REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Who are the Criminals Here?

POSTED BY: ANTHONYT
UPDATED: Sunday, February 19, 2023 18:42
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 2922
PAGE 1 of 2

Thursday, July 8, 2010 7:22 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


http://www.kdvr.com/news/kdvr-theives-free-victim-arrested-txt,0,23158
6.story


Hello,

Does anyone have additional information on this news story? I can barely wrap my brain around the wrongness of it.

--Anthony


Due to the use of Naomi 3.3.2 Beta web filtering, the following people may need to private-message me if they wish to contact me: Auraptor, Kaneman, Piratenews, Wulfenstar. I apologize for the inconvenience.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 8, 2010 7:25 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg


Since when did we start living in Britain?

Welcome to the slippery slope of socialism.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 8, 2010 7:39 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...


There must be a law in CO against murdering someone with a gun - so few freedoms left.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 8, 2010 7:44 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg


Murdering someone with a gun.... wow. You didn't read the article at all, did you?

Man protecting himself, and his property, shoots at thieves.

The thieves will not be prosecuted, but he will for the temerity to try and protect himself/property.

If this were me... whooboy. I would about to be rich. I would sue the hell out of the state, and the police for this one.

You know whats a stupid law? Prosecuters cannot be sued, or put on trial, for bringing foolish charges/cases against citizens.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 8, 2010 7:56 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...


Quote:

Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Murdering someone with a gun.... wow. You didn't read the article at all, did you?

Man protecting himself, and his property, shoots at thieves.




I read it, even the second paragraph:

"82-year-old Robert Wallace said in February that he looked out his window and saw two men hooking his flatbed trailer up to their pickup. He yelled at them to stop, but they sped away, stealing his trailer. He told police he fired two shots at the pickup."

Big man protecting himself as they sped away like that.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 8, 2010 8:03 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg


Right Piz,

So by your logic, if one of these scumbags was raping your daughter/wife/sister, you shouldn't shoot them.

After all, its not like they are killing them, right?

Or, if someone is stealing your car, which you worked long, overtime hours, to be able to buy... which the insurance will not replace, and which will then cause you to loose your job because you can't get to work on time... nope. Don't shoot them, dont shoot at them. Especially if they are already running away.

Way to be a victim and allow these bastards to continue to victimize others.

Good job.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 8, 2010 8:05 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important



Hello,

I think there is a clear disparity here, with the gentlemen who were committing felony theft thus far not charged with a crime, while the gentleman who tried to stop them is facing death in prison.

Yet oddly when a police officer shoots a bystander while trying to stop a felonious action, it is the criminal who is charged with the death.

I do not advocate shooting at fleeing suspects unless they are likely to commit violence, but I think the greater sin here was on the part of the thieves. It saddens me that charges were so quick to be brought upon the victim of this theft, and so slow to be brought against the criminals who instigated this affair.

--Anthony

Due to the use of Naomi 3.3.2 Beta web filtering, the following people may need to private-message me if they wish to contact me: Auraptor, Kaneman, Piratenews, Wulfenstar. I apologize for the inconvenience.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 8, 2010 8:18 AM

JONGSSTRAW


This is how it is in most states. Only a few recognize property rights as justification for using deadly force. In this case, however, I do not think firing a gun is a legitimate response to a vehicle theft. In Florida when you take a concealed weapons permit class, they teach you, they drive it into your skull that you never use deadly force unless confronted with deadly force. I guess the problem with that lies in not always knowing how things are going to go while a crime is being committed.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 8, 2010 8:20 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg


Castle Doctrine.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 8, 2010 8:23 AM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

I read it, even the second paragraph:

"82-year-old Robert Wallace said in February that he looked out his window and saw two men hooking his flatbed trailer up to their pickup. He yelled at them to stop, but they sped away, stealing his trailer. He told police he fired two shots at the pickup."

Big man protecting himself as they sped away like that.



...What?

I mean, okay, it's not so great that the victim was apparently shooting to kill, if he was trying to stop the theft, a better target is the wheels of the pickup.

