Thief wounded, released by cops: victim's guns confiscated!
- Thread starter Preacherman
- Start date
- Status
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. This means that they intend to return in greater force to claim more territory/loot or to cause further harm and injury.
If they drop all gear and loot and run for the hills that is a retreat.
An enemy that intends to return in greater force is still a danger, and should be neutralized as quickly as possible. An enemy that has been routed and is in full retreat is at best one step away from surrender, and at worst will try to avoid further confrontation.
Tory, you sound like you might belong in the UK. A man who steals from you while threatening to bring about your demise is certainly not your friend.
If someone leaves, or makes to leave territory with weapons, gear and loot, they are making a strategic withdrawl. This means that they intend to return in greater force to claim more territory/loot or to cause further harm and injury.
If they drop all gear and loot and run for the hills that is a retreat.
An enemy that intends to return in greater force is still a danger, and should be neutralized as quickly as possible. An enemy that has been routed and is in full retreat is at best one step away from surrender, and at worst will try to avoid further confrontation.
Tory, you sound like you might belong in the UK. A man who steals from you while threatening to bring about your demise is certainly not your friend.
a question for you, Tory. Ever had a loaded weapon stuck to your head? Ever witnessed a loved one having a gun stuck to their head? I'll just bet the first thing which comes to your mind is all about the law 
What we have here is one bad guy roaming the streets until the prosecutor sees fit to bag him, and a victim who is now known to be disarmed, thanks to a "free press" (your right to know, ya know
) and now the internet.
Where is the guarrantee this bad person is not going to remove said victim from his soul in order to remove a witness? The only witness if the facts are correct.
If that should happen, "the law" makes no provision for charging the prosecutor for dereliction of duty-SCOTUS has ruled they cannot, nor the police, be held accountable. Maybe you are of another mind, but a lot of us would like "the law" to protect us while we are alive to enjoy breathing.
You only have to dig through several recent cases to realize why people come to the conclusion that the law is not always there for the victim. I would not blame the victim in this case if he went over next week and gunned down his attacker-others might not see the bg as a threat, but I'll bet you a shiny new quarter the victim does!
BTW-that "testosterone" thing. Thats an anti line too
What we have here is one bad guy roaming the streets until the prosecutor sees fit to bag him, and a victim who is now known to be disarmed, thanks to a "free press" (your right to know, ya know
) and now the internet. Where is the guarrantee this bad person is not going to remove said victim from his soul in order to remove a witness? The only witness if the facts are correct.
If that should happen, "the law" makes no provision for charging the prosecutor for dereliction of duty-SCOTUS has ruled they cannot, nor the police, be held accountable. Maybe you are of another mind, but a lot of us would like "the law" to protect us while we are alive to enjoy breathing.
You only have to dig through several recent cases to realize why people come to the conclusion that the law is not always there for the victim. I would not blame the victim in this case if he went over next week and gunned down his attacker-others might not see the bg as a threat, but I'll bet you a shiny new quarter the victim does!
BTW-that "testosterone" thing. Thats an anti line too
TheFederalistWeasel
member
Some people here are mixing up self-defense with combat a recipe for guaranteed prison time.
You start talking about retreat, strategic with drawl, an enemy that intends to return in greater force etc…
The judge will have you up on a psych eval. Before you can grab your BDU’s.
You start talking about retreat, strategic with drawl, an enemy that intends to return in greater force etc…
The judge will have you up on a psych eval. Before you can grab your BDU’s.
Gray has said it so much more eloquintly than I may.
Curare and Tony, If a person is a viable threat and I believe I can reach out and touch him without threatening others I will do it in a heart heat. Otherwise he better sell me on his change of heart and career and he will not have much time to show me that.
Let your fingers do the walking. Well your strongside index finger at least.
Curare and Tony, If a person is a viable threat and I believe I can reach out and touch him without threatening others I will do it in a heart heat. Otherwise he better sell me on his change of heart and career and he will not have much time to show me that.
