Home owner fired at burglar- gets arrested
- Thread starter 62t
- Start date
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
Goddamn I hate stories like this.
They should give this guy a medal.
They should give this guy a medal.
[quote name='camoor']Goddamn I hate stories like this.
They should give this guy a medal.[/QUOTE]
I strongly disagree. No one's life was in immediate danger and there was no need to discharge a weapon. Even during the tv interview, Fleming admitted that he should not have fired the weapon and realizes that it wasn't necessary.
This is somewhat local news for me, so there was more coverage than the Foxnews blurb is leading people to believe.
They should give this guy a medal.[/QUOTE]
I strongly disagree. No one's life was in immediate danger and there was no need to discharge a weapon. Even during the tv interview, Fleming admitted that he should not have fired the weapon and realizes that it wasn't necessary.
This is somewhat local news for me, so there was more coverage than the Foxnews blurb is leading people to believe.
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='dohdough']I strongly disagree. No one's life was in immediate danger and there was no need to discharge a weapon. Even during the tv interview, Fleming admitted that he should not have fired the weapon and realizes that it wasn't necessary.
This is somewhat local news for me, so there was more coverage than the Foxnews blurb is leading people to believe.[/QUOTE]
So what happened then? Did he shoot a tulip or something? Let the guy plant a bulb, put the thief in prison where he belongs, and call it a day.
This is somewhat local news for me, so there was more coverage than the Foxnews blurb is leading people to believe.[/QUOTE]
So what happened then? Did he shoot a tulip or something? Let the guy plant a bulb, put the thief in prison where he belongs, and call it a day.
[quote name='camoor']So what happened then? Did he shoot a tulip or something? Let the guy plant a bulb, put the thief in prison where he belongs, and call it a day.[/QUOTE]
Fleming got home, saw his house robbed, and then saw the suspect crawl out of a window of his neighbor's house. Fleming then got his gun told the suspect to freeze, and then shot at the ground close to the suspect. The suspect was held at gunpoint until police arrived.
Castle Doctrine does not apply here.
edit: I could see charges of reckless conduct, brandishing a weapon, unlawful discharge within x distance of a residence, assault with a deadly weapon, false imprisonment, and a couple others I can't think of right now.
edit2: If the robber was still on the guy's property, my opinion would be very different.
Fleming got home, saw his house robbed, and then saw the suspect crawl out of a window of his neighbor's house. Fleming then got his gun told the suspect to freeze, and then shot at the ground close to the suspect. The suspect was held at gunpoint until police arrived.
Castle Doctrine does not apply here.
edit: I could see charges of reckless conduct, brandishing a weapon, unlawful discharge within x distance of a residence, assault with a deadly weapon, false imprisonment, and a couple others I can't think of right now.
edit2: If the robber was still on the guy's property, my opinion would be very different.
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='dohdough']Fleming got home, saw his house robbed, and then saw the suspect crawl out of a window of his neighbor's house. Fleming then got his gun told the suspect to freeze, and then shot at the ground close to the suspect. The suspect was held at gunpoint until police arrived.
Castle Doctrine does not apply here.
edit: I could see charges of reckless conduct, brandishing a weapon, unlawful discharge within x distance of a residence, assault with a deadly weapon, false imprisonment, and a couple others I can't think of right now.[/QUOTE]
Eh. You don't pull a gun unless you intend to use it. Warning shots are fair game.
Was he making the guy bullet dance?
Castle Doctrine does not apply here.
edit: I could see charges of reckless conduct, brandishing a weapon, unlawful discharge within x distance of a residence, assault with a deadly weapon, false imprisonment, and a couple others I can't think of right now.[/QUOTE]
Eh. You don't pull a gun unless you intend to use it. Warning shots are fair game.
Was he making the guy bullet dance?
panzerfaust
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 1 (100%)
I thought this was legal to do? Not that I approve of the behavior.
My brother is a cop and not too long ago responded to a burglary, where the home owner had just parked outside his house and noticed it was broken into. So him and his partner arrive at the scene and scan the perimeter. Just as they pass the cellar window, the burglar slips out unnoticed by the police. But the home owner is still in front of the house, sees him, and shoots him dead in the back with a rifle he had kept in his trunk.
Incredible tragedy, and I think the thief only had some sort of VCR in his hands. So they took the home owner into custody, found he had a license, and that his actions were within the law. Released him later that night. It was pretty much just a formality to take him downtown.
--
EDIT: Oh, didn't see it was a neighbor's property in the article. Yeah, that's probably out of line.
My brother is a cop and not too long ago responded to a burglary, where the home owner had just parked outside his house and noticed it was broken into. So him and his partner arrive at the scene and scan the perimeter. Just as they pass the cellar window, the burglar slips out unnoticed by the police. But the home owner is still in front of the house, sees him, and shoots him dead in the back with a rifle he had kept in his trunk.
Incredible tragedy, and I think the thief only had some sort of VCR in his hands. So they took the home owner into custody, found he had a license, and that his actions were within the law. Released him later that night. It was pretty much just a formality to take him downtown.
