Finally one for the good guys - Camera install pays off

[jk96]

Do you know what the other warrant was for? If he has a history of running after posting bond they may hold off until yours is complete. I would bet just from my experience he now has the unwanted attention of your sheriffs dept. I know that time, manpower, assignment priority will also delay the arrest property crimes often go on the back burner because of an increase in crimes against persons. tonight the bank my daughter works in was robbed!! 10 min before closing. My priority no one was hurt. On the bright side she starts a new job next week.

Sent from my iPad using TractorByNet

Felony non-support.

 

[texasjohn]

I happen to disagree. There was a good reason why horse thieves were hung when caught, and nobody complained if they were shot (unless they got stuck burying them.) Stuff costs. And you pay those costs with a portion of your lives. Which means every theft is stealing some of your life away. Those folks who don't think shooting a thief is worth it, don't particularly value their lives, either because they truly have worthless lives, or are just ignorant of the connection. And one of the reasons why we have so much stealing is because there aren't strong consequences being applied to it. The thieves certainly aren't worried about paying for it in the afterlife.

Disagreement is fine, your right under the Constitution. And, you provide your logic and opinions for doing so.

I can only point out that this site, which apparently has studied the question, says that the laws of all 50 states disagree with your point of view.

"Shoot a Robber, Not a Thief
Self-defense laws throughout the nation see crimes against persons differently than crimes against property. In most states, you can shoot someone committing a felony crime against your person. In no state may you shoot someone committing a crime against property."

I get it, you are not in support of the legal process of law enforcement, judge, jury as enacted by the Will of the People in each of 50 states, but rather favor a return to summarily hanging/shooting/killing an accused (by you only) thief, expecting that you can personally carry this out without personal, emotional or societal repercussions. And, this is justified, in your mind, because the vast majority of people in the US have "truly worthless lives, or just ignorant...."

Certainly a novel but not unique view...could be that there are clauses in the US constitution and laws in 50 states simply because the opposing view needed to be formally stated, along with penalties for those not adhering to the common view.

I certainly hope that you never act on your belief, because your post in this thread would be front and center evidence of your predisposition and prior planning to shoot a thief who has not confronted you with bodily harm. Ramifications in the afterlife aside, payment for such an act would surely result in prison in any of the 50 states.

I stand by my statement:
...Nope, as aggravating as theft is, stuff isn't worth shooting someone over, lacking deadly threat during its commission, which makes the theft moot and self defense paramount.

 

[jmc]

Sounds like that if you try to detain a thief, whether you have a gun or not, he could just walk away, hoping that you play by the rules.

And to take those laws one step further, if I'm stealing someone's scrap and they confront me with their weapon drawn, even though shooting me would be illegal, then could I shoot them and claim self defense?

 

[hutchman]

Sounds like that if you try to detain a thief, whether you have a gun or not, he could just walk away, hoping that you play by the rules.

And to take those laws one step further, if I'm stealing someone's scrap and they confront me with their weapon drawn, even though shooting me would be illegal, then could I shoot them and claim self defense?

Stuff like that has happend before. It could go south. If they are involved in a felony (some states allow misdemeanor too but I draw line at a felony since in todays age, if you pull a weapon it better be serious or you are going to get charged with brandishing or any number of things) you can detain them ... is basically citizens arrest. It is in the laws of most states but most police don't want you "taking matters into your own hands". Every person and situation is different. If you are a NRA member and get their magazine, there is a section in the front called Armed Citizen and that's about the only section I read at times. It's the stuff the media never carries and it is all about people who thwart criminals all the time with a firearm.

NRA Publications and Magazines

 

[DABSGT]

"most police don't want you "taking matters into your own hands".

Hutchman Most police don't want you to take things into your own hands because most of the time things go bad for the victim. Yes in some cases things do go right as in the NRA mag but that is not always the rule mostly the exception. Don't get me wrong I applaud those who get involved to help them self or others but I have seen too many on the wrong end of the equation. This also includes off duty LEO, unless it is a life and death situation being a reliable witness is a better option.

