Conservative homeowner arrested for shooting would-be thief

What slippery slope is that?


We are talking about a freakin flag.

 

the law says you can use non dealy/lethal force.

is non dealy/lethal force enough for you?

do you know how to apply/inflict non dealy/lethal force

you know there's 1000 ways to use/apply/inflict non deadly force right?

 

As the laws are written now, property owners are more in trouble for defending their property than the thief is for stealing it. I don't agree with that.

 

Actually they will report for petty theft. The police aren't going to investigate much, but they will come out. I've even seen them make arrests for petty theft.

 

I just had an issue with u saying she was just as wrong as the Nazi was

agreed that she was wrong, but shooting someone for doing what she did is insane...I hope they lock that dude up

 

How does a weaker victim restrain a stronger, faster thief long enough for the police to arrive?

 

howbout simply shooting her in the leg?

 

shoot in the leg?

 

Lol okay we're done.

 

How about u shoot her if she’s actually posing a threat to u? Sorry, stealing from the front yard and running away doesn’t qualify. I don’t give a damn how much it is.

it’s not like she broke into his house while he was in there sleeping...

 

there is no justification for trying to kill someone over petty theft of an item in your front yard...period

your arguments are very ridiculous

 

They don't in Austin.

 

I agree.. he needs to be locked up...

But stealing is stealing... if it's gum, a toy, a flag, a package or jewelry... still stealing..

Not saying she deserved to be shot..

T_Man

 

Yes, stealing is stealing. I haven’t seen anyone state otherwise or claim that what she did was right. However, like u said, it does not come close to deserving to get shot and possibly killed.

what she did was wrong...what the Nazi did was 10x worse

 

But if she would not have stolen the flag her chances of getting shot would have been a lot lower... I'm not saying he still wouldn't have shot her, but the likelihood would be a lot lower...

T_Man

 

I guarantee you if you call 911 and say if you don't send the police I am going to shoot the person 4 times, they will come.

At some point you have to make a realization that a human life is more valuable than a $20 object. Society clearly can draw that line, don't you think?

 

You believe this because you don't understand the concept of proportionality. It's like this dumb lady in my neighborhood who repeatedly claims she will shoot anyone that breaks into her truck for the spare change she has in there. I tell her to put a sign on her truck that anyone that needs spare change that badly just call me and I'll give them a couple of bucks not to break into her truck. But no, she insists she'll shoot someone. It's freaking stupid.

 

Where do you draw the line that property is worth shooting someone over? Should it be in no cases property should be shot over or is there a certain value figure?

 

I'm not sure if this is a serious question but I'll answer it.

There is no such thing as shooting to wound. Shooters are trained to for center of mass because it is very difficult to shoot hit the extremities. Even shooting someone in the legs is no guarantee they won't die. If the femoral artery is hit they can bleed out pretty quickly. Also for people with weak hearts they could die from the shock of getting shot.

 

It's not a slippery slope it's just context and good judgement. If someone is trying to steal my car then I may well need to shoot them because the car is one of the most important and expensive things I own. If someone is stealing my lawn mower, not so much. It doesn't mean I let them steal it, it just means there's a standard of judgement that determines the level of force I'm willing to use when my life is not in danger.