Conservative homeowner arrested for shooting would-be thief

Poor whites have to deal with more police too. And police cannot just dole out street justice. It was a crime and no one disagrees with that fact. And the idea that police brutality is a race issue is wrong. You and others are more than happy to ignore white victims because it doesn't serve a racial political agenda... which is racist as hell and shows your true colors as a person.

The only thing people disagree about is how bad we should feel for the criminal.

Imo, if he is going to get killed, it is a shame he didn't get killed during his more serious crimes. Too bad a homeowner didn't shoot him and rid the earth of him when he was pointing a gun at a pregnant woman's belly. You and others would still complain though because people have no real value system. Keep defending career criminals and complaining about a police presence. Keep pretending all police are racist and out to murder. It simply is a lie and the numbers don't support it.

 

No to all 49 states. And not that cut and dry in Texas.

So you believe someone who steals a basketball on your driveway to be sub human?

 

Surprised to see you believe in private property... do you think it is ok for a human to steal if they are born poor?

 

why who stole by definition of the law and I defended from being arrested legally???

 

You can certainly feel it's icky but these are the type of legal technical questions and philosophical questions that are in our legal system.

 

I agree with this post and it is why I'm personally debating it. Unfortunately I do think a lot of this is subjective. The nature of our self-defense laws as is have a lot of subjectivity with such terms as "reasonable" and "standard of judgement". This why use of force incidents are frequently so controversial.

 

No. That's the exact same scenario. Taking something of low value shouldn't result in killing someone.

When there is no threat of violence against you, and what is being stolen is of low value, you let it go. That's the risk you take in keeping low value items unsecured. You can't kill someone over those things.

If you go to a restaurant, and you go to the bathroom leaving your food and coke out, and you come back to see someone has stolen your coke and is running out the door - does that mean you can shoot them??? No by virtue of you leaving it out, you're saying it's low value. A car is different, you lock it. It's high value. You can't help but keep it out. It's also critical to your livelihood.

This isn't someone coming onto your farm and stealing your horses or goats. It's someone taking a low value item that is easily replaced - and item that you don't even bother trying to secure from theft because it's not worth doing so.

 

So you believe the threshold for lethal force is monetary value? Most who have responded believe no monetary value is worth lethal force. Also, theft under cover of darkness makes it hard to gauge when that monetary threshold is met.

I've mentioned before that I'm debating property crime in general. That includes vandalism. If a vandal regularly throws a rock through your window or slashes your tires, causing you to fix damage repeatedly, when does that warrant lethal force to prevent crime? This vandal has no intentions to physically harm you, only wants to destroy your property.

 

What does being a conservative or liberal and Trump gotta do with this story? Unbelievable....

 

Actually there's zero studies I've ever seen that poor whites are over-policed. None. Do your worst captain.

What white victims? Show them to me. I've been all over the cops who killed those two white people in a bogus drug raid in Houston, those cops all belong in prison and the prime instigator in that whole case is a dirty black cop. I'm against all police brutality, I don't care who the victim is but it just so happens that it's evident black people are most often the victims. But go ahead.

Yes, I have no real value system hence why I believe murdering innocent people is wrong while you believe murdering people is okay just depending on what they've done in the past. Good call. I could play the what if card too. What if the complaints against this cop had been taken seriously and he'd been fired before he was allowed to choke a man to death for 8 minutes in broad daylight in front of a bunch of people. Yep, what if.

You know you are becoming more irritable and irrational by the day. This social justice thing is REALLY getting to you and it's apparently eating you up that what you've consistently made fun of is now a national story with real momentum. Maybe it's time for you to realize you're living in the past.

 

You misframe my position. I never said murdering innocent people is ok. You lie as always. You want me to be the bad person in your mind so you can have a purpose in life... someone to make you feel better about yourself.

 

I am saying there is a big difference between stealing your flag and stealing a boat or a car. There's a reason one is a misdemeanor and the other is a felony.

Vandalism can be addressed by simply having a security system and then presenting it to police. That's far more cost effective than shooting the vandal and having to get a lawyer to deal with all the costs you will have if you shoot the vandal.