 

[hutchman]

"most police don't want you "taking matters into your own hands".

Hutchman Most police don't want you to take things into your own hands because most of the time things go bad for the victim. Yes in some cases things do go right as in the NRA mag but that is not always the rule mostly the exception. Don't get me wrong I applaud those who get involved to help them self or others but I have seen too many on the wrong end of the equation. This also includes off duty LEO, unless it is a life and death situation being a reliable witness is a better option.

Agreed, it needs to be a life or death situation or at least you preceive it that way. Example, someone breaking in your car ... lethal force isn't warranted. In most cases you can't protect "stuff". Someone breaking into your house in the middle of the night and they enter through or near your children's bedroom ... clearly they aren't there for milk and cookies but you don't know if their intent is to steal, harm you or your family. My weapon is coming out in that case and will escalate force commensurate to the threat.

I dissagree with "most of the time things go bad for the victim". I've been researching this kind of stuff for a long time ... mainly due to all the fud going on around Columbine, Sandy Hook, etc., and having to write letters to law makers when they are in session and go to meetings ran by those with an agenda that want to take away our rights. Crime statistics bear out that an armed person fairs much better in an attack than had they not been armed. That is never reported in the media and people need to know it.

In this country we don't have a "gun law" problem. We have a "gun law" enforcement problem. We have plenty of laws but they are not being enforced and in some cases flat out ignored by our chief law enforcement officials. I could go on and on about this but I digress. We also have a problem with calling evil evil and blaming stuff on all kinds of things instead of stressing personal responsibility.

 

[Dr_Zinj]

"as enacted by the Will of the People"

That's the kicker, was the law enacted by the Will of the people, or was it tacked on as a fine print rider by someone who was going to monetarily benefit by it, or to get some loud mouthed annoying old constituent off the politicians' back?

"someone breaking in your car ... lethal force isn't warranted." It is if you're in the car and you warned them to leave.

 

[hutchman]

"someone breaking in your car ... lethal force isn't warranted." It is if you're in the car and you warned them to leave.

Yes! Very true. I guess I should of been more clear on that one. We have a problem with youth that will walk through the neighborhood at night and if a vechicle is unlocked they will help themselves to the contents but if it's locked they'll move on. That was the kind of thing I was getting at.

 

[davesl708]

texasjohn; "Self-defense laws throughout the nation see crimes against persons differently than crimes against property. In most states, you can shoot someone committing a felony crime against your person. In no state may you shoot someone committing a crime against property."

This statement is not completely true. In Texas about 10 years ago a neighbor spotted thieves carrying out property from the neighbors house. While on the phone with 911 he went out into the yard and shot the thieves to stop them. He was acquitted of murder.

My state allows for defense of property as well. Wichita, KS in the 1980's. Guy shot and killed a man breaking into his car parked on the street. Access to the car gave the thief access to the house via the garage door opener. Guy was acquitted.

Thieves need to stay out of other peoples stuff.
I don't advocate for shooting someone over stuff but they need to know some will shoot them so stay out.
The thief makes the decision to trespass and steal. I have no sympathy for them.

 

[hutchman]

I remember one of my instructors (a lawyer) talking about the Castle Doctrine and using TX as an example. He told the story of a case in TX where someone was bashing the headlights and glass out of a vehicle with a baseball bat and was shot for doing it and nothing happend to the shooter/homeowner. Then he contrasted that with our laws at the time and said if someone broke into your house and they stayed downstairs and all your bedrooms were upstairs ... as long as the bad guys stayed down stairs you couldn't shoot them or go looking for them. If they came upstairs you would have to retreat to a locked bedroom and or closet and if they came in there you could shoot them and be justified.

A lot of thieves know the law and how to skirt it or use it for their gain. That's why you see so many of these "go down in a blaze of glory to get media attention" events happen in "gun free" zones like schools, businesses etc. The perp knows his chance of facing resistance is slim and a common theme when they do face some resistance is to quickly off themselves.