But, he didn't kill, and this was defense of property. "Big man?" Your statements are beyond my frame of reference. He was well within his rights to attempt a citizen's arrest because grand theft auto is a felony, and use of force is validated in a citizen's arrest.

What we're getting into here is quibbling over strict liability, for damage caused by that use of force. As a citizen, he doesn't have the same privileges as police in regards to strict liability (IMO, a bunch of bullcrap). But technically, this should be a civil case, not a criminal case, because the man wasn't culpable, so this isn't going to fly. You'll see. Though he might end up paying the hospital bill for the thieves, depending on if they have good representation (insane, I know, but a likely outcome).

Amazing shot, though, for an 82 year old. Gunshot wound to the FACE in a car speeding away and the guy is still alive. Wow.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 8, 2010 8:30 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg


Piz mentality is the same as this "mothers".

http://www.examiner.com/x-4525-Seattle-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2010m5d26-
As-SCOTUS-ruling-on-Chicago-gun-ban-looms-one-case-defines-gun-control-bankruptcy


The interview is really telling.

Please read up on the case before commenting.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 8, 2010 8:56 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
they drive it into your skull that you never use deadly force unless confronted with deadly force.

Exactly.
That said, he SHOULD have shot at tires.


The laughing Chrisisall


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 8, 2010 9:08 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Hello,

I honestly would have expected the property owner to be charged with 'unlawful discharge of a firearm' or some such, while the thieves would be charged with their felony thieft. The former charge would remind the property owner when not to shoot, while the latter would remind the thieves when not to steal.

Instead, it seems the person whose property was thieved is bearing the heaviest burden of the law, which seems particularly unjust.

--Anthony

Due to the use of Naomi 3.3.2 Beta web filtering, the following people may need to private-message me if they wish to contact me: Auraptor, Kaneman, Piratenews, Wulfenstar. I apologize for the inconvenience.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 8, 2010 9:24 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by AnthonyT:


Instead, it seems the person whose property was thieved is bearing the heaviest burden of the law, which seems particularly unjust.


Hey, the victim is an intelligent adult, I mean, what country did he think he was living in?
If you CAN be charged with something, you WILL be charged with something. THAT is the American Justice system, and always has been in my lifetime.
A free victim is a total victim.
DO NOT attempt to do the job of a policeman, or else!

OTOH, you really shouldn't shoot someone in the face for stealing s**t, that really is just a tad over-reactive IMO.

Bottom line, you wanna tag someone with a piece of violence, make sure you maneuver them into starting with you first- and never hurt them more than you can prove they were intending to hurt YOU.


The laughing Chrisisall


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 8, 2010 9:28 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...


Quote:

Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Right Piz,

So by your logic, if one of these scumbags was raping your daughter/wife/sister, you shouldn't shoot them.

After all, its not like they are killing them, right?



You equate stealing a trailer with rape?? Logik by Wulfie. See if your wife agrees with that one...

Quote:

Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Or, if someone is stealing your car, which you worked long, overtime hours, to be able to buy... which the insurance will not replace, and which will then cause you to loose your job because you can't get to work on time... nope. Don't shoot them, dont shoot at them. Especially if they are already running away.

Way to be a victim and allow these bastards to continue to victimize others.



You really are an expert whiner, if, if, if... If I had a gun I would shoot over their heads, not just over their shoulders. You can judge the value of a human life so quickly? And while Colorado does have a death penalty it's not for stealing a trailer.

Does everyone assume they would know it was theft at the time? Maybe Jorgestar called his 2 buddies and told them, "dudes, I just bought this new trailer but I can't get it home, can you guys be a couple of bros and go pick it up fpr me?" heh heh, this'll be so funny.
These 2 could have been repo men at the wrong address - some smartie neighbor kid put a sign on it that said "Free to the First Taker!" how would the old man know? That's why you don't shoot out your window at people FIRST.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 8, 2010 9:32 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...


Quote:

Originally posted by AnthonyT:

Hello,

I think there is a clear disparity here, with the gentlemen who were committing felony theft thus far not charged with a crime, while the gentleman who tried to stop them is facing death in prison.

