OK here is a topic that should keep us busy.

Oh Man!!! You don't shoot someone because they are taking your stuff...
 
Last edited:
Well thanks alot Sheets, now you've given all of us milsurp collectors a bad rep! [thinking]

I can't say I'd just stand by and watch someone stealing stuff from my car, but I sure wouldn't take a head shot at some punk 60-70 feet away with an M44 because he was reaching in his pants. I think I'd need to confirm that he at least had something that resembled a gun before pulling the trigger. Of course, I wasn't there.
 
Last edited:
Garys said:
He shot the guy because he thought he was reaching into his waist band for a weapon.
Click to expand...

I agree, i'm usualy all for seeing the weapon before taking the shot, but at that distance I cant say I wouldn't have made the same choice if I saw a guy, running away from me, grab for something in his waist ban. unless of course his pants were falling down due to his lack of fashion sense...

Either way, reaching for your waist while running, is a deliberate move, and would only work to slow you down. so I would have assumed there was a good reason for him to make that move.
 
Other than calling the police first, not last, then confronting the robbers, I do not see where this kid did anything wrong. The robber reached for something, and **BANG**. Guess the kid should have had a better lawyer.
 
Garys said:
Probably a better outcome than if he had gone to trial. Still, sounds justified to me IF he felt that the guy was going for a weapon.
Click to expand...

Problem is the BG had no actual gun, and they'll get him on the old "escalation" bit, eg, the "state" will argue that if he had not done anything that the death would never have occurred. [rolleyes]

I don't agree with it (frankly, I think the law should allow you to use force to protect property from theft) but that's how the chips are gonna fall, more than likely. I bet the dude with the rifle is wishing he had just gone out and gotten another subwoofer instead of chasing those asshats down his driveway- he's probably spent enough on a lawyer already that he would have been able to buy a half dozen or more subwoofers.

-Mike
 
drgrant said:
I don't agree with it (frankly, I think the law should allow you to use force to protect property from theft) but that's how the chips are gonna fall, more than likely.
Click to expand...

So do I, and in some states it does.

I bet the dude with the rifle is wishing he had just gone out and gotten another subwoofer instead of chasing those asshats down his driveway- he's probably spent enough on a lawyer already that he would have been able to buy a half dozen or more subwoofers.

-Mike
Click to expand...

Or he used a public defender who urged him to plead out for a lenient sentence. Which is what they generally do since they don't want to go to trial since that involves actual work. I was advised a long time ago never to use a public defender or let anyone I care about do so.
 
I'd suspect there was some speculation that, since he could retreat into his apartment to grab his rifle, that perhaps he could have retreated into his apartment once again when he saw a movement to the waistband. I'm just sayin' here...

I can't blame the guy, even if I might have done differently.
 
The guy shouldnt have broken into the car if he wasnt willing to pay the price for his deeds.

I have to agree with the comment that I have quoted below.


I believe if criminals knew they would be shot dead for for commiting crimes, they might think twice about commiting them. With our justice system as it is, the criminal is the only one with rights. The victim is the criminal.

Mr. Sheets will have to live with his actions for the rest of his life, but if he felt his life was in danger, he is justified in using deadly force and should not be charged.

LEO's have killed people for holding cell phones and they have be cleared of any wrong doing. Why not Joe Public?
Click to expand...
 
jenlynn724 said:
in the back of the head?
Click to expand...

I got the impression that the guy he hit wasn't the intended target, although it wasn't really clear from the article. All the article said was one of the two thiefs reached for something in his waistband, so I don't know if that was the one he shot at.

If he aimed at one guy and hit a second one, I'd say he needs to adjust his sights for windage. [wink]
 
BGs sometimes get what they deserve.
But this is a classic case where the victim got himself into more trouble than it was worth. He chased the BGs down the street with a rifle because they had his subwoofer. Basically he made the decision that he was either going to shoot at or be shot by the BGs because they had stolen something worth a few hundred bucks. I'm thinking an insurance claim would be a whole lot easier. Now he's got a lifetime DQ.
 
The whole time I'm at the range blasting away at targets 50+ yds out, I'm telling
myself that I should never need to shoot someone that far out....especially in
the back...
 
The saying "play stupid games, win stupid prizes" is more than applicable here. He shouldn't even have to appear in court to defend his actions.
 
Last edited:
I'd take the 9mo work release. Unfortunately I don't see anything wrong with what I read. I guess he could have battled the courts on principal but 9mo sounds better than 9years.
 

Similar threads

Is there a reason.......
2 3
Replies
66
Views
2K
CMEBoston
CMEBoston
Where is a Signal 9 Reliant???
Replies
11
Views
219
Mountain
Mountain
Kennedy is a no vote.
2 3 4
Replies
98
Views
2K
HARRYM
H
A conservative judge cant be that stupid.
Replies
27
Views
675
BigTimber
BigTimber
Any Google/Google Maps experts here?
Replies
8
Views
327
Dennis in MA
Dennis in MA
Back
Top Bottom