A Marine needs your help!

[KC&97TA]

I think this is probably the attitude that got our original Marine in trouble.

Killing another human being in time of war or in self defense is never a game. and fact that someone would brag on the internet about their desire to do so ( in addition to being the type of thing that D.A.s love to show juries at homicide trials) gives me cause to doubt either that person's sanity or their veracity.

Serial killers enjoy killing people sane people do not.

The only thing that seperates what I've done and believe vs. Jail time, is an oath to up hold and defend the Constitution of the United States and little words on paper dirrecting me to take action against another human beings, it's what I believe in and it's what many men have died for on both sides, the word freedom or the the control of it, has lead many men into battle. War isn't fun, it isn't a game and neither is killing... but it's not something to be ashamed of and there is nothing wrong with likeing it or enjoying what you've done. Killing under justifieable reasons is fun and it is enjoyable, it may be sick and twisted to think that the guy on the other side of the computer likes to kill, but that's the world we live in, it's were alot of sweat and pain have gone in to training, killing one another for land or money or by dirrection from a President or King has been going on since the begining of time... it will untill the end of time. To many men have been told to be ashamed of what they've done... I'm not, I talked about it at the dinner table at X-Mas, my parents are proud thier son as killed bad men, I won't let that pain me... I have enough pain over the men that I lead, who never came back or came back mamed.

So I enjoy killing bad men... sorry, I'm a product of soceity... There are many men like me, the Sheep Dogs that keep the Wolves from invadeing the barn, thats the simple truth, with out my men and I, the men who walked the same line before us, the world as we know it would not be the same. It's taken years to get the post tramatic stress and survivor syndrome to a controlable level, for the most part I'm just another productive memeber of society, obeying the laws and liveing a quiet life, saying hi to the neighbors and picking up after my dog, leting the irritations of the world not get to me and remembering that Karma will get those that are not so humble.

Though I'd love to ghille suit up and shot the guy that wants to drive his motor cycle around at 2am drunk and reving his engine as to rattle my windows on a week night when I have to get up at 4am, while I'm in my ghille, I'd love to take out the child molester down the road and the rapeist up the street, I'd love to just travel the state, I'd love to just print out my zip codes Registered Sex Offender list and kill them all and move on to the next zip code. I'd also like to take my .45 with me to the mail box and put an end to the neighbors dog that they've neglected and left on the back porch to bark and beat on the slideing glass door... I don't, I simply call the local PD, because that is what the 1.24% property tax money pays for.

I've taken my pistol with me to check my truck after after the alarm has gone off, but I know better than to shoot someone in the middle of the street, who was trying to steal a $25 reciever hitch to buy crack and I've delt with the police when the come to find me holding a gun on some poor bum... I'm the one who had to put his $1k Kimber on the asphalt, were it got scratched, I'm the one they wanted to hand cuff first... what you have to remember is this isn't the wild west, it isn't a 3rd world country, America is full of Sheep, who don't want to see men gunned down in the street. Even in prison they have to segregate child molesters and rapeists, because they would be assulted or killed... by men who've been conviced by a jurry of 12, that society has labled criminials or fellons, who still have Moral Values.

I remember a thread here, were a guy posted that he went and bought a silencer for his AR, with a quote "so when I kill burglers I don't wake up the kids", he went on to explain the situation were his kids kept trying to come out into the liveing room after he'd killed two guys that kicked in his front door... everyone thought it was wrong, but nobody wants thier children to wake up to gun shots in the night, nobody wants thier children to see what daddy just had to do to protect his family from bad men. Even the aftermath of justifiable homicide isn't pretty and usally involves paying lawyers, even if the circumstances were clear on why one had to defend them self.

That's were the man in this thread crossed the line, he gunned down an unarmed man in the street, in America, a man who had broken into his home and was fleeing for his life... society says he was a criminial, society had labeled him a criminial before, you can't just go around arresting or detaining men, society says that makes you a criminial, society says that we have Law Enforcement Officers for a reason. In other countrys or even other states, maybe it would have been justified. Even though the Supreme Court has ruled that the Police have no obligation to respond to you call, if your life is not in danger you don't have the right to put your life in danger to commit murder.

 

[Treo]

Ya know I don't think Gecko .45 could have said it any better himself KC

Say you don't by any chance have a Shrike or two mounted on that truck of yours do you?

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Has there been any concern about the fact that he worked for the DOE as a nuclear materials courier and that the BG might have been after his vehicle for a windshield sticker or some other such "pass" that might have been kept in the truck?