--
EDIT: Oh, didn't see it was a neighbor's property in the article. Yeah, that's probably out of line.
[quote name='panzerfaust']I thought this was legal to do? Not that I approve of the behavior.
My brother is a cop and not too long ago responded to a burglary, where the home owner had just parked outside his house and noticed it was broken into. So him and his partner arrive at the scene and scan the perimeter. Just as they pass the cellar window, the burglar slips out unnoticed by the police. But the home owner is still in front of the house, sees him, and shoots him dead in the back with a rifle he had kept in his trunk.
Incredible tragedy, and I think the thief only had some sort of VCR in his hands. So they took the home owner into custody, found he had a license, and that his actions were within the law. Released him later that night. It was pretty much just a formality to take him downtown.
--
EDIT: Oh, didn't see it was a neighbor's property in the article. Yeah, that's probably out of line.[/QUOTE]
Every state has different rules regarding Castle Doctrine, but I'm surprised that Texas isn't the only one that allows you to shoot someone in the back. Then again, maybe I shouldn't be?
But goddamn, what the
was going on in that guy's head when he had the thief in his crosshairs. It's a goddamn VCR and could've been a PS3 or 360 for that matter, but is it really worth shooting and possibly killing someone over if your life isn't in danger?
My brother is a cop and not too long ago responded to a burglary, where the home owner had just parked outside his house and noticed it was broken into. So him and his partner arrive at the scene and scan the perimeter. Just as they pass the cellar window, the burglar slips out unnoticed by the police. But the home owner is still in front of the house, sees him, and shoots him dead in the back with a rifle he had kept in his trunk.
Incredible tragedy, and I think the thief only had some sort of VCR in his hands. So they took the home owner into custody, found he had a license, and that his actions were within the law. Released him later that night. It was pretty much just a formality to take him downtown.
--
EDIT: Oh, didn't see it was a neighbor's property in the article. Yeah, that's probably out of line.[/QUOTE]
Every state has different rules regarding Castle Doctrine, but I'm surprised that Texas isn't the only one that allows you to shoot someone in the back. Then again, maybe I shouldn't be?
But goddamn, what the
was going on in that guy's head when he had the thief in his crosshairs. It's a goddamn VCR and could've been a PS3 or 360 for that matter, but is it really worth shooting and possibly killing someone over if your life isn't in danger?[quote name='dohdough']Every state has different rules regarding Castle Doctrine, but I'm surprised that Texas isn't the only one that allows you to shoot someone in the back. Then again, maybe I shouldn't be?
But goddamn, what the was going on in that guy's head when he had the thief in his crosshairs. It's a goddamn VCR and could've been a PS3 or 360 for that matter, but is it really worth shooting and possibly killing someone over if your life isn't in danger?[/QUOTE]
Doesn't Texas allow you to protect your neighbors property as well? I thought a few years ago there was a story where a man called 911 and told them that his neighbors house was being robbed and he just wanted to let them (911) know that he was going next door to shoot the theives...and he did.
I don't agree with the outcome of this story but I know that NH is very very liberal with their open carry laws meaning you can stroll around anywhere with your gun as long as you are not a felon.
I suppose if you allow your citizens to do that you have to take a tough stance when they discharge a firearm and it isn't deemed necessary/appropriate.
But goddamn, what the
was going on in that guy's head when he had the thief in his crosshairs. It's a goddamn VCR and could've been a PS3 or 360 for that matter, but is it really worth shooting and possibly killing someone over if your life isn't in danger?[/QUOTE]Doesn't Texas allow you to protect your neighbors property as well? I thought a few years ago there was a story where a man called 911 and told them that his neighbors house was being robbed and he just wanted to let them (911) know that he was going next door to shoot the theives...and he did.
I don't agree with the outcome of this story but I know that NH is very very liberal with their open carry laws meaning you can stroll around anywhere with your gun as long as you are not a felon.
I suppose if you allow your citizens to do that you have to take a tough stance when they discharge a firearm and it isn't deemed necessary/appropriate.
crunchb3rry
CAGiversary!
I could understand how this could happen. Castle Doctrine, for the most part, is within the home. I believe there are variants where your yard counts. GBAstar, the guy you're talking about got a lot of heat for that. But he did get away with it, so this guy's lawyer will have no trouble keeping him out of jail just because of ex post facto, specifically that his offense is nowhere near the level of Joe Horn's.
This guy's home was not being robbed. He was outside the home and not even on the same property as the one being robbed. And he shot in the ground as someone was crawling out a window...and if it was a second story window, the burglar (who has rights too, regardless of how we feel about that) could have been scared enough to fall and break his neck.
It would be hard to gather up a jury that wouldn't see him as a good samaritan and eat up any of the defense's attempts to make him out to be worse than a burglar. But the smarter thing to do would have been to hold that gun in one hand, and hold a cellphone in the other while recording video (which these days is more threatening than a gun) possibly getting the plates if he had a vehicle. Burglar probably would have just dropped what he was stealing and bugged out the second he saw that camera phone.