Yet oddly when a police officer shoots a bystander while trying to stop a felonious action, it is the criminal who is charged with the death.

I do not advocate shooting at fleeing suspects unless they are likely to commit violence, but I think the greater sin here was on the part of the thieves. It saddens me that charges were so quick to be brought upon the victim of this theft, and so slow to be brought against the criminals who instigated this affair.

--Anthony

Due to the use of Naomi 3.3.2 Beta web filtering, the following people may need to private-message me if they wish to contact me: Auraptor, Kaneman, Piratenews, Wulfenstar. I apologize for the inconvenience.



See my response to Wulf, re: Rush to Judgment. We really do try and give the responsibility to prosecuting the law with lethality in the field to the fewest people (Police) and to those we give training - I know many of you will scoff - because going the other way doesn't work. The message is clear in this case - let the Police sort it out - no vigilantes. Murder is more serious than theft.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 8, 2010 9:42 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...


Quote:

Originally posted by Bytemite:
Quote:

I read it, even the second paragraph:

"82-year-old Robert Wallace said in February that he looked out his window and saw two men hooking his flatbed trailer up to their pickup. He yelled at them to stop, but they sped away, stealing his trailer. He told police he fired two shots at the pickup."

Big man protecting himself as they sped away like that.



...What?

I mean, okay, it's not so great that the victim was apparently shooting to kill, if he was trying to stop the theft, a better target is the wheels of the pickup.

But, he didn't kill, and this was defense of property. "Big man?" Your statements are beyond my frame of reference. He was well within his rights to attempt a citizen's arrest because grand theft auto is a felony, and use of force is validated in a citizen's arrest.



Being facetious Byte. "Big Man" as in "what a little man for shooting at their backs." Grand Theft auto?? Probably a rickety old piece of shit trailer.

Quote:

Originally posted by Bytemite:
What we're getting into here is quibbling over strict liability, for damage caused by that use of force. As a citizen, he doesn't have the same privileges as police in regards to strict liability (IMO, a bunch of bullcrap). But technically, this should be a civil case, not a criminal case, because the man wasn't culpable, so this isn't going to fly. You'll see. Though he might end up paying the hospital bill for the thieves, depending on if they have good representation (insane, I know, but a likely outcome).



Yeah, plenty of holes in this entire story, but imagine, good old Fox News thought it was fit to print 'cuz gun owners will go "that's so full of crap! F*cking Obama!

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 8, 2010 9:45 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...


Quote:

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

I honestly would have expected the property owner to be charged with 'unlawful discharge of a firearm' or some such, while the thieves would be charged with their felony thieft. The former charge would remind the property owner when not to shoot, while the latter would remind the thieves when not to steal.

Instead, it seems the person whose property was thieved is bearing the heaviest burden of the law, which seems particularly unjust.

--Anthony

Due to the use of Naomi 3.3.2 Beta web filtering, the following people may need to private-message me if they wish to contact me: Auraptor, Kaneman, Piratenews, Wulfenstar. I apologize for the inconvenience.



So you're ok with this 82 yr old pressuming they were guilty and trying to kill them... nice.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 8, 2010 9:50 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg


Pizz,

You obviously didnt read the article I posted, nor listen to the "mother".

But when/if you do. Let me ask... do you agree with iher?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 8, 2010 10:04 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...


Quote:

Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Pizz,

You obviously didnt read the article I posted, nor listen to the "mother".

But when/if you do. Let me ask... do you agree with iher?



Okay, I'll read another article about something else...
Do I agree with the mother? No, of course not. Wulf, I'm questioning your ability to judge situations effectively, to weigh them and understand context.
Here's the big difference in the 2 stories, in this one;
"Published reports said the four thugs approached Wortham IV “with guns drawn.” Game over, start blasting. That's a pretty clear case of self defense.
In the other one 2 guys are allegedly trying to hook up the guy's trailer and leave. Yeah, they were thieves it turns out, they are guilty, but they didn't try and enter the old guy's home with guns drawn. They deserve jail time for theft - simple.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 8, 2010 10:07 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Since when did we start living in Britain?

