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.
OK here is a topic that should keep us busy.
- Thread starter appraiser
- Start date
I'm not an idiot.. I grew up hunting with my grandparents in Louisiana, and Texas.. I just know where I am now..
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..
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.
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.
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.
Garys
NES Member
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.
+19
I think the thing that most people are missing here is that the shooter saw the thief reach into his waistband for something. When someone points a gun at you while you're in the act of committing a crime and tells you to stop, and instead you do something that could be interpreted as reaching for a weapon, you're inviting a bullet into your skull. If it was a cop behind the gun giving the order to stop and this incident carried out the same way it did, the shooting would have been ruled as justified, regardless of the fact that the thief didn't actually have a gun.
If this guy really wanted to shoot people just for stealing his stuff (and I personally wouldn't be on his case if he did, by the way), he could have done it while he still had the element of surprise from his balcony, and he probably could have got more than 1 of them. I think he's telling the truth, and I think he went about it the right way. I stand by my original statement that he shouldn't even have to defend his actions in a court of law.
If this guy really wanted to shoot people just for stealing his stuff (and I personally wouldn't be on his case if he did, by the way), he could have done it while he still had the element of surprise from his balcony, and he probably could have got more than 1 of them. I think he's telling the truth, and I think he went about it the right way. I stand by my original statement that he shouldn't even have to defend his actions in a court of law.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2008
- Messages
- 263
- Likes
- 15
BG was just trying to pull up his pants that were around his knees to run faster.
But seriously, tough call. It's easy to armchair quarterback on all these situations, but unless you were the one holding the rifle with that split second call...who knows...
But seriously, tough call. It's easy to armchair quarterback on all these situations, but unless you were the one holding the rifle with that split second call...who knows...
+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.
![[angry]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/008.gif "Angry [angry]")
It makes you feel violated, it makes you feel ill, among other things.
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.
One major problem with these laws barring the use of deadly force to protect property is that they don't account the for the fact that, even if the
property owner uses non-deadly force (which may be legal in many states) that there are escalation scenarios with thieves that the law does
not account for, which makes it easy for the prosecution to attempt to block any notional of self defense.....
-Mike
+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.
ill, among other things.
I hear ya - I had my car stolen once. Luckily I got it back, but the A-holes that did it were smoking (god knows what) in the car and burned my seat. I was PO'd. I felt violated and because their butts were in my car, it felt dirty to me for a long time afterwards.
jkelly
Shooting at the big range in heaven
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2005
- Messages
- 2,060
- Likes
- 93
Pleading guilty for a “recommended” nine months of work release? Should be interesting to see what the judge actually sentences Mr. Weeks too.
So far it seems if Mr. Sheets has screwed himself, I wonder if there will be a Civil case.
Just another "Play Stupid Games Win Stupid Prizes" for both Mr. Hernandez and Mr. Weeks.
What's work release, anyway?
Respectfully,
jkelly
So far it seems if Mr. Sheets has screwed himself, I wonder if there will be a Civil case.
Just another "Play Stupid Games Win Stupid Prizes" for both Mr. Hernandez and Mr. Weeks.
What's work release, anyway?
Respectfully,
jkelly
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 would also like to add that if I shot and killed all the people who stole from me it would be around 10. Kind of scary.
Garys
NES Member
Around here. As noted by Jose and others, in other parts of the country this would be considered a legitimate use of force.
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2009
- Messages
- 4,908
- Likes
- 2,902
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?
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?
Last edited:
![[puke]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/023.gif "Puke [puke]")
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.
What is "right" and what is "legal" don't always align perfectly. Our justice system, while better than most, is still based on a set of compromises that are not set up to deal with ever possible scenario. These compromises are often engineered into the system for a myriad of reasons.... for example, the "state" would quickly go broke trying to inflict the death penalty on every thief that was brought into court. Some would argue that the net cost of punishing thieves to that high of a standard would exceed the "community benefit". (Remember that, the legal system is really more designed to benefit society as a whole than individuals, at least on the criminal law end of things. )
-Mike
Last edited:
+1
Having a gun is all about self-defense... not your-property-defense, in my opinion.
drgrant mentions protecting yourself from rape -- and I agree, you should be able to use a gun to protect yourself from being raped (since this is still self-defense). Thankfully, the law agrees in this situation.
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.
Last edited:
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". ![[thinking]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/010.gif "Thinking [thinking]")
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)
MaverickNH
NES Member
One of my favorites, excepted below, with the complete 1993 article at http://rkba.org/comment/cowards.html
A NATION OF COWARDS
Jeffrey R. Snyder
OUR SOCIETY has reached a pinnacle of self-expression and respect for individuality rare or unmatched in history. Our entire popular culture -- from fashion magazines to the cinema -- positively screams the matchless worth of the individual, and glories in eccentricity, nonconformity, independent judgment, and self-determination. This enthusiasm is reflected in the prevalent notion that helping someone entails increasing that person's "self-esteem"; that if a person properly values himself, he will naturally be a happy, productive, and, in some inexplicable fashion, responsible member of society.