This guy's home was not being robbed. He was outside the home and not even on the same property as the one being robbed. And he shot in the ground as someone was crawling out a window...and if it was a second story window, the burglar (who has rights too, regardless of how we feel about that) could have been scared enough to fall and break his neck.
It would be hard to gather up a jury that wouldn't see him as a good samaritan and eat up any of the defense's attempts to make him out to be worse than a burglar. But the smarter thing to do would have been to hold that gun in one hand, and hold a cellphone in the other while recording video (which these days is more threatening than a gun) possibly getting the plates if he had a vehicle. Burglar probably would have just dropped what he was stealing and bugged out the second he saw that camera phone.
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
America just needs to decide if it wants guns or not.
I was recently in a car accident. The adrenaline rush is a motherer.
Y'all need to ween yourself off of westerns and action movies. Real life is way different. When you're sticking up for your neighbor and risking your life in the process, shooting dirt shows great restraint.
The guy foiled a crime and caught a thief. Pick any goddamn religion/philosophy/systemofmorality you like - he is a hero.
I was recently in a car accident. The adrenaline rush is a mother
er.Y'all need to ween yourself off of westerns and action movies. Real life is way different. When you're sticking up for your neighbor and risking your life in the process, shooting dirt shows great restraint.
The guy foiled a crime and caught a thief. Pick any goddamn religion/philosophy/systemofmorality you like - he is a hero.
First time in awhile that I agree with Camoor. The way I see it, you are burglarizing homes, you should know that you are risking your life. (I don't care if it's just a vcr, I don't know why you are there, or what you are intending and you have no business there, so at that point your life is in my hands) The neighbors house I can see a bit differently, because I have climbed out of my parents windows a few times because I didn't have my key. That doesn't mean I was robbing the place. Which really depends on how sure the guy was that this person didn't belong there. Not that it matters.
Like camoor said, if you are pointing a gun at someone you surely intend to use it. Where would we be if the guy kept walking and he shot him instead of the ground?
Like camoor said, if you are pointing a gun at someone you surely intend to use it. Where would we be if the guy kept walking and he shot him instead of the ground?
[quote name='dohdough']
But goddamn, what the was going on in that guy's head when he had the thief in his crosshairs. It's a goddamn VCR and could've been a PS3 or 360 for that matter, but is it really worth shooting and possibly killing someone over if your life isn't in danger?[/QUOTE]
Yep. It's amazing the disregard people have for life in such matters.
People should have the right to defend themselves of course. But in a situation where there's clearly no danger to the person or their family, you shouldn't be allowed to shoot a person because they stole some of your property that your homeowners/renter's insurance should cover anyway.
If someone is in your house, then by all means one should have the right to shoot them as yourself and your family could be in danger. But if the person is fleeing, no state laws should allow for shooting the person in the back.
Something like that happened near me when I lived in Maryland. A guy woke up and a teenager was breaking into his car in the parking lot. He yelled at him, the kid ran and he shot him in the back killing him. Thankfully MD doesn't have laws allowing that, so the guy got convicted (voluntary manslaughter I think) and got a pretty stiff prison term for it.
But goddamn, what the
was going on in that guy's head when he had the thief in his crosshairs. It's a goddamn VCR and could've been a PS3 or 360 for that matter, but is it really worth shooting and possibly killing someone over if your life isn't in danger?[/QUOTE]Yep. It's amazing the disregard people have for life in such matters.
People should have the right to defend themselves of course. But in a situation where there's clearly no danger to the person or their family, you shouldn't be allowed to shoot a person because they stole some of your property that your homeowners/renter's insurance should cover anyway.
If someone is in your house, then by all means one should have the right to shoot them as yourself and your family could be in danger. But if the person is fleeing, no state laws should allow for shooting the person in the back.
Something like that happened near me when I lived in Maryland. A guy woke up and a teenager was breaking into his car in the parking lot. He yelled at him, the kid ran and he shot him in the back killing him. Thankfully MD doesn't have laws allowing that, so the guy got convicted (voluntary manslaughter I think) and got a pretty stiff prison term for it.
There is no reason for this to ever happen. Just call the police and let them do their job. From a legal perspective you are not allowed to use deadly force to defend property. Furthermore, the thief was fleeing so the neighbor was in no immediate danger. Thus, no need to defend himself. The outcome will depend on state law. In Texas this would be okay. Not so much so in the rest of the country.
Texas Man
Texas Man
perdition(troy
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 7 (89%)
[quoteThe outcome will depend on state law. In Texas this would be okay. Not so much so in the rest of the country.[/quote]Sadly.
Self defense in your own home is all over the place among the states. Texas is basically the most "wild west" of the bunch and more or less if someone's on your property you can shoot at them. Others require that the person be advancing on you in order to use deadly force. Still others have roughly the same requirement as if you were on the street they have to be threatening deadly force. Some states require you to attempt an avenue of retreat and if none are available you can use deadly force. Like I said, the intricacies are all over the place.
