. Bad guy stealing stuff, it should be okay to kill him (or shoot him). And that's fine. I'm not telling you that you can't have that opinion (i.e., you'd like to see that someday), but it's not the case now unless imminent threat is satisfied. Which is a stringent, established legal standard. One with a burden of proof that is far higher than your supposition larded "what if he had a GRENADE OR A BOMB?" crap.
 
[quote name='GBAstar']Although many of you with the "stay inside, shut of the lights, hide in the closet, call the police, it is their job" mentality will disagree.[/QUOTE]

I don't see anyone with that attitude in here. I see some people saying that what the person in the NH case did met the standards of the felony he was charged with and didn't even come close to hitting the mark of the legal standard of imminent danger.

I would agree with your last clause (call the police because yes, it is their job).

I find it disingenuous that you think those of us who don't support this "shoot 'em up" approach also must therefore not support firearms being purchased. If people want to own them, they have the legal right to do so, and I'm perfectly fine with people acting on their Constitutional rights. Which does not include the right to shoot a person who is fleeing from your property.

Don't straw man us.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I don't see anyone with that attitude in here. I see some people saying that what the person in the NH case did met the standards of the felony he was charged with and didn't even come close to hitting the mark of the legal standard of imminent danger.

I would agree with your last clause (call the police because yes, it is their job).

I find it disingenuous that you think those of us who don't support this "shoot 'em up" approach also must therefore not support firearms being purchased. If people want to own them, they have the legal right to do so, and I'm perfectly fine with people acting on their Constitutional rights. Which does not include the right to shoot a person who is fleeing from your property.

Don't straw man us.[/QUOTE]

No my problem is that the word "imminent danger" keeps being brought up. What does that have to do with the original story? The home owner DID NOT USE DEADLY FORCE... so why are we talking about imminent danger?

He inappropriately discharged his firearm. Nothing more nothing less. If they see the bullethole is in the ground and not anywhere that could have caused "deadly harm" to the thief then why are we talking about imminent danger? It will be clear that the homeowners intents were never to use deadly force let alone cause bodily harm.

Correct?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top