 

I agree that there is a subjective monetary value that warrants lethal force. But I also acknowledge that it's difficult to gauge that at night, especially if you have not observed the thief from the start. That gray area is what I'm trying to discuss.

The police will only write a report at best so you could submit it to your insurance, but it may not be worth your deductible or possible increase in rates. A vandal could rack up significant damages over a period of time that a homeowner has no reasonable way to guarantee protection (eg rocks through windows, slashed tires). When should lethal force be warranted then?

You do bring up a good point that defending yourself legally can cause more financial and mental hardship than the worth of one's property. Should all victims have to defend themselves in court or face charges to begin with? How do we hold the thief/criminal accountable for creating the situation?

 

Our first instinct shouldn't be to shoot first, ask questions later. If someone is walking off your property why shoot them? ESPECIALLY when they just dropped the item that belongs to you. At that point, you are making a decision to punish the alleged thief - you aren't protecting property or your own safety. And that's taking the law into your own hands which is illegal as it is for the courts to decide.

If someone vandalizes your property and you have a recording of it, you can go after that person. The police will file a report and if it is repeated they will investigate it especially if you feel it's harassment. You can push them to investigate - they may be too lazy and not want to deal with it, but at some point they will be forced to if you put pressure on them - I am sure if you tell the police if they do nothing then you ask if you have the right to shoot them the next time they come on your property they will probably get involved. Once identified, you can take action, but usually a police investigation will scare them away especially if you have images of them. And finally yes, if someone repeatedly comes and is stealing property or vandalizing it at least then you do have a stronger case to open fire.

 

A few people on this thread really seem to be itching to shoot someone. I understand using deadly force against an imminent threat to your own life or your family’s lives, but wanting to shoot someone dead as retribution over property theft or vandalism is insane. We don’t need more cowboy street justice in this country. Call the police.

Gun ownership seems a little like the principle of Chekhov’s gun. People have this exciting, dangerous thing in their house, and they’re just itching to find a reason to use it.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chekhov's_gun

 

No Mortimer, it's about environment. At the end of this experiment we must find a way to return Valentine to the ghetto and get Winthorpe back....

 

The facts don't back up your assertion.

I'm well over 50 and had weapons in my possession for the duration. I've carried a handgun everywhere I go for the last 30 years on a daily basis , If I were looking for a reason , I'd have found one on any number of occasions yet I've never even drawn my weapon for any reason.


I think we all comprehend someone creeping around a strangers home in the middle of the night stealing - Its not a smart thing to do. That thief puts his life in someone else's hands if they are caught.
That person stealing late at night obviously has some brass balls to assume that risk - If they are willing to take such risk , who's to say that they aren't armed and a threat to use force against someone trying to stop them or detain them until the police arrive.


The fact that some say let insurance pay for it - insurance costs money ... put up camera's , how does that stop the criminal ? Call the cops - accept many want to defund the police and .... where the hell are they when you need them ? Not there. Nor are they particularly adept at catching criminals. And none of the above changes the fact that you've been violated ....

Protecting criminals .... That has to be some kinda joke.

Don't want to get shot , don't be stealing or sneaking around someone's home in the middle of the night.

 

Criminal punishment is meant to deter further crime. Ideally, it should be in the hands of authorities and not citizens, but we all know that police have terrible solve rates for property crime. In scenarios, let's say you have a lawful homeowner versus a thief who has burglarized the homeowner's property multiple times and police have not investigated. This thief has stolen thousands worth of items, and every time the homeowner catches the thief in the process, the thief drops the property and runs away only to return and try again later. What recourse does the homeowner have other than to guard his/her property 24/7?

There are differences of opinion on rights regarding defending one's property. The law needs to consider all scenarios and be specific or it leaves too much to interpretation. The law and interpretation are a reflection of society, but it changes as society changes. The law shapes how people react when they are put in that situation.

Like I said, I wouldn't shoot someone over my property. When hearing of some of these cases, I do think the thief deserves it sometimes. But then, what is moral and legal don't always agree.

 

Citizens shouldn't be in the business of deciding who gets to live or not live (even a jury doesn't decide that). They don't put petty thieves on death row after all.

 

When you have to defend yourselves from crazies, you don't have time to wait for help. It's not a matter of sitting around pondering someone's life.