Welcome to the slippery slope of socialism.




How is state ownership of industry related to this?

AURaptor's Greatest Hits:

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 20:32 To AnthonyT:
Go fuck yourself.
On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you.

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 18:26 To President Obama:
Mr. President, you're a god damn, mother fucking liar.
Fuck you, you cock sucking community activist piece of shit.
... go fuck yourself, Mr. President.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 8, 2010 10:12 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg


Someone trys to hurt me or mine, I shoot them.

Someone trys to steal from me or mine, I shoot them.

A question, if more people were like this... do you think that criminals would be more likely or more reluctant to try and hurt or steal from people?

For example: If you know that, when you are trying to hurt or steal from someone, they might kill you... is it worth the risk?

Even the most hardened criminals, even the most crazy, have a self preservation instinct.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 8, 2010 10:16 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


"So you're ok with this 82 yr old pressuming they were guilty and trying to kill them... nice."

Hello,

I think this is a distortion of my opinion on the matter. I'm actually not 'okay' with him shooting at them, and stated so.
I'm even more not 'okay' with the victim of a crime paying a steeper penalty than the people he was trying to stop.

There's a lot here I'm not 'okay' with, okay?

--Anthony

Due to the use of Naomi 3.3.2 Beta web filtering, the following people may need to private-message me if they wish to contact me: Auraptor, Kaneman, Piratenews, Wulfenstar. I apologize for the inconvenience.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 8, 2010 10:19 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by pizmobeach:


In the other one 2 guys are allegedly trying to hook up the guy's trailer and leave. Yeah, they were thieves it turns out, they are guilty, but they didn't try and enter the old guy's home with guns drawn. They deserve jail time for theft - simple.




As has no doubt been pointed out, that depends in large part on where the crime occurred, and whether they have the "Castle Doctrine" enacted into law or not. Here in Texas, you *CAN* legally shoot somebody for trespassing, vandalism, or simple theft of your property.

Not saying I agree or disagree with it, but there ARE places where it's perfectly legal to blow someone's head off just for stealing your shit, and no need to claim "self defense" in such cases.

It seems where this guy lives, such law is not in effect. And even if it were, it would likely cost him thousands of dollars (I believe $30,000 is the average, if memory serves) to defend himself in court, even if he DIDN'T break the law.

So... will he be charged? Maybe. Will he be CONVICTED? Almost definitely not. Juries are VERY sympathetic to old folks defending themselves and their property from thugs.

AURaptor's Greatest Hits:

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 20:32 To AnthonyT:
Go fuck yourself.
On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you.

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 18:26 To President Obama:
Mr. President, you're a god damn, mother fucking liar.
Fuck you, you cock sucking community activist piece of shit.
... go fuck yourself, Mr. President.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 8, 2010 10:22 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg


It is a case of prosecutorial over reach. Plain and simple. Some fucktard prosecutor is trying to make a name for themselves, and this poor guy is going to have to deal with it.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 8, 2010 10:29 AM

BYTEMITE


Doesn't really matter the condition of the trailer.

Quote:

Motor vehicle theft, sometimes referred to as grand theft auto by the media and police departments in the US, is the criminal act of stealing or attempting to steal a motor vehicle, including an automobile, truck, bus, coach, motorcycle, snowmobile, trailer or any other motorized vehicle.


Used to be "grand theft auto" came from the definition for "grand theft" which was distinguished from petty theft by the worth of the item. the value to cut off grand theft varies by state, but in California it's $400. The trailer's probably still worth more than that, even if it's completely junked.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 8, 2010 10:38 AM

DREAMTROVE


Tailor made for someone, Maybe FOX, also, perhaps they cooked it once over just a tad.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 8, 2010 10:41 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...


Quote:

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
"So you're ok with this 82 yr old pressuming they were guilty and trying to kill them... nice."