Let your fingers do the walking. Well your strongside index finger at least.
Jon Coppenbarger
Member
Go into your own state and add up just the laws against thief and maybe the one against murder and I bet they add up to more than (2).
You must be one of the one's I was talking about. You can quote a certain law, well I do not care to have to read 30 feet of books on laws in most states to follow what our lord has taught me in 10 simple to follow rules.
Why ask answers to questions you can find yourself? If you do not know or care I hope you are not one of those that's supposed to protect us.
I know and quite a few here know me personally and I am actually one of the I don't care what you do one's and pretty mello so just go ahead and pick on my spelling and my beliefs in my God and what he had to say all you want as it just goes to prove exactly what I have stated!
Am I the one you guys think you can pick on till I quit or give up? Well go ahead correct my grammmmer, WE all know people like you and we all like them about the same as if you cared, LOL
ARE YOU TICKED YET AND CAN'T WAIT TO FIRE BACK? WELL READ ON DO NOT QUIT YET! LOL!,LOL!LOL!
Guess what you can rant all you want now cause I will pass on this subject now.
So speak , Sit , Speak , roll over , thats good, Here's a treat! go ahead speak! Speak! maybe some body will rub your tummy for you not me.
Not ME LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You must be one of the one's I was talking about. You can quote a certain law, well I do not care to have to read 30 feet of books on laws in most states to follow what our lord has taught me in 10 simple to follow rules.
Why ask answers to questions you can find yourself? If you do not know or care I hope you are not one of those that's supposed to protect us.
I know and quite a few here know me personally and I am actually one of the I don't care what you do one's and pretty mello so just go ahead and pick on my spelling and my beliefs in my God and what he had to say all you want as it just goes to prove exactly what I have stated!
Am I the one you guys think you can pick on till I quit or give up? Well go ahead correct my grammmmer, WE all know people like you and we all like them about the same as if you cared, LOL
ARE YOU TICKED YET AND CAN'T WAIT TO FIRE BACK? WELL READ ON DO NOT QUIT YET! LOL!,LOL!LOL!
Guess what you can rant all you want now cause I will pass on this subject now.
So speak , Sit , Speak , roll over , thats good, Here's a treat! go ahead speak! Speak! maybe some body will rub your tummy for you not me.
Not ME LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
saltydog
Member
Right or wrong, I am not going to say. I am sure a person can do "interesting" things whey they have had a pistol held to their temple.
TheFederalistWeasel
member
Some one having a Prozac moment?
Jon, you mind ID'ing who that rant was aimed at?
Jon, you mind ID'ing who that rant was aimed at?
carebear
Member
Heck, I'm not even sure WHAT it was aimed at.
Wayne D
Member
"You no [sic] what makes me sick is why do we have thousands of laws on the books that defend the right to break most of the 10 commandments. " [fractured syntax in original]
Two queries for this Talmudic scholar:
1. How and when were the "10 commandments" enacted as the civil law of this entire nation; and
2. What laws "defend the right to break most" of them?
Inquiring minds want to know........
This post by Tory
Are going to argue about translations?
I understand a better more accurate translation would "do not murder" as in premeditated and for personal gain.
Realisticaly why take something personaly typed from a machine only God knows is where ? In a state jail library?
Should we just start arguing about individual rights to SD vs Corp property rights. Or how about open cary vs concealed.
I understand a better more accurate translation would "do not murder" as in premeditated and for personal gain.
Realisticaly why take something personaly typed from a machine only God knows is where ? In a state jail library?
Should we just start arguing about individual rights to SD vs Corp property rights. Or how about open cary vs concealed.
DRZinn
Member
I know the rules aren't the same, but in the Marine Corps one of the justifications for the use of deadly force is: "theft of property not involving national security but inherently dangerous to others." The guy was in the act of stealing a shotgun....
carebear
Member
But civil law is different, and as you know, we live not in a military dictatorship nor a theocracy, but instead a Constitutional Republic with a secularized body of law that descends from centuries of jurisprudence.
