Conservative homeowner arrested for shooting would-be thief

I would attempt to block the burglar and if he or she tries to physically confront me where I feel my life is threatened while I'm blocking him or her and calling the cops then I put two in his or her chest.

 

Where is it legal to shoot and possibly kill an unarmed thief? People are posting in this thread like she was in the act of committing armed robbery, and not just some petty thief stealing a flag. So if I see somebody stealing my basketball from my driveway, I can immediately start busting shots and kill them? I don’t think so. I am justified in using lethal force because somebody was running away with my basketball, and a jury would find me not guilty?

 

I'll say this. If it's something valuable enough I'll confront them with a show of force by showing them that I'm armed and in the process of confronting them, if they try to attack me well... Ya it's going to be two in the chest. If they just run away, I really can't do anything besides call the cops.

 

you can't in 49 states, and even in texas it's not a slamdunk.

 

which is understandable...if they try to attack u, or are in the middle of committing armed robbery as just another example, then I get it

If somebody steals something from your front yard and runs away, then yeah, it sucks, but u call the cops, not try and kill them.

I really want to know which jury would find me not guilty for shooting someone for taking my basketball from the driveway and running away or for snatching up my Amazon package. They were not armed, they did not try to attack me. They just committed petty theft and fled. Which jury will find me not guilty for spraying bullets and potentially killing or actually killing them?

 

And in Texas, I believe the jury will have to find that your level of force was reasonable right? Who here thinks shooting at somebody 7 or 8 times for stealing something from the front yard and running away is reasonable?

 

yes plus shooter needs to satisfy one of these:
(3) he reasonably believes that:

(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means;  or

(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

 

Thanks for the shout out. I appreciate it. I do believe in personal agency and certainly George Floyd and I made choices that led to how our lives turned out. It should be obvious though that there are inherent advantages to growing up in an upper middle class neighborhood near West U to growing up in the Third Ward. We all make choices but those choices can be very constrained by where we come from.

We have several threads regarding George Floyd I really don't see how rehashing George Floyd in this thread has much bearing at all.

 

Yes I'm familiar with that case and that case was very much a subject of debate at the time in MN. I even started a thread on that here on Clutchfans.
http://bbs.clutchfans.net/index.php?threads/homeowner-kills-two-teenagers-in-his-house.230249/

Just to note there are a couple of key differences in the cases. One was that Smith had set up an ambush for the thieves, captured them, then killed them, and didn't even tell anyone about it for a day. In this case Feaster didn't plan for this and acted.

To respond to you, Reeko and some of he other posters. The states are different in how the standards of using force. Texas appears to be at one end and is an outlier on that and while OK might be close it might not go as far as Texas. I'm interested in the legal and the philosophical question behind the standard of force. That is why I outlined the three issues that I saw. This case is unusual because of the context and it is a real life Godwin's law example. Does that mean the same view would apply if Feaster wasn't a Nazi and the flag wasn't a Nazi flag?

What if we flipped it around and say Feaster is a Holocaust survivor and the thief is a Neo Nazi stealing a the uniform that the Holocaust survivor had been forced to wear. In that situation the homeowner is the sympathetic one and the thief is the awful person. Would it be right then for the homeowner to shoot the thief in the back to reclaim what we would all agree is a very meaningful piece of property?

 

I am not up for debating the nuances of law in this case and I have all ready said I would personally never shoot anybody over property.

To me this is not about it being a nazi flag it's about a person losing their life over a prank, do we even know if she still had the flag when she was shot?

Trying to debate this just seems icky.:

 

A few points.

The victim was at best naive and at worst stupid. Luckily she wasn't fatally injured and is expected to recover.

The nazi was arrested, so clearly his actions (shooting an escaping thief/trespasser in the back) was deemed illegal and criminal.

A few posters have raised some interesting issues regarding the rights of property/home owners when faced with suspected thieves/trespassers/criminals.

I don't think anyone would (or have) rationally argue that shooting a person for stealing a flag, a basketball or a broom etc is legal or justified. So the question posed by some in this thread is: when is the use of potentially lethal force justified in such instances.

A few have seemingly argued that it is never justified when it pertains to property or just things. Others have argued that it is subjective and dependent on what is being stolen, such as a car etc.

I personally would lean towards the second theory that some instances of shooting would be legal and judged by a case by case basis, though not necessarily dependent on the value item being stolen. Of course this ambiguity isn't an ideal situation since laws should be clear and define, instead of vague and arbitrary. The latter usually results in bad laws, bias and discriminatory applications.

Lastly in this incident it is exceptionally easy and rightly to sympathize with the victim/thief and condemn the perpetrator. But what if it was reversed and an old KKK/nazi man was sneaking onto the property of a black single mother who's lost her son. This man jumps her yard fence and removes a picture of her dead son from a small memorial by the fence and before he makes it out of the yard is shot by the mother. How would this case be handled? Would and should we view it in a different light legally?

 

all 49 states does not allow use of lethal force for mere theft of property

 

Nope.

 

LOL at the fact the you equate NAZI flag to a memorial of a dead son

and the lady who tried to steal a NAZI flag to a Klan member

 

Agreed...

 

Police have a great track record at solving property crimes and restoring the victim's property, right?

But there lies the issue when there's a large discrepancy in physical stature. For example, a grandma in a wheelchair can't stop a thief. Do we allow her to get victimized and not defend her property?

 

He probably wouldn't have been arrested if there wasn't a video. Same way the jogger's killers didn't end up in jail until a video surfaced. Police notoriously avoid getting arrested for murdering people. I watched the Philando Castille video a couple of weeks ago and still cannot fathom how that isn't murder.

Bringing up a person's personal history when they are inarguably wrongfully murdered only does one thing, and that is to try to soften the injustice of them being wrongfully murdered, which is a shitty path to embark on, and brings the question ... why are you doing that?

 

What did he "Do Wrong?" .... other than run into the wrong *******.

 

To #1 - I just have no tolerance for criminals. In that moment , they are to me sub-human. They forfeit those rights when they violate another with their act / decision. (I hope people comprehend "violate another").

In Texas the answer to #3 is obviously Yes. I don't know about other states.

As for #2 does a dollar figure really matter ? Sure , some things are trivial certainly ... Your car ? The tools in your truck that earn your living ? Stealing your dog or other livestock.
The circumstances also matter - 3 am sneaking around some strangers home - I'd expect to get shot. That time of night and someone's in your back yard / side of your house .... they got some big brass balls and obviously no good intentions.


Now that doesn't mean I'd shoot someone over the basketball left in the driveway ...