And yet, while people are encouraged to revel in their individuality and incalculable self-worth, the media and the law enforcement establishment continually advise us that, when confronted with the threat of lethal violence, we should not resist, but simply give the attacker what he wants. If the crime under consideration is rape, there is some notable waffling on this point, and the discussion quickly moves to how the woman can change her behavior to minimize the risk of rape, and the various ridiculous, non-lethal weapons she may acceptably carry, such as whistles, keys, mace or, that weapon which really sends shivers down a rapist's spine, the portable cellular phone.
Now how can this be? How can a person who values himself so highly calmly accept the indignity of a criminal assault? How can one who believes that the essence of his dignity lies in his self-determination passively accept the forcible deprivation of that self-determination? How can he, quietly, with great dignity and poise, simply hand over the goods?
The assumption, of course, is that there is no inconsistency. The advice not to resist a criminal assault and simply hand over the goods is founded on the notion that one's life is of incalculable value, and that no amount of property is worth it. Put aside, for a moment, the outrageousness of the suggestion that a criminal who proffers lethal violence should be treated as if he has instituted a new social contract: "I will not hurt or kill you if you give me what I want." For years, feminists have labored to educate people that rape is not about sex, but about domination, degradation, and control. Evidently, someone needs to inform the law enforcement establishment and the media that kidnapping, robbery, carjacking, and assault are not about property.
Crime is not only a complete disavowal of the social contract, but also a commandeering of the victim's person and liberty. If the individual's dignity lies in the fact that he is a moral agent engaging in actions of his own will, in free exchange with others, then crime always violates the victim's dignity. It is, in fact, an act of enslavement. Your wallet, your purse, or your car may not be worth your life, but your dignity is; and if it is not worth fighting for, it can hardly be said to exist.
...
It is impossible to address the problem of rampant crime without talking about the moral responsibility of the intended victim. Crime is rampant because the law-abiding, each of us, condone it, excuse it, permit it, submit to it. We permit and encourage it because we do not fight back, immediately, then and there, where it happens. Crime is not rampant because we do not have enough prisons, because judges and prosecutors are too soft, because the police are hamstrung with absurd technicalities. The defect is there, in our character. We are a nation of cowards and shirkers.
...
In the mid-sixties there was a public service advertising campaign targeted at car owners about the prevention of car theft. The purpose of the ad was to urge car owners not to leave their keys in their cars. The message was, "Don't help a good boy go bad." The implication was that, by leaving his keys in his car, the normal, law-abiding car owner was contributing to the delinquency of minors who, if they just weren't tempted beyond their limits, would be "good." Now, in those days people still had a fair sense of just who was responsible for whose behavior. The ad succeeded in enraging a goodly portion of the populace, and was soon dropped.
A NATION OF COWARDS
Jeffrey R. Snyder
OUR SOCIETY has reached a pinnacle of self-expression and respect for individuality rare or unmatched in history. Our entire popular culture -- from fashion magazines to the cinema -- positively screams the matchless worth of the individual, and glories in eccentricity, nonconformity, independent judgment, and self-determination. This enthusiasm is reflected in the prevalent notion that helping someone entails increasing that person's "self-esteem"; that if a person properly values himself, he will naturally be a happy, productive, and, in some inexplicable fashion, responsible member of society.
And yet, while people are encouraged to revel in their individuality and incalculable self-worth, the media and the law enforcement establishment continually advise us that, when confronted with the threat of lethal violence, we should not resist, but simply give the attacker what he wants. If the crime under consideration is rape, there is some notable waffling on this point, and the discussion quickly moves to how the woman can change her behavior to minimize the risk of rape, and the various ridiculous, non-lethal weapons she may acceptably carry, such as whistles, keys, mace or, that weapon which really sends shivers down a rapist's spine, the portable cellular phone.
Now how can this be? How can a person who values himself so highly calmly accept the indignity of a criminal assault? How can one who believes that the essence of his dignity lies in his self-determination passively accept the forcible deprivation of that self-determination? How can he, quietly, with great dignity and poise, simply hand over the goods?
The assumption, of course, is that there is no inconsistency. The advice not to resist a criminal assault and simply hand over the goods is founded on the notion that one's life is of incalculable value, and that no amount of property is worth it. Put aside, for a moment, the outrageousness of the suggestion that a criminal who proffers lethal violence should be treated as if he has instituted a new social contract: "I will not hurt or kill you if you give me what I want." For years, feminists have labored to educate people that rape is not about sex, but about domination, degradation, and control. Evidently, someone needs to inform the law enforcement establishment and the media that kidnapping, robbery, carjacking, and assault are not about property.