Which is mostly why we are the beacon of freedom and not some tinpot, loser, third-world cesspit of unrelenting religious violence.
Which is mostly why we are the beacon of freedom and not some tinpot, loser, third-world cesspit of unrelenting religious violence.
Old Dog
Member
Joinin' in a little late but ... it seems to me that one school of thought being presented here is:
It is perfectly okay to endanger the lives of others AND risk going to prison for at least manslaughter, possibly murder by shooting wildly in the dark outside your house) , AFTER the threat has retreated ...
because ... criminals have too many rights and someone needs to get them off the streets, by any means necessary ...
It is perfectly okay to endanger the lives of others AND risk going to prison for at least manslaughter, possibly murder by shooting wildly in the dark outside your house) , AFTER the threat has retreated ...
because ... criminals have too many rights and someone needs to get them off the streets, by any means necessary ...
Standing Wolf
Member in memoriam
Helps to keep your guns handy. Not a bad idea to lock the house, especially at night.
Ryder
Member
The legal arguments against this guy are what could have happened? What might have happened? Go soccer moms! This homeowner doesn't need any trial to determine the BGs guilt, he was there, it happened to him, there is no uncertainty involved.
This badguy was armed with a shotgun. The homeowner had no way of knowing this badguy wouldn't dump the loot on his property line to return for more as they often do. That is a reasonable fear in my book. He hit the guy twice! That equates to endangering the community by shooting wildly into the night? Hahhaha, you guys are cracking me up.
I wouldn't worry about the homeowner being able to defend himself further. You don't live that long without having having many friends who care enough about you to loan you one in a heartbeat. It'd take me five minutes to lay my hands on as many replacements as I need.
This badguy was armed with a shotgun. The homeowner had no way of knowing this badguy wouldn't dump the loot on his property line to return for more as they often do. That is a reasonable fear in my book. He hit the guy twice! That equates to endangering the community by shooting wildly into the night? Hahhaha, you guys are cracking me up.
I wouldn't worry about the homeowner being able to defend himself further. You don't live that long without having having many friends who care enough about you to loan you one in a heartbeat. It'd take me five minutes to lay my hands on as many replacements as I need.
I will admit, I didn't read through all the posts.
Steve is right, if the guns were in the possion of the BG then they have to dust and the DA has to make a case from.
He is still a law abiding person, he can take out a loan to get another gun if the prep comes back.
I don't agree that they cops should be able to take everything and I liked that idea about a loner. But, if it was involved then they have to take it for evidence to put this BG, away.
I just finished paying off a $900 rifle, and AR-15 type. That is my thrid in line for my home defense, the Saiga 12gauge first, the Kimber 1911 to get to the Saiga, and the AR (or XM) with light if needed. I would expect all three guns to be taken if I had to use them, or one, or two.
I don't agree with the policy and I think that the cops are wrong but that is just another reason for a rainy day fund, and to ensure that no SNS laws are passed due to maybe that's all the rainy day fund will buy.
Wayne
Steve is right, if the guns were in the possion of the BG then they have to dust and the DA has to make a case from.
He is still a law abiding person, he can take out a loan to get another gun if the prep comes back.
I don't agree that they cops should be able to take everything and I liked that idea about a loner. But, if it was involved then they have to take it for evidence to put this BG, away.
I just finished paying off a $900 rifle, and AR-15 type. That is my thrid in line for my home defense, the Saiga 12gauge first, the Kimber 1911 to get to the Saiga, and the AR (or XM) with light if needed. I would expect all three guns to be taken if I had to use them, or one, or two.
I don't agree with the policy and I think that the cops are wrong but that is just another reason for a rainy day fund, and to ensure that no SNS laws are passed due to maybe that's all the rainy day fund will buy.
