Maybe you should keep in mind that Mass standards are not universal?
I'm not an idiot.. I grew up hunting with my grandparents in Louisiana, and Texas.. I just know where I am now..
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
Maybe you should keep in mind that Mass standards are not universal?
I gues I find it stupid that he chased the thieves down the street and shot one in the back of the head over material possessions.. I never would have done that.. Now, if you steal my kid, or try to take something from my physical person, it would be different..
The only justification to shoot someone in my book is if the other person has a weapon or is coming right after you (or trying to steal your kid). I'm kind of with JennyLynn on this one.
Death penalty for stealing a subwoofer? I hate thieves more than anything and would like to see them all killed. But I'll leave it up to the courts to decide their fate.
If criminals are in the act and you see someone possibly reaching for a gun/weapon, I might shoot as well. ...I hope not to find out.
The only justification to shoot someone in my book is if the other person has a weapon or is coming right after you (or trying to steal your kid). I'm kind of with JennyLynn on this one.
Death penalty for stealing a subwoofer? I hate thieves more than anything and would like to see them all killed. But I'll leave it up to the courts to decide their fate.
If criminals are in the act and you see someone possibly reaching for a gun/weapon, I might shoot as well. ...I hope not to find out.
That's your choice. It's also the his choice. It would have been quite easy for the thief to avoid getting shot. Choose not to violate another man's personal property.
You think it's stupid, others do not.
I despise thieves. They invade your privacy. It's more than just "taking a material possession". It's robbing you of a monetary item that often represents hours of work, time, and emotion. They violate you, and take something that you must now devote more time and money to replace.
Additionally, they typically move on to rob another person. I have no problem with a property owner removing the problem before another must experience the same loss.
+1....
Having had shit stolen from me this morning (luckily, mostly junk in the trunk of my car, which they took because I had popped the trunk open accidentally from my key fob pressing up against something else in my pocket during the night) IMHO theft of this sort is only a few notches lower than rape. It makes you feel violated, it makes you feel
ill, among other things.
Did you ever stop to think that if potential thieves knew that there was a real risk of getting shot, there would be fewer thieves? People always say "It's just a sub-woofer, that can be replaced." Sure, it can be replaced, but at what cost? It means diverting money from other things to replace it. Or, it means not being able to afford to replace it at all. When did the idea that it's OK to steal other people's property creep into our society?
That's your choice. It's also the his choice. It would have been quite easy for the thief to avoid getting shot. Choose not to violate another man's personal property.
Both points of view taken here. No one ever said it was OK to steal another persons possessions though.
Unfortunately the laws are setup for the thieves and not the law abiding citizens.
I, personally, probably would not have done what this guy did, if I found the thief, but I can tell you right now I would flat out refuse to convict anyone that was accused of shooting a thief, provided the evidence of the theft act was incontrovertible. If people don't want to get shot, stabbed, or beaten to death by a property owner, then maybe they shouldn't steal their stuff.
I don't know what to say... I'm a little shocked I suppose.
I hate thieves, sure. Who doesn't? Even thieves hate thieves, I'm sure.
That being said -- shooting someone for taking property (which, btw, can be replaced by insurance), is excessive punishment.
He ran in to get his rifle and the bad guys didn't run until they saw him there with it (meaning after he ran to get it and came out). He could have just as easily called the cops. Odds of them getting there in time are slim but it keeps him out of harms way (they MIGHT have been armed - going out there with a gun and startling them leads to a much higher chance of getting shot himself). I can understand not wanting to have property stolen but that's not something I'm going to risk my life over. And it's not something I'm going to take someone else's life for either.
There were simply too many other options that would have avoided the confrontation entirely. And, unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately given the actual outcome) for Mr. Sheets, with no witnesses AND no weapon found I have a feeling he would have ended up in a much worse situation if this had gone to trial.
ETA:
As for the states in which this use of force IS legal -- I would question why. If a thief was caught and convicted they would be ineligible for the death penalty. As a matter of fact, even in cases of first degree murder there must be aggravating circumstances present for capital punishment to even be put on the table. Why should any person be able to dole out a summary sentence on the street for a crime that would not be punishable in the same way in a court of law?
As for the states in which this use of force IS legal -- I would question why. If a thief was caught and convicted they would be ineligible for the death penalty. As a matter of fact, even in cases of first degree murder there must be aggravating circumstances present for capital punishment to even be put on the table. Why should any person be able to dole out a summary sentence on the street for a crime that would not be punishable in the same way in a court of law?
I don't know what to say... I'm a little shocked I suppose.
I hate thieves, sure. Who doesn't? Even thieves hate thieves, I'm sure.
That being said -- shooting someone for taking property (which, btw, can be replaced by insurance), is excessive punishment.
He ran in to get his rifle and the bad guys didn't run until they saw him there with it (meaning after he ran to get it and came out). He could have just as easily called the cops. Odds of them getting there in time are slim but it keeps him out of harms way (they MIGHT have been armed - going out there with a gun and startling them leads to a much higher chance of getting shot himself). I can understand not wanting to have property stolen but that's not something I'm going to risk my life over. And it's not something I'm going to take someone else's life for either.
There were simply too many other options that would have avoided the confrontation entirely. And, unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately given the actual outcome) for Mr. Sheets, with no witnesses AND no weapon found I have a feeling he would have ended up in a much worse situation if this had gone to trial.
ETA:
As for the states in which this use of force IS legal -- I would question why. If a thief was caught and convicted they would be ineligible for the death penalty. As a matter of fact, even in cases of first degree murder there must be aggravating circumstances present for capital punishment to even be put on the table. Why should any person be able to dole out a summary sentence on the street for a crime that would not be punishable in the same way in a court of law?
Food for thought- a guy that gets caught for rape, in most cases would not get the death penalty, either, yet, if a woman had shot the perpetrator while he was in the act (or likely, even shortly thereafter) she would likely be exonerated, whether by not getting indicted, acquittal, or jury nullification.
Just to throw this out here... what about pepper-spraying someone who is stealing your stuff? You are not using lethal force, but you also are not using it in "self-defense"? I'd feel much better spraying someone hauling my TV away than shooting them, given they were not an "imminent threat".
You'll end up with a broken TV as he drops it to cover his eyes anyway!
(Sorry, couldn't resist)
Certainly!
I do not at all question the use of deadly force for the protection of one's self or loved ones. It's the use in the protection of property (which IS replaceable) that I question.
If you (the general you, not targeted at anyone in particular) think that property is worth more than a life (I don't care if they're a thief - there ARE people who steal that do so for the "right" reasons and are otherwise good people in hard situations) then I would suggest a tune-up for your moral compass.
This kumbaya mentality some have really makes me shake my. I'm with you BD.I don't think my moral compass needs adjusting, and I think thieves should be shot if caught in the act.
While property is replaceable, what about the hardship one has to endure while waiting for the suits to replace it?
I work with my hands. My tools stay in my truck. I won't put a dollar value on them, but let's just say my basic belt set up is worth enough for a felony charge.
If they were to get stolen and I cannot work, I risk losing my job, my car, my motorcycle and my house. With work practically non-existent right now, I could not afford to replace my tools while waiting for the insurance check.
So, is my property worth more than some scumbag's pitiful, drug addled life? YOU BET!
Sheet said he then pointed his rifle and fired while standing some 60 to 70 feet away from the victim, who was facing away.