There hasn't been enough information released about this case.

Woody

 

[Geno]

I am disappointed by many of the statements here. Two wrongs do not one right make.

My father always told me, "Son, I have always told you the truth about my life's mistakes so you could learn from them, and not have to learn from making these same mistakes yourself."

That is how I view the set of circumstances presented in this thread. I believe we should all take a deep breath, and refocus on how others will view this thread at some future date. Let us focus on fact, not on emotion.

Doc2005

 

[sm]

When the Police become the criminals the criminals must become the Police - Ayn Rand. Atlas Shrugged.

Ayn Rand's words refer to when Tyranny takes away human rights , and makes Moral Law, lawlessness , those puppets of Tyranny [Police] must be relieved of duties and Tyranny eradicated.

Those moral, law abiding citizens, called criminals by Tyranny making and enacting enough laws that everyone "became a criminal" in the eyes of the State [Tyranny] then must become the Police [The true keepers of moral law and human rights].

Not law abiding folks going out and becoming criminals just because of blood lust.

THR does not condone blood lust, see the sticky.

 

[Browning]

The burglar/car jacker took a thiefs chances and lost.

KC&97TA : You can't chase people down the street and shoot them in America...

Well apparently you can, otherwise what are we all talking about then?

A car jacker, burglar and felon got shot in the act while committing a crime and the victim didn't get hurt, to my way of thinking that's great and I couldn't ask for anything better if it hadn't been for the legal profession and law enforcement. There are less victims today because of the former Marines actions. I don't know what some of you are so up in arms about.

There used to be a time when America was great and when ordinary Americans who were defending their lives, family and property could shoot the people who threatened them and when murderers, thieves and rapists were tried on Thursday and hung on Friday. Now most Americans are a bunch of hand wringers who are afraid to confront criminals and who cry about the criminal(s) if they come to an unfortunate end instead of the victim(s) in the case. This kind of suicidal thinking and sissyfied attitudes even infects firearms forums where this kind of thing is supposed to be at a minimum.

No wonder America once used to be a place where law abiding citizens who work for a living could walk down the street and be in their homes without fear, they didn't have Zoloft, a Psychiatrists couch or a large supply of kleenex to blow thier snotting nose from wearing their feelings on their sleeve all the time.

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

when and where

was this time you speak of be specific

 

[rbernie]

Now most Americans are a bunch of hand wringers who are afraid to confront criminals and who cry about the criminal(s) if they come to an unfortunate end instead of the victim(s) in the case.

That was a terrific rant, dude - it really was.

The only problem is that it has nothing to do with the issue in this thread. The issue at hand is whether or not the shooter was legally justified in his acts, not whether or not you agreed with the laws governing the use of deadly force.

Sadly, he was adjudged to have used deadly force outside of the legal boundaries for same. You may disagree with those boundaries, but they are the boundaries we must follow nevertheless until such time as you can get them changed to something more to your liking.

 

[hitbackfirst]

I am not going to comment on if what the Marine did is legal, but on if it should be legal. If an intruder comes into your house or onto your property and you "scare him off," all you have done is given him a chance to come back and try again, but maybe next time he will bring a gun, or some friends, or some friends with guns. (This is the same attitude as just deporting illegals who commit crimes even if they have been deported multiple times before.) If someone is a threat to you or your family, chasing them off does not neutralize the threat, it only postpones it. You wouldn't just scare off a predator that was trying to kill your livestock, you would kill it even if you had to hunt it down first. Again, I am not talking about what the law says, I am talking about how we should be allowed to deal with human predators.

 

[Intune]

Well, here at The High Road we deal with predators & everyone else in a LEGAL manner. NOT how we "feel" it should be done. :banghead:

If you want to buy an island and hunt man, be my guest. Btw, that movie, along with Death Wish I through V have already been made.

 

[Browning]

rbernie : That was a terrific rant, dude - it really was.

Thank you, I appreciate it.

The only problem is that it has nothing to do with the issue in this thread. The issue at hand is whether or not the shooter was legally justified in his acts, not whether or not you agreed with the laws governing the use of deadly force.

Well gee, I guess that just because you say that it doesn't have anything to do with the issue at hand then that automatically makes it so with you being so important and all.

Sadly, he was adjudged to have used deadly force outside of the legal boundaries for same. You may disagree with those boundaries, but they are the boundaries we must follow nevertheless until such time as you can get them changed to something more to your liking.