Wayne
It's not that I strongly advocate judge, jury, and exectuioner. Don't get me wrong. It's that the BG posed an imminent threat to the victim.
The BG's intent cannot be determined with sufficient confidence to conclude that he was indeed making every effort to retreat. Let's start with some of the facts:
1.) The BG threatened the victim with death.
2.) The BG was armed, and further armed himself with the victim's shotgun.
3.) The BG was still on the property at the time of the shooting.
4.) The BG made no attempt to lay down arms and surrender.
Since the BG threatened the victim with death, the level of confidence that the victim must have before concluding that the BG is retreating and is no longer a threat is very high. How high a level of confidence? Probably somewhere around 99.99%. There must be very little room for error, because the penalties for failure are extremely high; in this case, the penalty is death.
Since the BG made no effort to surrender, and was heavily armed, and loitered on the property even after dropping a jar of quarters, it cannot be concluded with enough confidence in this situation that he was no longer a threat.
If he had left after dropping the quarters, maybe. If he had pitched his weapons and run from the yard, maybe. If he had made himself sufficiently scarce so as to no longer be on the property, maybe. But he didn't.
The victim could have locked himself in a bathroom with his revolver, but that wouldn't have insured his safety. In fact, it may have resulted in his own demise. The BG could have started the home on fire without the victim being aware. Or, the BG could have set up in ambush. Or, simply blasted through the door with the shotgun.
So, all in all, while the victim could have decided that the BG was fleeing, this places the burden of proof, or burden of risk on the victim. The victim has to decide whether the BG is still a threat or not. And, since the confidence in that decision must be high, it is better to err on the side of caution.
The victim did not ask to have that burden placed on his shoulders; his attacker put it there. That's like saying if someone runs a red light at 90 mph, the burden of not being run down lies on the pedestrians shoulders, and that if he should get hit, it's his fault for not getting out of the way.
Let the BG shoulder the burden of possibly getting glock-glock-glocked. He should be the one to do the risk analysis, not the victim. If he decides that the threat of having some caps popped in his buttocks is worth a jar of quarters, let him pay the price for heeding the risks.
On a side note:
One of my buddies once walked downstairs to find a man crawling through his window with a knife in his hand. Him and the intruder were spooked. While my buddy lives in a very liberal city, he believes in home defense. He ran up the stairs and grabbed his Browning Hi-Power. Making his way down the stairs, he checked the lower level for the intruder and found no sign of him. He called the police to report the disturbance. Fifteen minutes after his call, but 20 minutes before the police arrived, someone, presumably the intruder, tried to kick in the side door of the house. Luckily he decided it wasn't worth the effort and left to pursue other interests, but had he gotten in, one can only guess what would happen. The moral of the story is that a criminal's intent is hard to judge. Why take chances?
The BG's intent cannot be determined with sufficient confidence to conclude that he was indeed making every effort to retreat. Let's start with some of the facts:
1.) The BG threatened the victim with death.
2.) The BG was armed, and further armed himself with the victim's shotgun.
3.) The BG was still on the property at the time of the shooting.
4.) The BG made no attempt to lay down arms and surrender.
Since the BG threatened the victim with death, the level of confidence that the victim must have before concluding that the BG is retreating and is no longer a threat is very high. How high a level of confidence? Probably somewhere around 99.99%. There must be very little room for error, because the penalties for failure are extremely high; in this case, the penalty is death.
Since the BG made no effort to surrender, and was heavily armed, and loitered on the property even after dropping a jar of quarters, it cannot be concluded with enough confidence in this situation that he was no longer a threat.
If he had left after dropping the quarters, maybe. If he had pitched his weapons and run from the yard, maybe. If he had made himself sufficiently scarce so as to no longer be on the property, maybe. But he didn't.