Hello,

I think this is a distortion of my opinion on the matter. I'm actually not 'okay' with him shooting at them, and stated so.
I'm even more not 'okay' with the victim of a crime paying a steeper penalty than the people he was trying to stop.

There's a lot here I'm not 'okay' with, okay?

--Anthony

Due to the use of Naomi 3.3.2 Beta web filtering, the following people may need to private-message me if they wish to contact me: Auraptor, Kaneman, Piratenews, Wulfenstar. I apologize for the inconvenience.



Sorry, this just seemed very glib and dismissive to me:

"I honestly would have expected the property owner to be charged with 'unlawful discharge of a firearm' or some such, while the thieves would be charged with their felony thieft. The former charge would remind the property owner when not to shoot, while the latter would remind the thieves when not to steal." When in fact he tried to kill them.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 8, 2010 10:46 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...


Quote:

Originally posted by Bytemite:
Doesn't really matter the condition of the trailer.

Quote:

Motor vehicle theft, sometimes referred to as grand theft auto by the media and police departments in the US, is the criminal act of stealing or attempting to steal a motor vehicle, including an automobile, truck, bus, coach, motorcycle, snowmobile, trailer or any other motorized vehicle.


Used to be "grand theft auto" came from the definition for "grand theft" which was distinguished from petty theft by the worth of the item. the value to cut off grand theft varies by state, but in California it's $400. The trailer's probably still worth more than that, even if it's completely junked.



The term "Grand" seemed ironical to me, like that somehow justified killing, 'well, it was grand after all."

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 8, 2010 11:02 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
It is a case of prosecutorial over reach. Plain and simple. Some fucktard prosecutor is trying to make a name for themselves, and this poor guy is going to have to deal with it.




I'm still having a hard time linking prosecutorial overreach with state ownership of the means of production. Are you backing away from your earlier claim that this was "socialism"?

AURaptor's Greatest Hits:

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 20:32 To AnthonyT:
Go fuck yourself.
On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you.

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 18:26 To President Obama:
Mr. President, you're a god damn, mother fucking liar.
Fuck you, you cock sucking community activist piece of shit.
... go fuck yourself, Mr. President.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 8, 2010 11:04 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


"When in fact he tried to kill them."

Hello,

Now you are divining into the property owner's intentions, a failure of assumption identical to the one you spoke out against. If a person can take property without trying to steal it (a possibility you raised) then it's equally plausible for someone to shoot at someone without trying to kill them.

I suspect he wanted to stop them from stealing his property, and would have been well satisfied if they were merely wounded, surrendered, etc. I will be the first to speak out against shooting at people when there is no present threat of violence and I agree his actions were irresponsible and dangerous, but for him to be charged as extensively as he was while they were not yet charged at all seems like a terrible disparity.

Indeed, I feel that the thieves bear not only the weight of their theft, but also a portion of the weight for the attempt to stop their theft. It is they, and not the property owner, who should be dealt with most harshly. If you find this glib or dismissive, then I am sorry. The whole fruit of this matter stemmed from their lawlessness, and they deserve the greater portion of its yield. The property owner is not innocent, but neither does he seem as deeply guilty of lawbreaking as the thieves.

--Anthony

Due to the use of Naomi 3.3.2 Beta web filtering, the following people may need to private-message me if they wish to contact me: Auraptor, Kaneman, Piratenews, Wulfenstar. I apologize for the inconvenience.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 8, 2010 11:06 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg


No, not backing away. The very idea of prosecutorial overreach is very socialistic. Those in authority, telling you how to live, when its "ok" to protect yourself...

What to think, what to eat, how to behave... same damn thing.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 8, 2010 11:15 AM

KIRKULES


I'm a big supporter of gun rights, but I don't think it's a good idea to use deadly force for nonviolent crimes unless they occur in your home. In Florida we have the Castle Doctrine, but the only time you can use deadly force when not on your property is to prevent a violent felony from happening. You can come to another's aid with deadly force not just protect yourself. As far as fleeing violent felons, I'm all for shooting them in the back if they try and run when the tables are turned on them.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 8, 2010 11:24 AM

FREMDFIRMA


In the words of Jayne:
"I was aimin for his head"

Bullets aren't magic, you know, and most people are terrible shots, especially under stress, this guy probably cranked a couple off in the general direction of the truck, which is in fact a reckless and dangerous act and a complete violation of the basic rules of use of a firearm.
http://www.thegunzone.com/therules.html

Also, even IF the vehicle was headed towards him, if you got time to crank a couple off, you got time to get the hell out of the way, which is a smarter use of your time.