In this case though, shooting at someone on their neighbors property, whether it was fired into the ground or not, should be illegal. We're not a society of vigilanties. Deadly force is permitted to protect yourself, not exact revenge for someone who has stolen from you or your neighbors.
In this case though, shooting at someone on their neighbors property, whether it was fired into the ground or not, should be illegal. We're not a society of vigilanties. Deadly force is permitted to protect yourself, not exact revenge for someone who has stolen from you or your neighbors.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='dmaul1114']But if the person is fleeing, no state laws should allow for shooting the person in the back.[/QUOTE]
Bingo. The person in the OP was fleeing *and* on someone else's property. You simply can not stretch the castle doctrine that far without breaking precisely what it was meant for.
I know that's not satisfying - but many state and municipal police (probably most-to-all, but I can't be certain) aren't allowed to fire at an individual in a circumstance like this. Let alone a citizen.
Bingo. The person in the OP was fleeing *and* on someone else's property. You simply can not stretch the castle doctrine that far without breaking precisely what it was meant for.
I know that's not satisfying - but many state and municipal police (probably most-to-all, but I can't be certain) aren't allowed to fire at an individual in a circumstance like this. Let alone a citizen.
[quote name='mykevermin']
I know that's not satisfying - but many state and municipal police (probably most-to-all, but I can't be certain) aren't allowed to fire at an individual in a circumstance like this. Let alone a citizen.[/QUOTE]
Yep. Tennessee v. Garner (1985) changed the standard for police to defense of life. Before they had pretty broad leeway to shoot fleeing felons. After that ruling, they can only do it if it meets the "defense of life standard." i.e. there has to be probably cause of danger to others if they fleeing suspect gets away.
So some here are arguing that citizens should have more power to use lethal force than police have basically.
I know that's not satisfying - but many state and municipal police (probably most-to-all, but I can't be certain) aren't allowed to fire at an individual in a circumstance like this. Let alone a citizen.[/QUOTE]
Yep. Tennessee v. Garner (1985) changed the standard for police to defense of life. Before they had pretty broad leeway to shoot fleeing felons. After that ruling, they can only do it if it meets the "defense of life standard." i.e. there has to be probably cause of danger to others if they fleeing suspect gets away.
So some here are arguing that citizens should have more power to use lethal force than police have basically.
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
Listen - I don't think it's a great idea to give people carte blanche to fire on others exiting out windows. There could be a myriad of stupid reasons that someone innocent would choose to do that.
But give the guy some credit. He fired at the ground and hurt noone. He had just been robbed. He presumably knew his neighbors. You don't need to be Sherlock Holmes to put two and two together. Why do they have to prosecute, just give him a stern talking-to and explain the law, that's all that's needed here.
It's pretty easy. If you don't want to get shot at, then stop stealing VCRs. Don't make this more complicated then it has to be...
But give the guy some credit. He fired at the ground and hurt noone. He had just been robbed. He presumably knew his neighbors. You don't need to be Sherlock Holmes to put two and two together. Why do they have to prosecute, just give him a stern talking-to and explain the law, that's all that's needed here.
It's pretty easy. If you don't want to get shot at, then stop stealing VCRs. Don't make this more complicated then it has to be...
[quote name='camoor']Listen - I don't think it's a great idea to give people carte blanche to fire on others exiting out windows. There could be a myriad of stupid reasons that someone innocent would choose to do that.
But give the guy some credit. He fired at the ground and hurt noone. He had just been robbed. He presumably knew his neighbors. You don't need to be Sherlock Holmes to put two and two together. Why do they have to prosecute, just give him a stern talking-to and explain the law, that's all that's needed here.
It's pretty easy. If you don't want to get shot at, then stop stealing VCRs. Don't make this more complicated then it has to be...[/QUOTE]
That's fine and dandy except you can't shoot someone for stealing property. You are not allowed by law to use deadly force (that includes pulling out a gun) to protect property. If someone is trying to steal your car, you can't shoot him unless he is an immediate threat to your persons. Even then most states require that you attempt to flee first. Only if you cannot may you stand your ground.
But give the guy some credit. He fired at the ground and hurt noone. He had just been robbed. He presumably knew his neighbors. You don't need to be Sherlock Holmes to put two and two together. Why do they have to prosecute, just give him a stern talking-to and explain the law, that's all that's needed here.
It's pretty easy. If you don't want to get shot at, then stop stealing VCRs. Don't make this more complicated then it has to be...[/QUOTE]
That's fine and dandy except you can't shoot someone for stealing property. You are not allowed by law to use deadly force (that includes pulling out a gun) to protect property. If someone is trying to steal your car, you can't shoot him unless he is an immediate threat to your persons. Even then most states require that you attempt to flee first. Only if you cannot may you stand your ground.
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='kill3r7']That's fine and dandy except you can't shoot someone for stealing property. You are not allowed by law to use deadly force (that includes pulling out a gun) to protect property. If someone is trying to steal your car, you can't shoot him unless he is an immediate threat to your persons. Even then most states require that you attempt to flee first. Only if you cannot may you stand your ground.[/QUOTE]
Eh - the law is not black-and-white, there are grey areas. Prosecutors should use reason and discretion when enforcing the law.