All I'm saying is that as a society we've lost something when we as citizens worry about the rights of criminals more than we do the rights of law abiding citizens. You can agree with that or disagree, but when a bunch of gun owners (who may end up being in the same situation themselves someday) pile on the actual VICTIM in this whole thing then that's where I draw the line and speak up to offer people like you some kleenex and tell you to quit crying.

 

[mbt2001]

Was said action moral? A case, a good one, can be made that it was. That being said, the legitimacy of the law must be called into question. That is the crux of the debate.

You can make it illegal to pick your nose and a jury would HAVE to convict, because you did, with full knowledge engage in that activity. That doesn't make the law JUST or RIGHT, it highlights the fact that our system doesn't work anymore. When law abiding go to jail and law breakers are constantly released or not convicted / found / prosecuted, the system is broken.

 

[rbernie]

All I'm saying is that as a society we've lost something when we as citizens worry about the rights of criminals more than we do the rights of law abiding citizens.

I have to push back on this because it makes no sense to me. How did we worry about the rights of the criminal MORE than that of the 'law abiding citizen'? You say those words, but in this case there is no evidence that the car thief was treated any better than the shooter. The car thief is DEAD, and I see no evidence that society did him any favors post-mortem. What society did was assert several things:

- deadly force can only be used when in danger of death or serious bodily injury
- a claim of self-defense can be offset by the individuals aggressive actions prior to the use of deadly force

The bottom line is that society would have been more than happy had the defendant chased down the car thief but not engaged or threatened him. But the minute that the defendants actions were judged to have directly and aggressively forced a confrontation, he lost the affirmative claim of self-defense.

I fail to see how that is 'worry(ing) about the rights of criminals more than we do the rights of law abiding citizens'. It, in part, helps prevent Some Mean Folk from picking fights and settling them with a pistol, all under the claim of lawful self-defense.

Finally, I have a semantic nit to pick. How can a 'law abiding citizen' be a law abiding citizen when they operate outside of the laws that govern the use of deadly force? The defendant in this case was NO LONGER A LAW ABIDING CITIZEN when he took it upon himself to chase down the car thief and engage in a confrontation that resulted in the death of the thief. He was adjudged to have operated outside of the law, and hence could NOT HAVE BEEN LAW ABIDING. He did not abide by the law. When you break the law, you are no longer law abiding.

You keep confusing your moral compass with the defintion of legality...

 

[Browning]

Ok, so what. Go ahead and push back

rbernie : I have to push back on this because it makes no sense to me. How did we worry about the rights of the criminal MORE than that of the 'law abiding citizen'? You say those words, but in this case there is no evidence that the car thief was treated any better than the shooter. The car thief is DEAD, and I see no evidence that society did him any favors post-mortem.

I'm not talking about what law enforcement did or didn't do.

The thief and burglar was dead, what are the police and law enforcement going to possibly do to him at that point?

No, my point was the hand wringing liberal/criminal coddling attitudes expressed by some of the people who have posted on this thread. Instead of talking about what the criminal did to get himself shot by the home owner, some people on this thread are talking about how horrible the home owner was for defending his property.

Without much evidence to go on and from a short article in a newspaper the hand wringers on this thread are willing to convict the home owner in the court of public opinion when there's obviously a bunch of people who support what the home owner has done.

Did it occur to any of you that maybe he was wrongly convicted and/or that maybe when he was chasing the guy that maybe the criminal tried to take him out? Apparently not judging from the comments.

Harpo : Let me get this straight... He chased down an unarmed fleeing burglar and killed him, and this is "self defense" because he is a Marine???

I thought Marines held themselves to a higher standard than others - I can't imagine using a "Marine defense" to escape prosecution for a crime! If this is what he considers acceptable, I don't want to be on the street with him.

HK G3 : So just because he served, he should receive special treatment, since if any of us did that, we'd likely be facing a lot worse than 2 years?

I really can't feel much sympathy on this one. Everyone is equal in the eyes of the law. No exceptions.

The perpetrator brought it on himself. If he had not broken into the Marine's home he would still alive. It was 100% his fault. FREE THE MARINE. He has done nothing that 90%of us would not have done in the same situation. This was a civic betterment killing.

Conwict: I hope you're joking. That's not high road at all.

Speak for yourself on the "90%" idea.

rbernie : No - we just understand the difference between legally allowable use of deadly force and, well, everything else.

You may feel morally justified in chasing down and killing a thief, but the law will disagree with you.

Personally I'd like to see some sort of documentation where you can actually document the fact that it's illegal to chase a fleeing felon after they've committed a crime. Or is that just a guess and/or assumption on your part?

