Homeowner in Aurora shoots, injures teen robbery suspect

[bribrius]

It's not 'OK' for peole to steal your car. But is your car really worth killing somebody over?

exactly. some of the dumb asses that have guns now scare me more than the criminal element.

Maybe i should carry more in case one of the dumb son of a bitches takes a shot at me while they piss down their leg thinking im a bad guy.

 

[bribrius]

+1 to Don.
When in doubt, go with the story of the one who was NOT engaged in criminal activities. Even if both parties are right (i.e. there was a misunderstanding of body language), the guy would not have been shot if he had not been there, stealing that radio.

well in that case it must be okay to shoot shoplifters. seriously now, what the hell are you guys on?

 

[CanuckMA]

I guess that is for each of us to decide. Still, that is not really the point of contention. The thief allegedly made threatening moves to the person holding the gun. That is why he got shot. Perhaps the thief had no other way out of the car, but then that was his problem.

Btw, Is getting raped worth killing over? After all, if you cooperate, there is almost no physical and no monetary damage. Certainly less than the value of a car, from a monetary point of view again. So if a car is not worth killing over, then getting raped isn't worth it either?

Even if the thief is 'only' stealing a car, the owner may depend on it for his livelihood. Given the almost non existent employee protections in the US, the theft of a car and failure to show up at work may get you fired. Is that enough of a threat to warrant shooting?

I don't know. Yes, my example is ridiculous, but I use it to show that ultimately, the thief (or rapist) has none other to blame than himself. We should not point fingers at the one pulling the trigger as long as he genuinely felt threatened.

How do you get from property to rape????

Don't know about you guys, but my car insurance covers theft. Yeah, it's a PITA. But one call to my insurance and I've got a rental until either A) my car is returned to me or B) it's deemed a loss, then my replacement insurance gets me a new one.

 

[Carol]

So, you're not home. Someone breaks in and steals your stuff. You find out who it is. Is it OK to find him and shoot him?

NO. This is the difference between "robbery" and "burglary". Robbery involves a person, burglary does not.

Would I shoot someone over a car? I drive a 2010 model. The payout from my insurance would be enough for me to nab a 2011 model. I'm no fool.

But as far as my life? Google the name Jamie Cates. For as long as the FBI Uniform Crime report has been on the web, New Hampshire, Vermont, and Maine have been the states with the lowest per capita violent crime. I happen to live in the city, but get outside the cities and crime in NH is practically unheard of.

Mt. Vernon, New Hampshire is a pastoral hamlet about 2 towns away from where I am. A young Kenpoist by the name of Jamie Cates lives there. On a day when her father was out of town on business, 4 wannabe gang bangers invaded her home with machetes, killed Jamie's mother and tried to kill Jamie. She was 11 years old at the time and managed to call 911 with her throat cut.

Google Mount Vernon Home Invasion if you want to know more. This was NOT a drug issue or because the parents were in to nasty stuff, or any of the other crap that often goes on with armed home invasions. The Cates family was a family of innocent, law abiding people....and their slime that slashed them to death likely did so as part of a gang initiation, with the slimeball that slashed Jaime saying "I didn't know she was left alive, otherwise I would have killed her."

How much more close to home do you need to get than 2 towns away in, what has proven year after year after year, to be the safest part of the country???

No, I don't care if someone takes my stereo. Or my car. They are insured. Or my blackberry or my laptop....my employer will replace them. My homeowner's insurance covers everything else, and I insured the good stuff for replacement value so I can buy brand new bling if its lost. Again, I'm no fool.

What I will NOT put up with is someone making a threat or an attempt to harm my health or safety. PERIOD.

 

[yorkshirelad]

well in that case it must be okay to shoot shoplifters. seriously now, what the hell are you guys on?

Well if I ever see you getting the crap kicked out of you on a darkstreet by a bunch of nutters, I'll keep my glock in its holster. After all, is intervening really worth it. Obviously there's a reason for the beating and maybe the guys are just misunderstood.
But to answer your question no, it's not ok to shoot shoplifters!

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

well yah,

i just dont know if i believe that. Of course someone would say they made threatening moves, they are trying to justify why they shot them. If i shot someone unarmed i would try to say some ******** like that too.

So because you would lie in order to protect a wrongful death, then everyone else who utilized lethal force in order to protect themselves must as well?

A lot of people with guns just have them because they live in fear .
People like that are trigger happy. Or you have the other people that have guns and are looking for a reason to shoot someone. The freaks.

Sometimes fear can be reasonable. I can tell you that a lot of people who live in South Central Los Angeles have a reasonable fear of being victims of assault. I'm a police officer, I carry a gun off-duty because I know how easy it is for people to be victims of crimes. I have gotten into off-duty situations where I have had to use my gun in order to protect myself. Am I being paranoid?

I guess I should also point out the estimated over 1 million times that firearms are used in self-defense each year, the vast majority of whom do not discharge them in doing so.

Are those the "freaks" that you are referring to?

walk out, someones in the car, shoot.

You make a judgement without knowing all of the facts. I guess that's why you wouldn't be good for a jury.

wtf is that, seriously now. Do they have a right to? Probably. But unless the kid REALLY WAS MAKING THREATENING MOVES, which i tend to doubt then a. they are one of the people that live in fear and would shoot at noises (the kind that shoot their own family in the dark by accident) or b. one of the freaks that have this weird fascination for thinking they are in the wild west or something.

Why do you doubt it?

 

[bribrius]

Well if I ever see you getting the crap kicked out of you on a darkstreet by a bunch of nutters, I'll keep my glock in its holster. After all, is intervening really worth it. Obviously there's a reason for the beating and maybe the guys are just misunderstood.
But to answer your question no, it's not ok to shoot shoplifters!

i dont see the comparison. could be my failure. One is potential harm , other is assault taking place.