From what I see this guy isn't a bad dude, he just wanted to perform a citizen's arrest on a scumbag thief. He likely didn't know the law in detail.
So what good is it going to do to twist the intent of the law and lock him up with the thief that stole his stuff? OK maybe he shouldn't get a medal (we all can dabble in hyperbole
) but he shouldn't be locked up.
What's happening is not right - that's all I'm saying.
Eh - the law is not black-and-white, there are grey areas. Prosecutors should use reason and discretion when enforcing the law.
From what I see this guy isn't a bad dude, he just wanted to perform a citizen's arrest on a scumbag thief. He likely didn't know the law in detail.
So what good is it going to do to twist the intent of the law and lock him up with the thief that stole his stuff? OK maybe he shouldn't get a medal (we all can dabble in hyperbole
) but he shouldn't be locked up.What's happening is not right - that's all I'm saying.
The problem is people have this stupid tendency to vilify criminals as evil. This leads to dehumanizing them and being ok with people shooting them over petty shit like stealing property.
People have this misconception that criminals are just "bad people" and that there's now way they could ever do crime themselves. When in reality 99% of criminals are just regular people that fell on hard times, went through a ton of stuff, and get in situations where they end up stealing, robbing etc. And that stuff could happen to anyone who had the misfortune to be born into bad situations, or fall on hard times etc.
None of that excuses criminals for responsibility for their actions. But it should show that they aren't evil people who can be shot just for stealing someone's property, or that our criminal justice policy should be so primarily focused on punishment rather than rehabilitation etc.
People have this misconception that criminals are just "bad people" and that there's now way they could ever do crime themselves. When in reality 99% of criminals are just regular people that fell on hard times, went through a ton of stuff, and get in situations where they end up stealing, robbing etc. And that stuff could happen to anyone who had the misfortune to be born into bad situations, or fall on hard times etc.
None of that excuses criminals for responsibility for their actions. But it should show that they aren't evil people who can be shot just for stealing someone's property, or that our criminal justice policy should be so primarily focused on punishment rather than rehabilitation etc.
Last edited by a moderator:
My two cents, take away the felony, downgrade it to a misdemeanor, and make him pay a fine. The rule of drawing a gun in a self-defense situation is you don't point a gun at something you don't intend to shoot. When you pull the trigger, your intent is to "eliminate the threat."
Also, Castle Doctrine is not a country-wide principle. There are a few states that have it in place, but there is a list of requirements, and even that varies.
Personally, I have mixed feelings on it. Great that a thief got caught because of the guy's actions, but you also can't have citizens firing weapons (warning shot or not) unless they think their lives are in danger. The burglar could have been armed, going for a weapon. Fine, shoot the guy as many times as it takes to eliminate the threat, but there is no such thing as a legal "warning shot".
Also, Castle Doctrine is not a country-wide principle. There are a few states that have it in place, but there is a list of requirements, and even that varies.
Personally, I have mixed feelings on it. Great that a thief got caught because of the guy's actions, but you also can't have citizens firing weapons (warning shot or not) unless they think their lives are in danger. The burglar could have been armed, going for a weapon. Fine, shoot the guy as many times as it takes to eliminate the threat, but there is no such thing as a legal "warning shot".
[quote name='camoor']Eh - the law is not black-and-white, there are grey areas. Prosecutors should use reason and discretion when enforcing the law.
From what I see this guy isn't a bad dude, he just wanted to perform a citizen's arrest on a scumbag thief. He likely didn't know the law in detail.
So what good is it going to do to twist the intent of the law and lock him up with the thief that stole his stuff? OK maybe he shouldn't get a medal (we all can dabble in hyperbole) but he shouldn't be locked up.
What's happening is not right - that's all I'm saying.[/QUOTE]
The law had to be enforced in this case. He pulled out a gun and discharged a weapon at an alleged thief. Granted, It's unlikely he'll be found guilty by a jury of his peers but within the letter of the law, he was definitely in the wrong. You simply cannot have folks pulling out a gun and then firing it with the intent to stop a perceived thieves. Let the police do their job and stop with the vigilante justice. What if he was wrong? What if the thief turned out to be a friend of the family? Or worse what if he accidentally shot and killed the alleged thief, what then?
From what I see this guy isn't a bad dude, he just wanted to perform a citizen's arrest on a scumbag thief. He likely didn't know the law in detail.
So what good is it going to do to twist the intent of the law and lock him up with the thief that stole his stuff? OK maybe he shouldn't get a medal (we all can dabble in hyperbole
) but he shouldn't be locked up.What's happening is not right - that's all I'm saying.[/QUOTE]
The law had to be enforced in this case. He pulled out a gun and discharged a weapon at an alleged thief. Granted, It's unlikely he'll be found guilty by a jury of his peers but within the letter of the law, he was definitely in the wrong. You simply cannot have folks pulling out a gun and then firing it with the intent to stop a perceived thieves. Let the police do their job and stop with the vigilante justice. What if he was wrong? What if the thief turned out to be a friend of the family? Or worse what if he accidentally shot and killed the alleged thief, what then?