More importantly to you, the law will do its best to ensure that you have plenty of time to discuss these sorts of things with Bubba, your new roommate and personal proctologist.

The individual in the referenced report is fixin' to spend two years of his life behind bars because he chased a car thief with the intent to detain him, and shot him when the thief turned to confront his pursuer. Had the defendant simply called the police directly or at least avoided contact distance with the thief, he would still be a free man. For the next two years, his wife will be without a husband and his infant will be without a father.

More to the point, the defendant is now unable to legally own a firearm or vote. He has lost the use of two of the most important tools at his disposal in securing the future of his family. And all that over feeling the need to catch a car thief red-handed instead of letting the police do the work.

The law does not agree with you, and I suspect that nor do the majority of the folk on this board.

Well I know that I certainly agree with Jaholder1971 and without a poll on the issue I have no idea how you could claim to represent the majority of the members on this forum, you're making a (second) ASSUMPTION based on a guess and you know what they say about assumptions don't you?

The bottom line is that society would have been more than happy had the defendant chased down the car thief but not engaged or threatened him. But the minute that the defendants actions were judged to have directly and aggressively forced a confrontation, he lost the affirmative claim of self-defense.

You don't really know what have happened legally to the burglar/car jacker once he was apprehended, once again you're just making an ASSUMPTION (a third one) which is a dangerous and stupid thing to do, especially in a society where juries award women who spilled hot coffee on themselves in a McDonalds millions of dollars in a judgement.

Finally, I have a semantic nit to pick. How can a 'law abiding citizen' be a law abiding citizen when they operate outside of the laws that govern the use of deadly force? The defendant in this case was NO LONGER A LAW ABIDING CITIZEN when he took it upon himself to chase down the car thief and engage in a confrontation that resulted in the death of the thief. He was adjudged to have operated outside of the law, and hence could NOT HAVE BEEN LAW ABIDING. He did not abide by the law. When you break the law, you are no longer law abiding.

Because in a society where common sense reigned then it wouldn't be illegal at all to get rid of a criminal when the opportunity presents itself because the criminal is in the commission of a felony, much less where someone ends up being convicted of a felony offense and where they end up spending years of their life in prison because they didn't curl up in a ball and not resist the way the police constantly tell people to.

You keep confusing your moral compass with the defintion of legality...

Shouldn't laws reflect morality and protect common people from criminals? What has society come to when the ordinary citizens who are victimized are told to not resist and to just give robber whatever they ask for by the very people charged with investigating and prosecuting these crimes?

Mostly I just resent the smug attitude adopted by some of posters who are so ready to defend a criminal who made a career out of breaking into people's home and stealing their cars and their possesions and at the same time you all won't give the man accused of defending himself and his home the benefit of the doubt or to even wait for more information to come out before deciding if he's actually guilty or not and when you're so ready and willing to spit out a jailhouse "Bubba" quip.

 

[rbernie]

Mostly I just resent the smug attitude adopted by some of posters who are so ready to defend a criminal who made a career out of breaking into people's home and stealing their cars and their possesions and at the same time you all won't give the man accused of defending himself and his home the benefit of the doubt or to even wait for more information to come out before deciding if he's actually guilty or not and when you're so ready and willing to spit out a jailhouse "Bubba" quip.

But I'm not defending the criminal, and I defy you to find a single line in my posts where I did.

More to the point, its not my place to give the defendant the benefit of the doubt; that's the job for the legal system. A criminal proceeding has found the defendant guilty, based upon information that we do not have. From the sound of things, giving him a two year sentence is as much of the benefit of doubt that they could muster. Unless some compelling new data comes to light, I have to presume that the defendant's actions were not considered appropriate use of deadly force. I will not presume to know more than the courts on this matter, and again I defy you to provide any quote from my posts where I assumed anything other than that which was stated in the articles.

I'm not being smug. I feel badly for the defendant. I really do. I do not feel good about his plight.

But I'm also not going to sit on this board and posture about how it's morally OK to shoot down fleeing criminals, or to chase them until they turn and confront you, at which point you shoot them and claim self-defense. It's NOT morally OK to do that, and more importantly it's not LEGALLY acceptable to do that.

If my efforts to remind folks of the legal ramifications of taking a human life bother you, I do apologize. But I will not retract nor backpedel from those statements, because they represent reality.

Do not engage in the use of deadly force lightly. Do not encourage others to chase down n'eer-do-wells and plug them full of holes.