Since no innocents were harmed, and the one guy hit WAS one of the criminals, that's something which could be let go with a fine and temporary suspension of CCW, if any.

But he made the mistake of usurping the "divine right" (SNARK!) of the badge bearing horde, and so they're gonna make an example out of his ass cause if folks get the idea they're able to defend their own lives and property, well, they might start questioning what we NEED so many blue suited jackboots for...

The smart thing to do, what I woulda done, and have done, on one occasion, is to grab my own vehicle and discretely follow them while calling in the badge bearing horde on THEM, keeping the dispatcher advised of the vehicles location, speed and bearing till a couple marked cruisers can bring it to heel, dunno about most folk but fucked if they were gonna outrun even my heap of a car pulling a flatbed with a pickup, if they even noticed I was tailin em at all.

Problem is most folk don't think in a crisis, they just react, and a lot of em have poor judgement, but really I think this is more about "How dare you presume to defend yourself/your property" than the guy potentially endangering bystanders, which sets me also on the "this is bullshit" side of the matter.

Anthony, I hate to break this to you, but this is a COMMON response to home invasions where the perp is shot by the homeowner, all too often the police charge in, rough up and charge the homeowner while the perp skips on lesser charges, or even free and clear in exchange for testimony against the homeowner - to the point where everyone knows it, but no one says it out loud, that it's best to be very sure there's only ONE story left when the cops get there - YOURS, cause the perp has shuffled off the mortal coil.

And the reason for that is because folks have recently begun to question the role of police, and whether they are actually effective or even interested, in the social protection that is supposed to be their job - so they're gotten kind of touchy about that sort of thing.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 8, 2010 11:25 AM

BYTEMITE


Ah. No, not how I intended it. Grand theft is merely the justification for intervention that any citizen technically has under law. Not necessarily shooting to kill, which to me would fall under that strict liability.

I don't necessarily know that we know the guy WAS shooting to kill, could have been a wayward warning shot. Or he might not really have been thinking, he's 82 and he's being robbed, and that'll probably get your old man ticker and adrenaline going. Which is why I argued that I doubt he's culpable.

I note culpability isn't necessarily a factor in strict liability. I suppose it seems excessive to me to make this a criminal case when the thief DIDN'T die and was engaged in some already inherently risky, dangerous, and potentially reckless behaviour. I suppose because of the circumstances, I don't see that the victim necessarily ADDED to the liability here; it was a liability that was already present when the thief chose to commit this crime.

But then, that's part of the reason I often disagree with strict liability.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 8, 2010 11:35 AM

TRAVELER


If they were no physical threat then you can't use physical violence. It may be different in other states. If they had kicked in his door, then the law would assume they had violent intent.
Rape is violence, so using a gun would probably be considered self-defence.

This is all preliminary. Wait until the DA's office goes over all the testimony.


http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=28764731
Traveler

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 8, 2010 11:44 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg


I dont get this.

Someone steals say... my dead grandfathers purple heart medal, and as they see me coming downstairs to stop them, they run. I put a bullet in them, trying to stop them from getting away, AND returning a priceless family heirloom...

but, IM the bad guy?

Explain that to me.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 8, 2010 12:01 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Never forget, it was Ted Kennedy who wanted to make it the law for home owners to flee their own homes when faced with a home invasion.


Sounds like Colorado thought a lot of Dead Ted and his kookie idea.





NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 8, 2010 12:26 PM

BYTEMITE


?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 8, 2010 12:42 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
No, not backing away. The very idea of prosecutorial overreach is very socialistic. Those in authority, telling you how to live, when its "ok" to protect yourself...