I am not "siding with the criminal" as far as i don't welcome or encourage thievery. Having the abilility to defend ones self is ones right. I do encourage rational thinking around firearms and training classes for some. I feel safer when level headed, rational people have weapons and morons with weapons make me nervous. Moron with a weapon is more dangerous than a criminal without one.
Lot of accidental shootings occur, and questionable self defense reponses.

Mostly though, why would you want to kill someone if you dont have to? That kind of makes you, well a murderer.

 

[Bruno@MT]

How do you get from property to rape????

Don't know about you guys, but my car insurance covers theft. Yeah, it's a PITA. But one call to my insurance and I've got a rental until either A) my car is returned to me or B) it's deemed a loss, then my replacement insurance gets me a new one.

No it doesn't.

At least, mine doesn't, because you don't do that for a 7 year old car. But even if you do, the insurance company only pays you what they think the value was of the car at that time, based on write-off value. Not what it would cost you to buy a similar car.

 

[Bruno@MT]

well in that case it must be okay to shoot shoplifters. seriously now, what the hell are you guys on?

Seriously, what are YOU on, since you seem determined to make an argument based on what I am NOT saying.

I did NOT say it is allright to shoot shoplifters or thieves. That argument clearly stated that IF there is doubt about whether there was a threat or not, and no way to prove it one way or the other, then you should go with the story of the one who was not already engaged in criminal activity.

Seriously, are you intentionally twisting my words in order to have something to react to?

 

[Bruno@MT]

Mostly though, why would you want to kill someone if you dont have to? That kind of makes you, well a murderer.

No it doesn't. It makes you someone who defends his property.
Property is yours, and you don't have to let someone take it, do you?

 

[CanuckMA]

No it doesn't.

At least, mine doesn't, because you don't do that for a 7 year old car. But even if you do, the insurance company only pays you what they think the value was of the car at that time, based on write-off value. Not what it would cost you to buy a similar car.

That's a choice you make. Both my cars, 5 and 4 years are insured against theft, and for full replacement value.

 

[Bruno@MT]

That's a choice you make. Both my cars, 5 and 4 years are insured against theft, and for full replacement value.

Aye. that is indeed a choice you make. It is not the default, and it certainly isn't cheap.

The argument that nothing material is worth killing over is a bit extreme. Your property is yours. The question the other guy should ask is: 'Is stealing this car worth dying for'. And if he is not prepared to answer with a yes, then imo he should not have tried to steal it. As soon as we start blaming the victims for resisting, we are not on a good track.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

That's a choice you make. Both my cars, 5 and 4 years are insured against theft, and for full replacement value.

My cars are so old that my insurance company will no longer insure them for 'comprehensive' or 'collision'. I have liability insurance only on them. If they're stolen, I'm just hosed.

However, I agree with you about defending property versus defending life.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I am reminded of a woman I used to work with. She was a police dispatcher. Her husband was murdered by punks who were trying to steal their truck; it was his pride and joy and when they were woken up by the alarm, he ran outside to confront them. He was armed. No shots were fired, but his body was found under the truck, his skull was crushed and the gun was gone. No one was ever caught.

Consider the principles of self-defense. One certainly has the right to protect their own property, but does that conflict with the concept of self-defense as the highest priority? In other words, is my vehicle worth MY life?

Any time I physically confront someone, I am assuming risk to my own life. I cannot predict the outcome. I may win, I may lose. Of all the possible outcomes, one of them is my own death. So the question, from a purely self-defense point of view, is whether or not my property is worth the potential loss of my own life.

Other considerations would be the time and potential expense of defending myself in court if the police or the DA do not think that my use of deadly force met the legal standards for doing so. I'm not saying that this should stop a person from defending themselves; but that personally, I cannot afford an attorney. I can't afford to lose my job because I'm sitting in jail and can't make bail. If it happens because I was defending myself from someone who broke into my house, well, I guess that's life. If it happens because I decided to go confront a thief and things got out of hand, I'm not sure that's something I need in my life.

Not telling anyone how to react, just saying these are considerations.

Like a 'method actor', I ask myself what my motivation is. If it's defending my life, that's one thing. If it's defending my property, that's another. My reactions may vary based on that.

 

[Bruno@MT]

Fwiw I personally agree with Bill and CanuckMA.
However, that does not mean I think it is wrong if someone wants to defend his property.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Interesting situation. Car owner prevailed, but was stabbed twice. Worth it?

http://www.tulsaworld.com/webextra/...ctid=450&articleid=20101001_11_0_Avcifa232663

Police respond after burglary victim beats suspect

By JARREL WADE World Staff Writer
Published: 10/1/2010 6:43 AM
Last Modified: 10/1/2010 12:57 PM

A victim of an attempted car theft told police he thought he killed the burglar after the car alarm woke him up Friday morning, police said.

He chased the would-be burglar, a black male about six feet tall and in his 20s, to Byrd Middle School where he tackled the man, Burton said.

The burglar pulled out a knife and apparently stabbed the victim twice -- one small wound in the shoulder and one small puncture on his chest, police said.

The victim then beat the burglary suspect to the point that he thought he had killed him, Burton said.

Read more from this Tulsa World article at http://www.tulsaworld.com/webextra/...ctid=450&articleid=20101001_11_0_Avcifa232663

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Fwiw I personally agree with Bill and CanuckMA.
However, that does not mean I think it is wrong if someone wants to defend his property.

I don't think it is wrong either. I just think that when one is defending property and not one's own life, one might wish to consider the risks of doing so.

 

[Cryozombie]

Interesting situation. Car owner prevailed, but was stabbed twice. Worth it?

Nah... that conflict should have ended when the bad guy fled. There was no reason to give chase, IMO.