That's it.

 

[Wineoceros]

No, my point was the hand wringing liberal/criminal coddling attitudes expressed by some of the people who have posted on this thread.

That's odd. I haven't seen any "criminal coddling" attitudes expressed here.

Instead of talking about what the criminal did to get himself shot by the home owner...

We're already aware of what he did. That's not in dispute, and therefor not an issue.

some people on this thread are talking about how horrible the home owner was for defending his property.

No. People have said that it was wrong for him to ignore the law.

Without much evidence to go on and from a short article in a newspaper the hand wringers on this thread are willing to convict the home owner in the court of public opinion when there's obviously a bunch of people who support what the home owner has done.

That's a logical fallacy (specifically, an argumentum ad populum). How many people support his actions have absolutely zero relevance with regard to whether or not they were legal or well-advised.

You may feel morally justified in chasing down and killing a thief, but the law will disagree with you.

Personally I'd like to see some sort of documentation where you can actually document the fact that it's illegal to chase a fleeing felon after they've committed a crime. Or is that just a guess and/or assumption on your part?

He didn't say "chase a fleeing felon". He said "chasing down and killing a thief". That's a pretty important distinction.

Well I know that I certainly agree with Jaholder1971 and without a poll on the issue I have no idea how you could claim to represent the majority of the members on this forum, you're making a (second) ASSUMPTION based on a guess and you know what they say about assumptions don't you?

Actually, he said he "suspect"ed that was the case. In other words, he's acknowledging that it was only speculation on his part.

Because in a society where common sense reigned then it wouldn't be illegal at all to get rid of a criminal when the opportunity presents itself because the criminal is in the commission of a felony

So now you're saying that permitting summary judgement and execution by any citizen of any and all felony suspects on the spot is a "common sense" approach? Really?

Mostly I just resent the smug attitude adopted by some of posters who are so ready to defend a criminal...

Since no one here has been defending any criminals...smugly or otherwise...one must conclude that you're just looking for an excuse to be resentful of something.

 

[JohnBT]

"No, my point was the hand wringing liberal/criminal coddling attitudes expressed by some of the people who have posted on this thread."

Where?

You can't legally chase somebody down the street and shoot them. What's so hard to understand about the law?

John

 

[Browning]

I'm not being smug. I feel badly for the defendant. I really do. I do not feel good about his plight.

Yeah, sure you do.

You felt so badly for him that you spit this gem out.

You may feel morally justified in chasing down and killing a thief, but the law will disagree with you. More importantly to you, the law will do its best to ensure that you have plenty of time to discuss these sorts of things with Bubba, your new roommate and personal proctologist.

I guess homosexual rape is now part of the punishment in your brand of legal system too huh?

Regardless you don't sound too broken up about it to me when you're joking about him being raped.

But I'm also not going to sit on this board and posture about how it's morally OK to shoot down fleeing criminals, or to chase them until they turn and confront you, at which point you shoot them and claim self-defense. It's NOT morally OK to do that, and more importantly it's not LEGALLY acceptable to do that.

Plenty of people have chased and caught criminals and held them for law enforcement, if the criminal turns and goes on the attack again then the home owner would be completely justified in defending themselves. I also like how you avoided my question and didn't provide any evidence to back up your assertion that chasing the perpetrator of the crime is illegal in and of itself either.

Couldn't find anything that said what you wanted it to say?

I will not retract nor backpedel from those statements, because they represent reality.

It reflects reality because people like you have made the legal system so.

There was a time in this country when a thief was treated like a thief, but that's not the case any longer.

Our country is not the better for it because ordinary people have been de-clawed either.

Some of them may still have guns, but they're afraid to use them for fear that they mind end up like this guy.

Thank God not everyone thinks like you do.

 

[Harpo]

And therein lies the problem: "treating a thief like a thief"

Acting on this premise, you've already made a conviction before you shoot. Thief = deserves to die. I think they call that "taking the law into your own hands".

If you believe this is ok, be ready to face the music. The law - which you are under whether you like it or not - does not agree.

Harpo

 

[Wineoceros]

I guess homosexual rape is now part of the punishment in your brand of legal system too huh?

It's a part of the reality of prison life, and at least one good reason to stay on the right side of the law if you can...which was most likely his point.

Thank God not everyone thinks like you do.

Yes, it's obvious that you consider thinking to be a sign of flawed character.

 

[Art Eatman]

Argyfying, vilifying and very trying on my patience.

Sumpn like 'at, anyhow...

Art