The victim could have locked himself in a bathroom with his revolver, but that wouldn't have insured his safety. In fact, it may have resulted in his own demise. The BG could have started the home on fire without the victim being aware. Or, the BG could have set up in ambush. Or, simply blasted through the door with the shotgun.
So, all in all, while the victim could have decided that the BG was fleeing, this places the burden of proof, or burden of risk on the victim. The victim has to decide whether the BG is still a threat or not. And, since the confidence in that decision must be high, it is better to err on the side of caution.
The victim did not ask to have that burden placed on his shoulders; his attacker put it there. That's like saying if someone runs a red light at 90 mph, the burden of not being run down lies on the pedestrians shoulders, and that if he should get hit, it's his fault for not getting out of the way.
Let the BG shoulder the burden of possibly getting glock-glock-glocked. He should be the one to do the risk analysis, not the victim. If he decides that the threat of having some caps popped in his buttocks is worth a jar of quarters, let him pay the price for heeding the risks.
On a side note:
One of my buddies once walked downstairs to find a man crawling through his window with a knife in his hand. Him and the intruder were spooked. While my buddy lives in a very liberal city, he believes in home defense. He ran up the stairs and grabbed his Browning Hi-Power. Making his way down the stairs, he checked the lower level for the intruder and found no sign of him. He called the police to report the disturbance. Fifteen minutes after his call, but 20 minutes before the police arrived, someone, presumably the intruder, tried to kick in the side door of the house. Luckily he decided it wasn't worth the effort and left to pursue other interests, but had he gotten in, one can only guess what would happen. The moral of the story is that a criminal's intent is hard to judge. Why take chances?
carebear
Member
The problem is, the other "reasonable" response would have been to let the guy go, lock the door, call the police and then, if the guy came back and tried to get in the door, THEN end his criminal career.
The bad guy was outside the house. The homeowner had no real reason to follow him out (though I probably would) and even if he chose to, he could have retreated inside if the guy turned on him.
The bad guy was outside the house. The homeowner had no real reason to follow him out (though I probably would) and even if he chose to, he could have retreated inside if the guy turned on him.
mbs357
Member
As I read it, he ran to a balcony on the other side of the house, and fired down towards the sound of the coins.
The way I see it, if you live somewhere long enough you get the idea of the area. Maybe he knew there was no one but him in the direction? There could have been a field on that side of the house.
And even then he was firing down, I doubt a .22 would ricochet off of dirt at the angle I'm guessing.
And I have to agree, the victim had no idea if the man was going to throw a molotov cocktail or a hand grenade in it. He was more likely worried he'd come back, so I guess shooting him was justified...
*shrug*
The way I see it, if you live somewhere long enough you get the idea of the area. Maybe he knew there was no one but him in the direction? There could have been a field on that side of the house.
And even then he was firing down, I doubt a .22 would ricochet off of dirt at the angle I'm guessing.
And I have to agree, the victim had no idea if the man was going to throw a molotov cocktail or a hand grenade in it. He was more likely worried he'd come back, so I guess shooting him was justified...
*shrug*
carebear
Member
Guy had the means to harm him? Yep, had a handgun AND a shotgun.
Guy had the intent to hurt him? Maybe, he didn't when he was in the house though.
Guy had the opportunity to hurt him?
There's the sticking point. Once the BG went outside, the homeowner could have locked his door and kept him from coming back, easily at least. The homeowner would then have been armed behind cover and concealment. If the BG tried to break back in he could have shot him with no questions.
But he chose to go out and expose himself to further risk instead of staying in where it was comparatively safe and calling for help.
That's the tough thing to justify. And, like it or not, in general you only get to shoot people to prevent death or serious bodily harm, not to prevent someone from making off with your stuff when you are not patently at risk.
Guy had the intent to hurt him? Maybe, he didn't when he was in the house though.
Guy had the opportunity to hurt him?
There's the sticking point. Once the BG went outside, the homeowner could have locked his door and kept him from coming back, easily at least. The homeowner would then have been armed behind cover and concealment. If the BG tried to break back in he could have shot him with no questions.