[quote name='berzirk']My two cents, take away the felony, downgrade it to a misdemeanor, and make him pay a fine. The rule of drawing a gun in a self-defense situation is you don't point a gun at something you don't intend to shoot. When you pull the trigger, your intent is to "eliminate the threat."
Also, Castle Doctrine is not a country-wide principle. There are a few states that have it in place, but there is a list of requirements, and even that varies.
Personally, I have mixed feelings on it. Great that a thief got caught because of the guy's actions, but you also can't have citizens firing weapons (warning shot or not) unless they think their lives are in danger. The burglar could have been armed, going for a weapon. Fine, shoot the guy as many times as it takes to eliminate the threat, but there is no such thing as a legal "warning shot".[/QUOTE]
Except this was not self-defense. He was defending the property of another. In most states defense of property does not permit the use of deadly force (ie drawing a gun or knife).
Also, Castle Doctrine is not a country-wide principle. There are a few states that have it in place, but there is a list of requirements, and even that varies.
Personally, I have mixed feelings on it. Great that a thief got caught because of the guy's actions, but you also can't have citizens firing weapons (warning shot or not) unless they think their lives are in danger. The burglar could have been armed, going for a weapon. Fine, shoot the guy as many times as it takes to eliminate the threat, but there is no such thing as a legal "warning shot".[/QUOTE]
Except this was not self-defense. He was defending the property of another. In most states defense of property does not permit the use of deadly force (ie drawing a gun or knife).
[quote name='kill3r7']Except this was not self-defense. He was defending the property of another. In most states defense of property does not permit the use of deadly force (ie drawing a gun or knife).[/QUOTE]
I never said he was defending his life. I essentially agreed with you, that shooting a gun to stop a thief is not legal. We may disagree on the appropriate punishment (I think it should be downgraded to a misdemeanor and he pays a fine, I think you're pushing for the felony to hold, if I understand right).
I never said he was defending his life. I essentially agreed with you, that shooting a gun to stop a thief is not legal. We may disagree on the appropriate punishment (I think it should be downgraded to a misdemeanor and he pays a fine, I think you're pushing for the felony to hold, if I understand right).
My predicatively gun-rights-first friend thought this guy was a hero as well. Then I asked him if the law is supposed to be applied at all times or just whenever the police feel like it. He shut up after that. I don't know about that town, but here it is illegal to discharge a weapon within the city limits. unless you're at some kind of range.
This guy wasn't even defending himself, the thief was no threat at all to him. He should have done his civic duty and called the police, and that's it.
This guy wasn't even defending himself, the thief was no threat at all to him. He should have done his civic duty and called the police, and that's it.
[quote name='berzirk']I never said he was defending his life. I essentially agreed with you, that shooting a gun to stop a thief is not legal. We may disagree on the appropriate punishment (I think it should be downgraded to a misdemeanor and he pays a fine, I think you're pushing for the felony to hold, if I understand right).[/QUOTE]
The way you explained the law led me to believe you implied that it was okay to use a gun in defense of property. My mistake. Otherwise we agree. I don't think he should be punished with anything more than a misdemeanor. I just can't see a jury finding him guilty under the circumstances... assuming it ever gets that far.
The way you explained the law led me to believe you implied that it was okay to use a gun in defense of property. My mistake. Otherwise we agree. I don't think he should be punished with anything more than a misdemeanor. I just can't see a jury finding him guilty under the circumstances... assuming it ever gets that far.
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='dmaul1114']The problem is people have this stupid tendency to vilify criminals as evil. This leads to dehumanizing them and being ok with people shooting them over petty shit like stealing property.
People have this misconception that criminals are just "bad people" and that there's now way they could ever do crime themselves. When in reality 99% of criminals are just regular people that fell on hard times, went through a ton of stuff, and get in situations where they end up stealing, robbing etc. And that stuff could happen to anyone who had the misfortune to be born into bad situations, or fall on hard times etc.
None of that excuses criminals for responsibility for their actions. But it should show that they aren't evil people who can be shot just for stealing someone's property, or that our criminal justice policy should be so primarily focused on punishment rather than rehabilitation etc.[/QUOTE]
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.
[quote name='berzirk']My two cents, take away the felony, downgrade it to a misdemeanor, and make him pay a fine. The rule of drawing a gun in a self-defense situation is you don't point a gun at something you don't intend to shoot. When you pull the trigger, your intent is to "eliminate the threat."[/QUOTE]
I could live with that.
[quote name='Clak']My predicatively gun-rights-first friend thought this guy was a hero as well. Then I asked him if the law is supposed to be applied at all times or just whenever the police feel like it. He shut up after that. I don't know about that town, but here it is illegal to discharge a weapon within the city limits. unless you're at some kind of range.