What to think, what to eat, how to behave... same damn thing.





Ah, I see. In WulfieWorld™, only socialists are subject to an authoritarian streak.



AURaptor's Greatest Hits:

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 20:32 To AnthonyT:
Go fuck yourself.
On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you.

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 18:26 To President Obama:
Mr. President, you're a god damn, mother fucking liar.
Fuck you, you cock sucking community activist piece of shit.
... go fuck yourself, Mr. President.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 8, 2010 12:46 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Never forget, it was Ted Kennedy who wanted to make it the law for home owners to flee their own homes when faced with a home invasion.




Cites? I only ask because I've never heard of this, and a quick Google search turns up no info.

AURaptor's Greatest Hits:

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 20:32 To AnthonyT:
Go fuck yourself.
On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you.

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 18:26 To President Obama:
Mr. President, you're a god damn, mother fucking liar.
Fuck you, you cock sucking community activist piece of shit.
... go fuck yourself, Mr. President.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 8, 2010 12:49 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


A perusal online shows that Colorado does have a Castle Doctrine in place, but it's pretty weak, and applies ONLY to intruders within the home or dwelling.

Sorry, Wulfie, but if you don't like it, lobby to change the law.

AURaptor's Greatest Hits:

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 20:32 To AnthonyT:
Go fuck yourself.
On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you.

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 18:26 To President Obama:
Mr. President, you're a god damn, mother fucking liar.
Fuck you, you cock sucking community activist piece of shit.
... go fuck yourself, Mr. President.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 8, 2010 1:28 PM

DREAMTROVE


"good is whatever creates life, evil is whatever destroys it" - albert schweitzer

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 8, 2010 1:43 PM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by dreamtrove:
"good is whatever creates life, evil is whatever destroys it" - albert schweitzer

It *IS* rather disquieting to see a man willing to KILL for set of old wheels. Anger I can understand, even a beating, but death?
He shoulda shot the tires, I say again.


The laughing Chrisisall


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 8, 2010 2:11 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER


Quote:

Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:

Originally posted by dreamtrove:
"good is whatever creates life, evil is whatever destroys it" - albert schweitzer

It *IS* rather disquieting to see a man willing to KILL for set of old wheels. Anger I can understand, even a beating, but death?
He shoulda shot the tires, I say again.


The laughing Chrisisall



I don't understand how your justice system works - surely 'attempted first degree murder' would be that you plotted the death of someone didn't succeed.

I worry about people discharging firearms - especially in populated places. It doesn't say what sort of location it was, but surely firing after someone might result in an innocent bystander being killed...and for the sake of a trailer???

I think the thieves should be charged with theft and the man should be charged with something - irresponsible use of a firearm? causing grevious bodily harm. I know that over here you get a lot of suspended sentences if there is 'just cause'.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 8, 2010 2:18 PM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:

I don't understand how your justice system works

Welcome to the party, pal!
-John McCalne


The laughing Chrisisall


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 8, 2010 2:31 PM

FREMDFIRMA


Quote:

Originally posted by chrisisall:
He shoulda shot the tires, I say again.


Chris, the guy was 82 years old and emotionally frazzled - he prolly *WAS* aimin at the tires!

A pistol isn't a magic wand, you know, and outside of a couple yards most people can't hit a goddamn thing reliably - too much hollywood in the belief that an old geezer is gonna make a shot like that at all, much less under stress, I mean, shit, he's lucky to have hit the bloody TRUCK.

Still, you are responsible for where your bullets go, unless (seemingly) you're wearing blue...

I am still watchin this mess in detroit with a CCW holder who's stray round clipped someones gramma, matter of fact...
http://www.detnews.com/article/20100708/METRO01/7080374/1410/METRO01/H
earing-delayed-until-Aug.-9-in-stray-bullet-death

Ed Bell, the guy who fired the shot, is gonna get raked over the coals by the court, and when that happens....