But he chose to go out and expose himself to further risk instead of staying in where it was comparatively safe and calling for help.
That's the tough thing to justify. And, like it or not, in general you only get to shoot people to prevent death or serious bodily harm, not to prevent someone from making off with your stuff when you are not patently at risk.
Steve in PA
Member
Man, some of these responses scare the hell out of me.....
shoot, because the robber is fleeing (not a threat)
shoot, because he "might come back"
shoot, even though the guy couldn't see his target (guess he never heard of the 4 Golden Rules)
It doesn't matter if the BG stuck a gun to his head and said, "give me all your money or I'll kill you". The BG gets the money, then flees (without shooting) and now because the BG is outside fleeing......your going to shoot him because, "well, he threatened me, so I have to shoot him now?"
The robber is fleeing and no longer a direct threat to you. Shooting him is an execution. He is also not a threat to anyone else. What are you going to do, the next time you see a guy running down the street with a gun. "Well I'm going to just draw my piece and shoot him because he's a threat to someone!" :banghead:
I didn't know a person can be shot because he "may" do something in the future. Hell, lets all jump on this one. Execute every peron currently in jail because the vast majority are repeat offenders (so they've already proven what they "might" do) and the first offenders are more than likely to become repeat offenders so we'll just kill them now and be done with it. :banghead:
The guy couldn't see the BG, so how could he know he was still carrying a gun and supposedly "still a threat"? Oh, I forgot, he had made a threat and he might come back.
I think there was a saying, "God must have loved fools, because he made so many of them".
Amazing, simply amazing.
shoot, because the robber is fleeing (not a threat)
shoot, because he "might come back"
shoot, even though the guy couldn't see his target (guess he never heard of the 4 Golden Rules)
It doesn't matter if the BG stuck a gun to his head and said, "give me all your money or I'll kill you". The BG gets the money, then flees (without shooting) and now because the BG is outside fleeing......your going to shoot him because, "well, he threatened me, so I have to shoot him now?"
The robber is fleeing and no longer a direct threat to you. Shooting him is an execution. He is also not a threat to anyone else. What are you going to do, the next time you see a guy running down the street with a gun. "Well I'm going to just draw my piece and shoot him because he's a threat to someone!" :banghead:
I didn't know a person can be shot because he "may" do something in the future. Hell, lets all jump on this one. Execute every peron currently in jail because the vast majority are repeat offenders (so they've already proven what they "might" do) and the first offenders are more than likely to become repeat offenders so we'll just kill them now and be done with it. :banghead:
The guy couldn't see the BG, so how could he know he was still carrying a gun and supposedly "still a threat"? Oh, I forgot, he had made a threat and he might come back.
I think there was a saying, "God must have loved fools, because he made so many of them".
Amazing, simply amazing.
Ryder
Member
You have to wait untiul after they kill you to shoot them back?
In any case I wasn't trying to give the impression that I would have done what this guy did. I was offering suggestions in his defense because I got fed up hearing all the prejudging going on by people who were not there and don't have all the facts. For some reason I just can't help but feel people are innocent till proven guilty and theorize why that may be so.
ken grant
Member
Bad Guys!!!!
The laws need to be changed. Any time someone attemps to take anything that belongs to another,the person being taken from should be able to do anything in their power to stop them,even if they retreat.
If the B.G. gets away,he will only try to find another person who is not able to defend his property.
The laws need to be changed. Any time someone attemps to take anything that belongs to another,the person being taken from should be able to do anything in their power to stop them,even if they retreat.
If the B.G. gets away,he will only try to find another person who is not able to defend his property.
Steve, you are using the childish method of taking an arguement to an extreme and then showing how it's wrong. Using your logic, you'd think that the cops were out of line for shooting this person. You don't seem to be condemning the cops for shooting the person that turned out to be only a percieved threat.
- Status