Crime is not only a complete disavowal of the social contract, but also a commandeering of the victim's person and liberty. If the individual's dignity lies in the fact that he is a moral agent engaging in actions of his own will, in free exchange with others, then crime always violates the victim's dignity. It is, in fact, an act of enslavement. Your wallet, your purse, or your car may not be worth your life, but your dignity is; and if it is not worth fighting for, it can hardly be said to exist.
...
It is impossible to address the problem of rampant crime without talking about the moral responsibility of the intended victim. Crime is rampant because the law-abiding, each of us, condone it, excuse it, permit it, submit to it. We permit and encourage it because we do not fight back, immediately, then and there, where it happens. Crime is not rampant because we do not have enough prisons, because judges and prosecutors are too soft, because the police are hamstrung with absurd technicalities. The defect is there, in our character. We are a nation of cowards and shirkers.
...
In the mid-sixties there was a public service advertising campaign targeted at car owners about the prevention of car theft. The purpose of the ad was to urge car owners not to leave their keys in their cars. The message was, "Don't help a good boy go bad." The implication was that, by leaving his keys in his car, the normal, law-abiding car owner was contributing to the delinquency of minors who, if they just weren't tempted beyond their limits, would be "good." Now, in those days people still had a fair sense of just who was responsible for whose behavior. The ad succeeded in enraging a goodly portion of the populace, and was soon dropped.
![[smile]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/001.gif "Smile [smile]")
Big Daddy 45acp
Instructor
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!
DickWanner
Banned
This kumbaya mentality some have really makes me shake my. I'm with you BD.
I think to each his own. Some have property they deem to be worth protecting with lethal force while others may not.
I suspect a quick mental valuation happens. For example, if someone were stealing your lawn furniture, you may not care so much to open fire (hell, if someone will take mine, I may even throw in a firearm to get rid of it).
If someone were stealing your safe full of firearms, then maybe some would shoot.
If someone were stealing your priceless van Gogh painting, then maybe a lot of use would use lethal force.
If someone were stealing one of your children, then I think most of us with kids would shoot at the kidnapper (if safe) even though many state laws would say we are not justified to do so.
Basically, the system isn't designed to account for all of these scenarios, which is why judges have to have some discretion.
I suspect a quick mental valuation happens. For example, if someone were stealing your lawn furniture, you may not care so much to open fire (hell, if someone will take mine, I may even throw in a firearm to get rid of it).
If someone were stealing your safe full of firearms, then maybe some would shoot.
If someone were stealing your priceless van Gogh painting, then maybe a lot of use would use lethal force.
If someone were stealing one of your children, then I think most of us with kids would shoot at the kidnapper (if safe) even though many state laws would say we are not justified to do so.
Basically, the system isn't designed to account for all of these scenarios, which is why judges have to have some discretion.
In NH, Rape and kidnapping are allowable justifications for using deadly force.
In NH you may use non-lethal force to stop criminal trespass or unlawful taking of property but may only use lethal force as prescribed in section 627:4.
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/RSA/html/LXII/627/627-mrg.htm
If a thief has a weapon but turns tail and runs, I would not shoot as he is no longer a threat. Which kinda happened here. The thief never had a weapon but ran, therefore no threat.
This tells me that the perp had his back to the owner, which means the owner shot the perp in the back of the head. Therefore the perp was not a threat. Even if the perp had reached into his pants, he would not be a threat until he turned around. Or if the perp took a gun out and started blind firing over his back or turned around with a gun in hand, but that didn't happen.
Justification only applies if the threat exists. My interpretation is that the threat never manifested itself, therefore no justification in the eyes of the law.
IMHO shooting someone in the back is cowardly, even if they deserve it.
In NH you may use non-lethal force to stop criminal trespass or unlawful taking of property but may only use lethal force as prescribed in section 627:4.
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/RSA/html/LXII/627/627-mrg.htm
If a thief has a weapon but turns tail and runs, I would not shoot as he is no longer a threat. Which kinda happened here. The thief never had a weapon but ran, therefore no threat.
This tells me that the perp had his back to the owner, which means the owner shot the perp in the back of the head. Therefore the perp was not a threat. Even if the perp had reached into his pants, he would not be a threat until he turned around. Or if the perp took a gun out and started blind firing over his back or turned around with a gun in hand, but that didn't happen.
Justification only applies if the threat exists. My interpretation is that the threat never manifested itself, therefore no justification in the eyes of the law.
IMHO shooting someone in the back is cowardly, even if they deserve it.