This guy wasn't even defending himself, the thief was no threat at all to him. He should have done his civic duty and called the police, and that's it.[/QUOTE]
Well the guy had stolen his stuff.
And of course the law shouldn't be applied at all times. That would be a disaster.
People have this misconception that criminals are just "bad people" and that there's now way they could ever do crime themselves. When in reality 99% of criminals are just regular people that fell on hard times, went through a ton of stuff, and get in situations where they end up stealing, robbing etc. And that stuff could happen to anyone who had the misfortune to be born into bad situations, or fall on hard times etc.
None of that excuses criminals for responsibility for their actions. But it should show that they aren't evil people who can be shot just for stealing someone's property, or that our criminal justice policy should be so primarily focused on punishment rather than rehabilitation etc.[/QUOTE]
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.
[quote name='berzirk']My two cents, take away the felony, downgrade it to a misdemeanor, and make him pay a fine. The rule of drawing a gun in a self-defense situation is you don't point a gun at something you don't intend to shoot. When you pull the trigger, your intent is to "eliminate the threat."[/QUOTE]
I could live with that.
[quote name='Clak']My predicatively gun-rights-first friend thought this guy was a hero as well. Then I asked him if the law is supposed to be applied at all times or just whenever the police feel like it. He shut up after that. I don't know about that town, but here it is illegal to discharge a weapon within the city limits. unless you're at some kind of range.
This guy wasn't even defending himself, the thief was no threat at all to him. He should have done his civic duty and called the police, and that's it.[/QUOTE]
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 name='Clak']My predicatively gun-rights-first friend thought this guy was a hero as well. Then I asked him if the law is supposed to be applied at all times or just whenever the police feel like it. He shut up after that. I don't know about that town, but here it is illegal to discharge a weapon within the city limits. unless you're at some kind of range.
This guy wasn't even defending himself, the thief was no threat at all to him. He should have done his civic duty and called the police, and that's it.[/QUOTE]
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.
This guy wasn't even defending himself, the thief was no threat at all to him. He should have done his civic duty and called the police, and that's it.[/QUOTE]
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 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.
[/quote]
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]
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.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[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]
Not knowing "what a person is capable of" is not a viable legal standard.
"Imminent threat" is.
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]
Not knowing "what a person is capable of" is not a viable legal standard.
"Imminent threat" is.
[quote name='Knoell']And how do you define something isn't an imminent threat? After the fact that the victim is unharmed?[/QUOTE]
HAHHAAH...holy crap.
Listen homie, if we already know what an imminent threat is, how could we NOT be able to define what isn't?
HAHHAAH...holy crap.
Listen homie, if we already know what an imminent threat is, how could we NOT be able to define what isn't?
[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]
It isn't about the property, it is about stopping such behavior. What happens when the next person resists giving away his stuff and the criminal shoots them?
Oh, suddenly the criminal is an imminent threat.
Sorry especially if they are carrying a gun, they deserve being shot, they weren't only theatening your property, but they were threatening your life. The danger may have passed for you, but that behavior will only continue, until they are arrested, put down, or they murder someone.
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]
It isn't about the property, it is about stopping such behavior. What happens when the next person resists giving away his stuff and the criminal shoots them?
Oh, suddenly the criminal is an imminent threat.
Sorry especially if they are carrying a gun, they deserve being shot, they weren't only theatening your property, but they were threatening your life. The danger may have passed for you, but that behavior will only continue, until they are arrested, put down, or they murder someone.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='Knoell']And how do you define something isn't an imminent threat? After the fact that the victim is unharmed?[/QUOTE]
Well, when it fails to meet the standard of imminent threat, is is by definition not an imminent threat.
Well, when it fails to meet the standard of imminent threat, is is by definition not an imminent threat.
If a person is fleeing, there is no imminent threat. And that's what's being discussed here.
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.
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.
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.
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.
[quote name='dohdough']HAHHAAH...holy crap.
Listen homie, if we already know what an imminent threat is, how could we NOT be able to define what isn't?[/QUOTE]
What the are you talking about?
The fact is you don't normally know what an imminent threat is until after the danger has passed.
"Oh I thought that guy was going to run me off the road! But since he didn't I guess he wasn't an imminent threat"!
Retarded.
Listen homie, if we already know what an imminent threat is, how could we NOT be able to define what isn't?[/QUOTE]
What the
are you talking about?The fact is you don't normally know what an imminent threat is until after the danger has passed.
"Oh I thought that guy was going to run me off the road! But since he didn't I guess he wasn't an imminent threat"!
Retarded.
[quote name='dmaul1114']If a person is fleeing, there is no imminent threat. And that's what's being discussed here.
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.
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.[/QUOTE]
Who was fleeing?
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.
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.[/QUOTE]
Who was fleeing?
[quote name='Knoell']It isn't about the property, it is about stopping such behavior. What happens when the next person resists giving away his stuff and the criminal shoots them?
Oh, suddenly the criminal is an imminent threat.
