Thief wounded, released by cops: victim's guns confiscated!

[Steve in PA]

hello???? any intelligent life out there?? i doubt it.

The guy in the post your refering to walked out the front door and pointed the shotgun at the cops!!!!!

If you can't see the difference between what they did and the guy shooting at something he can't see in the original post.....

Having a gun pointed at you is a direct threat. Anyone has a right to defend themselves against that.

Someone running away from you is not a direct or perceived threat.

Like I said.....the more I read on here, the more I hope I don't live near any of the posters.

 

[carpettbaggerr]

using the childish method of taking an arguement to an extreme and then showing how it's wrong.

It's called Reductio ad absurdum. Steve also shows a mastery of Argumentum ad hominem.

I myself can think of a few other things God loved.

 

[carebear]

Carpettbaggerr,

Reductio ad adsurdum isn't childish. It is a valid logical tool to discover the ultimate utility of an argument. If an argument is defended by "well, it won't go THAT far" (see almost every defense of "reasonable" gun control), reductio is a good way of pointing out the natural and logical progression.

It's a valid tool, don't disparage it.

Ad hominem is just bad debate technique.

Ya big poo-poo head.

 

[Ryder]

Ok, I am going to have to admit there may be some fault in my reasoning about this criminal returning to the scene of the crime thing. I did some Google searches in an attempt to find out how frequently this happens. Turns out not to be a popular hit. To be honest I can only say according to my results it is a huge urban legend.

I remain of the opinion that the deciding factor is the shooters frame of mind and what he believed to be true, nobody else. Anyone who has lived a long honest life shouldn't be legally raped due to the provacations of a dangerous criminal. It is a shame the homeowner wasn't more prepared to end this extreme threat to the community which now remains free to walk among us.

Steve, we're just not on the same side when it comes to choosing between legal technicalities or right-vs-wrong. Don't take it personal.

 

[S Roper]

"I am sorry, I guess I misunderstand the meaning of retreat.

"If someone leaves, or makes to leave territory with weapons, gear and loot, they are making a strategic withdrawl."

I think there is a misunderstanding. I always considered "strategic withdrawl" a euphemism for "retreat."

 

[longrifleman]

I went back and reread the original story to confirm some facts in dispute in the discussion. I couldn't find where Quickie said he shot into the dark. The REPORTER said he shot into the dark. The reporter's "accuracy" is in serious question due to the .20 caliber revolver "fact". That could be a typo that the reporter isn't responsible for. But, we have all seen how much importance the press puts on getting the facts straight. Where were the street lights if any? Any exterior lights on the house? Any light coming through windows or doors?

The bad shoot due to dark calls should be withheld until we have more facts.

As for the larger point of shooting to protect property, I think the Texans have it right. Unfortunately most of the rest of the country isn't so enlightened.

Someone running away from you is not a direct or perceived threat.

I would have to disagree about the percieved threat part at least. How about moving to cover or to flank the homeowner. As RYDER pointed out, do you have to wait until you are shot to shoot back? From the original story the perp had the shotgun UNTIL he was shot. What are the relative ranges of handgun against shotgun? Would you think it is smart to let the perp move out of handgun range while he had a shotgun in hand? We don't know if the shotgun was loaded but the owner should have. If it was I would consider myself to be in imminent danger until the perp was disarmed. Moving away may be what the lawyers look at but anyone with even a small amount of tactical sense knows that is no measure of the truth.

 

[12 Volt Man]

OK lets see I can add more fuel to the fire.

I think it was best summed up with "Bad Guy in the House" = open season.

It is my understanding that when someone enters your house/domicle armed or not then it is "Open Season" on said person.

I don't know everything and I am learning more every day so I might be wrong.

I remember from the news here in Utah several years ago. An elderly man and his wife are home in bed. They hear someone trying to enter a sliding glass door in the back of the house. The man arms himself and stands near the door telling whoever is there that if they come in, they will be shot. Perp keeps trying and eventually steps in. BOOM! Perp is shot. Turns out it was a neighbor kid on drugs who didn't know where he was. No charges filed against homeowner.

I realize every case has different circumstances. But I really believe that Unauthorized entrance into a house = open season. That being said, I do believe there are times when it could be considered a "bad shoot" when someone is in your house. I don't a have a particular scenerio but it seems that there would have to be.

The example above would ended up being a "bad shoot" in my mind because I think more time should be taken to evaluate the danger/threat level. For me, the threat level better be pretty high before I decide to take a life. But in the eyes of the law it was a "good shoot".

Oh and with regard to the shooting in the original post. Probably a "good shoot" at least in the eyes of the law. But was it tactically a good shoot and did he have the right gun for the job? Probably not. If I am going to shoot a perp with a .22, then I better be able to see him, I need shot placement with a .22 for sure. Now if I had a .45 then shot placement isn't quite as important because everybody knows that a .45 will take an arm or a leg clean off

 

[carebear]

Comparative ranges, unsafe backstops and darkness are all irrelevent details.

The key point is that the homeowner DID NOT HAVE TO GO OUTSIDE.

He pursued the guy out, he chose to engage someone who was fleeing (or maneuvering, or preparing to lay seige, it doesn't matter) when all he had to do was lock his door and call police!

Phrase it however you want, and I don't agree with it, but under the law, you have a right to defend yourself and in some places your property, but you do NOT have a legal right to then try to get your stuff BACK using force. Once the thief runs away, doing so is initiating a new confrontation and you lose the affirmative defense of justified use of force.

I can't believe, given the facts as written anyway, that this is even being debated.

 

[carpettbaggerr]

Ya big poo-poo head.

I resemble that remark!

You're right, though. Reductio is a valid logical argument. Steve was really building more of a Straw Man.

Unfortunately, I think I was correct about the ad hominem abusive .

 

[ken grant]

Laws

LAWS NEED TO BE CHANGED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :banghead:

 

[CZ-100]

The cops confiscated his shotgun and .22.

Just another reason to own LOTS of guns.

 

[Delmar]

The key point is that the homeowner DID NOT HAVE TO GO OUTSIDE.

I think the key point is the bad guy should never have been inside without the homeowners consent.

And why is it that we aren't supposed to chase down the low life who just stole our firearms and money, and held a pistol to our head, and whale the tar out of them? That is so unfair.

 

[carebear]

I think the key point is the bad guy should never have been inside without the homeowners consent.

Well, yeah. But then we're back down to zombie threads.

That is so unfair.

Yep, it's the law, not fairness or justice.

Stupid civilization.

 

[Delmar]

Stupid civilization.

I'm with you there, Carebear. I am not a legal scholar, so I cannot point out where common sense and the law took different paths, but it seems like one is headed to Macie and the other to Dixie and a rapid rate.

And I know that you really shouldn't chase the bad guy down the street and send him to his maker, either.

It would be illuminating to have the judicial and law enforcement people swap jobs for about a year-maybe then we would not have criminals walking the streets who should not be among us. One thing is for sure-either the laws on the books need to be more vigorously and fairly enforced, or the people are going to have their say.

 

[DRZinn]

And why is it that we aren't supposed to chase down the low life who just stole our firearms and money, and held a pistol to our head, and whale the tar out of them?

Nothing wrong with that, just don't shoot him. Especially when you can't see him.

 

[vito]

I have heard of cases where the LEO's confiscated ALL of the firearms that the victim told them were in the house, on the theory that the shooter/victim might be charged with a crime. The lesson it has taught me is to keep at least one gun separate from the rest so that if the cops take what they think is all of my guns as "evidence" I will still have one for self defense. I know of some folks who keep a safe deposit box at a nearby bank just for the purpose of storing that "back up" pistol.