If the officer who's negligent discharge killed Aiyana Jones does not get the same treatment, some shit is gonna hit the fan bigtime around here - especially since the Police Union bought off both major papers to suppress the story, note how fast it DISAPPEARED, right after they chased down, shot and captured the guys carrying the video of them desperately plotting a coverup ?

For "reckless driving", mind you - and yet, no case exists, and no one has any clue where the guy they took into custody is cause other than a few photos of the incident, there's no evidence it even happened.

Anyhow, that's a stickin point with me, once you pull the trigger, YOU are responsible for where your bullets go, not the gun, not society, not shit happens, not even the bad guys... YOU.

On that, I will not budge, not for no one.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 8, 2010 2:39 PM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
once you pull the trigger, YOU are responsible for where your bullets go, not the gun, not society, not shit happens, not even the bad guys... YOU.

On that, I will not budge, not for no one.


Once again, I agree on every particular point.

If you're not a Martin Riggs, don't try to shoot like one.


The laughing Chrisisall


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 8, 2010 2:46 PM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...


Quote:

Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Someone trys to hurt me or mine, I shoot them.

Someone trys to steal from me or mine, I shoot them.




I think that's your dream scenario, I think you actually hope it happens. Some bad guys, the more the better, the blacker the better, try and do something that transgresses one of Wulf's Laws so you can give yourself righteous permission to kill them.
So how young would you kill? For how little? You haven't actually thought about that, huh? Seriously, you see someone trying to steal a bike out of your garage - shoot to kill?

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 8, 2010 2:53 PM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...


Quote:

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
"When in fact he tried to kill them."

Hello,

Now you are divining into the property owner's intentions, a failure of assumption identical to the one you spoke out against. If a person can take property without trying to steal it (a possibility you raised) then it's equally plausible for someone to shoot at someone without trying to kill them.

I suspect he wanted to stop them from stealing his property, and would have been well satisfied if they were merely wounded, surrendered, etc. I will be the first to speak out against shooting at people when there is no present threat of violence and I agree his actions were irresponsible and dangerous, but for him to be charged as extensively as he was while they were not yet charged at all seems like a terrible disparity.

Indeed, I feel that the thieves bear not only the weight of their theft, but also a portion of the weight for the attempt to stop their theft. It is they, and not the property owner, who should be dealt with most harshly. If you find this glib or dismissive, then I am sorry. The whole fruit of this matter stemmed from their lawlessness, and they deserve the greater portion of its yield. The property owner is not innocent, but neither does he seem as deeply guilty of lawbreaking as the thieves.

.



It's true Anthony that I presumed, but making a mistake about whether they were stealing or not has a roll back option, at worst it has monetary loss. Making a mistake with a gun doesn't. "Damn, I thought they were stealing... but instead I've killed one of them..."

I wouldn't worry too much about these guys getting prosecuted, that will happen. Citizens prosecuting and judging and passing sentence with firearms really needs to be looked to promptly.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Salon: NBC's Ronna blunder: A failed attempt to appeal to MAGA voters — except they hate her too
Thu, March 28, 2024 07:04 - 1 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Thu, March 28, 2024 05:27 - 6154 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Thu, March 28, 2024 02:07 - 3408 posts
Russian losses in Ukraine
Wed, March 27, 2024 23:21 - 987 posts
Elections; 2024
Wed, March 27, 2024 22:19 - 2069 posts
human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Wed, March 27, 2024 15:03 - 824 posts
NBC News: Behind the scenes, Biden has grown angry and anxious about re-election effort
Wed, March 27, 2024 14:58 - 2 posts
BUILD BACK BETTER!
Wed, March 27, 2024 14:45 - 5 posts
RFK Jr. Destroys His Candidacy With VP Pick?
Wed, March 27, 2024 11:59 - 16 posts
Russia says 60 dead, 145 injured in concert hall raid; Islamic State group claims responsibility
Wed, March 27, 2024 10:57 - 49 posts
Ha. Haha! HAHA! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHA!!!!!!
Tue, March 26, 2024 21:26 - 1 posts
You can't take the sky from me, a tribute to Firefly
Tue, March 26, 2024 16:26 - 293 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL