big difference... petty theft and strong armed robbery/breaking an entering are quite different. Your vehicle and home are your "Dwelling" and you are afforded the right to protect your property.... retail stores do not fall into that category... the only time they are afforded the same protection is if it is ARMED robbery
Owner shoots bad guys trying to steal 4Runner
- Thread starter Glenn_Law
- Start date
bofa
New member
So some of you would rather call the police... Hope they arrive in time... Maybe recover a likely damaged, violated vehicle that will never feel the same to you. Perp will probably get a public defender, might go to jail, and if so, will probably get released within 90 days. This is the best case scenario, and will cost taxpayers around $12,000. Then you can sit back and hope the perp, who knows where you live and now holds a grudge, does not come back to bother you or your property again.
I wonder if any of you that feel this way have ever been robbed, encountered your perpetrator, and been helpless to do anything about it.
I wonder if any of you that feel this way have ever been robbed, encountered your perpetrator, and been helpless to do anything about it.
redbull9944
New member
"Cruel and Unusual Punishment"
I wouldn't kill the person to punish them. I'd rather have them rot in jail for a while and not have to take someone's life. There's a difference between defending you property and punishing someone for stealing from you though.
Killing is a last resort. If the thieves ran once confronted I would not shoot. But if the did ANYTHING but run, that would indicate to me that they were a threat and I would have to shoot.
phillyd2
Senior Member
We don't need stray man arguments. There is a BIG difference between looking out your window, seeing somebody stealing your truck and going out to kill them or somebody in your house or trying to harm you or your family.
If on a jury I would not convict any charged with killing a thief. Many are just saying they would not do it. Another BIG difference.
If on a jury I would not convict any charged with killing a thief. Many are just saying they would not do it. Another BIG difference.
1engineer
Moderator
A few years ago close to where I live a young guy and his wife were outside their house in their backyard sitting on their deck in late evening. They heard a glass break around the side and the guy went to check. The owner confronted the robbers just as the wife appeared. There was a fight, the robbers had a pistol, a shot was fired (grazing the wife) and the owner beat one of the robbers to death and put the other robber on life support. He did it with his hands only. He had never been in trouble, was not a fighter and had a good job. There were people here who actually wanted to charge the husband with murder! There was nothing more to the case, meaning these guys did not know each other, the husband was a regular guy, no drugs or anything to give reason for a robbery. These two robbers were casing the neighborhood and broke in to steal stuff. Simple as that. Anyway, the husband initially was charged until someone with common sense figured out how to get the charges dropped but it was a big deal for a long time. The husband did not start it. All he did was yell "Hey what are you doing?" and the robbers hit him. Then one pulled a gun and the husband went off. Since then our laws have changed to allow for the "Castle" defense.
In my mind there is no difference between the OP's story and this. If you feel you are in danger and you are not a pacifist you do what you think is right. Fight or flight.
We don't know the details. The bad guys could have threatened this guy and pointed a gun. We don't know. I however do know that even though one robber was killed and the other was wounded the victim is still the guy with the 4Runner.
In my mind there is no difference between the OP's story and this. If you feel you are in danger and you are not a pacifist you do what you think is right. Fight or flight.
We don't know the details. The bad guys could have threatened this guy and pointed a gun. We don't know. I however do know that even though one robber was killed and the other was wounded the victim is still the guy with the 4Runner.
Lets not be sophists here. The due process issue and other constitutional considerations aren't at issue when you believe you are in some sort of peril (injury to you or someone else- let alone death). We all know and accept you have the right to self defense or the defense of another. Don't reframe the argument to an illogical absurdity just so you can dismiss the issue.
The issue is when no such threat exist and what is reasonable and legal behavior and what laws are within the constitution.
It's like some people finish their reading at the second amendment and then the rest of their Cliffs notes are missing or something.
The issue is when no such threat exist and what is reasonable and legal behavior and what laws are within the constitution.
It's like some people finish their reading at the second amendment and then the rest of their Cliffs notes are missing or something.
bofa
New member
The problem is that some states would rather you not confront your attacker and will penalize the victim if you do so. I know my rights and responsibilities under Florida law... and a thief should too if they value their own life, which I conclude not to the case in most circumstances.
Thanks to legislation regarding authorized concealed carry, the great state of Florida has experienced a 32% drop in crime.
Concealed Carry Permits Are Life Savers | Conservative News, Views & Books
Now if we could just weed out the liberals this would be the greatest state in the Republic!
bofa
New member
No, keep the liberals around... they are easier targets for criminals. Just don't let them into office.
1engineer
Moderator
I, nor anyone else, changed the argument. As there were very few details in the original post this debate was not constrained to go in a specific direction largely in part of the generality of the story. There is no specific issue other than a bad guy got killed doing something wrong by the owner of the property in question. Based on that statement, with no real detail, this debate can go anywhere it pleases.
Reading this thread is like examining a microcosm of America. What it SHOULD do is make people pause and ask themselves "At what point, if ever, will I be strong enough to make a stand to protect my family and property and to what lengths will I go to insure their safety?"
Of course those limits are different for everyone, as they should be.
Titanpat57
Senior Member
lol...
well said 1E....
let's start talking about getting a buzz again....:flypig:
aha2988
New member
yall could all talk to the people that make the decisions and let them know how you feel
Ruger - Protect Your Rights
Ruger - Protect Your Rights
bofa
New member
I did, and do those frequently... not through Ruger though. I had so many FTF's with my P345 I might as well have been carrying a rock. :wow2:
aha2988
New member
I just like that the site made it easy for people that don't regularly voice there opinions to the house.
Similar threads