Sorry especially if they are carrying a gun, they deserve being shot, they weren't only theatening your property, but they were threatening your life. The danger may have passed for you, but that behavior will only continue, until they are arrested, put down, or they murder someone.[/QUOTE]
It's the job of the police to catch the person and put them away. Not for citizens to play vigilante and shoot people who are fleeing. Call the cops, give them good info, and let them go find the guy (which they did in my case).
Oh, suddenly the criminal is an imminent threat.
Sorry especially if they are carrying a gun, they deserve being shot, they weren't only theatening your property, but they were threatening your life. The danger may have passed for you, but that behavior will only continue, until they are arrested, put down, or they murder someone.[/QUOTE]
It's the job of the police to catch the person and put them away. Not for citizens to play vigilante and shoot people who are fleeing. Call the cops, give them good info, and let them go find the guy (which they did in my case).
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
It's kind of charming to see someone learn a new vocabulary word and toss it around ten minutes later like they have the ing slightest idea what the word means.
ing slightest idea what the word means.[quote name='dmaul1114']In this case the person fired a warning shot at a burglar who was fleeing the scene of burglarizing their neighbor's home (after having presumably already broken into the shooters home earlier).[/QUOTE]
From what I understand, the thief was climbing out of a basement window not fleeing. From that point on the guy had him at gunpoint. Also do you know what your neighbor has in his house? Whether he keeps any guns locked up? Who is to say the thief doesn't take one of those guns and shoots the guy? Ohhhh but after the fact you "know" the thief did not take any guns, so it wasn't alright to take that precaution.
From what I understand, the thief was climbing out of a basement window not fleeing. From that point on the guy had him at gunpoint. Also do you know what your neighbor has in his house? Whether he keeps any guns locked up? Who is to say the thief doesn't take one of those guns and shoots the guy? Ohhhh but after the fact you "know" the thief did not take any guns, so it wasn't alright to take that precaution.
[quote name='Knoell']And how do you define something isn't an imminent threat? After the fact that the victim is unharmed?[/QUOTE]
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. Then and only then you are allowed to act in self defense.
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. Then and only then you are allowed to act in self defense.
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Knoell']From what I understand, the thief was climbing out of a basement window not fleeing. From that point on the guy had him at gunpoint. Also do you know what your neighbor has in his house? Whether he keeps any guns locked up? Who is to say the thief doesn't take one of those guns and shoots the guy? Ohhhh but after the fact you "know" the thief did not take any guns, so it wasn't alright to take that precaution.[/QUOTE]
The guy was defending another's property using deadly force. That's a big no no.
The guy was defending another's property using deadly force. That's a big no no.
I don't know...
It's easy to be a Monday morning quarter back. No one here knows exactly what the shooter was thinking or feeling at the time he discharged his weapon.
Living in the Northeast I know exactly how brazen thieves can be. Now with Bath Salt abusers in the mix with the rest of the addicts it seems like thieves have less and less regard for their victims. Homeowners are getting killed in their own homes for the what is inside orange pill bottles.
Here's a story from my neck of the woods:
http://bangordailynews.com/2012/02/...n-i-had-to-protect-myself/?ref=relatedSidebar
Notice this part:
Williams said he shot McIntyre in the leg and followed the injured man and his two accomplices out the door to be sure they were leaving. Once outside the house, Dellairo turned back toward Williams and lunged at him, Williams said. Williams said he “fired off a couple surprised rounds,” striking Delleiro in the hip. That wound would prove to be mortal.
The injured men and woman got into a blue Honda Accord waiting outside. As the vehicle drove away, Williams fired two rounds at the trunk of the car to serve as identifying marks for police, he said.
So it's okay for him to shoot at a car as it's driving away to leave "identifying marks"
Notice this man was never arrested and I don't think he deserves to be either... but he certainly didn't need to shoot at the vehicle as it was leaving
It's easy to be a Monday morning quarter back. No one here knows exactly what the shooter was thinking or feeling at the time he discharged his weapon.
Living in the Northeast I know exactly how brazen thieves can be. Now with Bath Salt abusers in the mix with the rest of the addicts it seems like thieves have less and less regard for their victims. Homeowners are getting killed in their own homes for the what is inside orange pill bottles.
Here's a story from my neck of the woods:
http://bangordailynews.com/2012/02/...n-i-had-to-protect-myself/?ref=relatedSidebar
Notice this part:
Williams said he shot McIntyre in the leg and followed the injured man and his two accomplices out the door to be sure they were leaving. Once outside the house, Dellairo turned back toward Williams and lunged at him, Williams said. Williams said he “fired off a couple surprised rounds,” striking Delleiro in the hip. That wound would prove to be mortal.
The injured men and woman got into a blue Honda Accord waiting outside. As the vehicle drove away, Williams fired two rounds at the trunk of the car to serve as identifying marks for police, he said.
So it's okay for him to shoot at a car as it's driving away to leave "identifying marks"
Notice this man was never arrested and I don't think he deserves to be either... but he certainly didn't need to shoot at the vehicle as it was leaving
bread's done