Quantcast

Lake St Louis Learns about Castle Doctrine the hard way

Discussion in 'Strategies, Tactics and Training' started by Jeff White, Nov 16, 2016.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Kleanbore

    Kleanbore Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2008
    Messages:
    9,091
    Exactly! And lest anyone misunderstand, one had better be in his car at the time.

    Had this happened in Texas, there would be two issues: would a reasonable person believe that unless he used deadly force the poperty would not have been otherwise recovered, and was the use of such force excessive for that purpose.
     
  2. Vern Humphrey

    Vern Humphrey Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2002
    Messages:
    19,669
    Location:
    Deep in the Ozarks
    Like the Texas Ranger said, "We hanged the wrong man, boys! The joke's on us."
     
  3. HKGuns

    HKGuns Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2004
    Messages:
    2,398
    Location:
    Bora Bora
    As stated above. Not a privilege, a RIGHT guaranteed by the Constitution.
     
  4. Kleanbore

    Kleanbore Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2008
    Messages:
    9,091
    Completely irrelevant here, as is the law in Texas.
     
    alsaqr likes this.
  5. Sam1911

    Sam1911 Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2007
    Messages:
    34,964
    Location:
    Central PA
    As other, wiser, instructors and litigators have more correctly counseled, in today's world of insurance policies it becomes very, very, VERY hard to sustain a claim that you reasonably felt that you would not recover your property, or the value thereof.

    A law developed and codified when stealing a man's horse or other livestock would be a) truly unrecoverable, and b) quite possibly lead to his death in the wilderness or the destruction of his (and his family's) lives due to irrecoverable loss of livelihood, doesn't translate well into the 21st century where you'll have a rental car provided by your insurance company within 6 hours, will have a check for your ride's value within the week, and where no common criminal could actually steal your personal net worth and ability to make a living "on the hoof."
     
    Good Ol' Boy likes this.
  6. SwaneeSR

    SwaneeSR Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages:
    769
    Location:
    MN, United States of America
    Sounds like a bad shoot. I pity the car owner/ shooter. He is in real trouble if the reported facts are accurate. Sounds like the guy made a big mistake. However, I have difficulty seeing the guy stealing the car as a victim. Car jacking and stealing cars has become so common. At what point does society reinstate the severe penalty like horse stealing above? Enough is enough.

    I am able to understand the legal arguments. You guys are assuming the car is insured and with full coverage and the guy has the money to absorb the deductible. Who knows how desperate the car owner was or what the circumstances around his situation?
     
  7. Sam1911

    Sam1911 Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2007
    Messages:
    34,964
    Location:
    Central PA
    That would be up to society to decide and implement via laws, minimum penalties for certain convictions, and broad public policy decisions regarding crime, law enforcement, punishment -vs.- rehabilitation, etc. Those are the means by which the law is applied to someone who is convicted of breaking it.

    It has nothing to do with a person applying retribution upon another for a personal (or even societal) injustice. In other words, if the question is when will society accept that a man may kill another man in punishment for a hurt, theft, or affront, the answer is, probably never. That would be a step backward from the path toward rule of law, not rule of men.

    That really doesn't, and can't, matter to whether it is lawful for a man to (attempt to, or actually) kill another man for a property theft. However, I'm sure that if one finds him or herself in Texas, attempting to get a jury to accept a not guilty plea for murder on the grounds of the fact that your property wasn't recoverable in any other way but killing that guy, one would bring those points up in the defense.
     
  8. Kleanbore

    Kleanbore Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2008
    Messages:
    9,091
    Yes, it's a sad story.

    In a homicide trial, the man killed is the victim, by definition.

    How common a crime has become should not enter into the assessment of penalties, and there is no comparison between the severity of grand theft auto in a suburban setting and the taking of a horse from a rider in a roadless wilderness.
     
  9. X-Rap

    X-Rap Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2006
    Messages:
    6,656
    We are really at the mercy of criminals in many ways. Our shooter overstepped by all means of measure but had he gone out with bare hands and pulled the thief from the car and given the beating he deserved and the thief felt himself in physical danger he might shoot the owner and not be in anymore of a fix.
     
  10. Kleanbore

    Kleanbore Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2008
    Messages:
    9,091
    Another possibility: an unseen accomplice shoots the owner.

    The first mistake was going outside in the first place.
     
  11. Sam1911

    Sam1911 Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2007
    Messages:
    34,964
    Location:
    Central PA
    I wouldn't say we're at the mercy of criminals. We simply have found a better way of dealing with criminal behavior than one caveman beating another to death because of a perceived slight. The modern way requires patience and trust in the mechanisms of law enforcement, but it takes off of the individual the responsibility (and authority) for using strength and force to receive some semblance of justice.

    What that means, though, is that just because one guy breaks the rules doesn't mean that another man can. One guy stealing your car is against the rules. You killing him because he stole your car is MORE against the rules than his theft, though. Society (through law enforcement officers and then the court) will look at his actions and yours too, and decide what punishment will be meted out for the crime(s) committed.

    One of the most recognizable upshots of this is that we actually have found a way to dispense with hundreds of centuries worth of vendetta, faida, tribal blood-feud custom like the Nyaw aw BadalI of the Pashtun. There are still places where those rules hold sway and the only justice is vengeance.

    Society still recognizes that if your life is threatened you can do what you must to stop someone from killing you. Everything else, by and large, can be sorted out in the courts.
     
    Phaedrus/69 and Good Ol' Boy like this.
  12. strambo

    strambo Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Messages:
    3,961
    Location:
    Oregon
    "You guys are assuming the car is insured and with full coverage and the guy has the money to absorb the deductible. Who knows how desperate the car owner was or what the circumstances around his situation?"

    Doesn't matter, he did more than a deductible's worth of damage to the car between the bullet holes and the blood. If it wasn't insured...well, how is he gonna provide for himself now that he has to come up with bail and then hire a lawyer to try and stay out of prison? Killing someone over a car makes no sense to me in this modern era even if the chance of prosecution is 0%. If they are endangering you, yes. Over the car? No.
     
  13. X-Rap

    X-Rap Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2006
    Messages:
    6,656
    You guys have pretty much validated my thoughts on how the criminals hold sway in today's world.
    We can call 911 and watch as our property heads down the street, remain passive as our women are treated poorly by their employers and wait months or maybe years for plea bargained justice while we or our loved ones have witnessed the criminal acts in person. Not saying every crime deserves the death penalty but my claim of being at the mercy of criminals stands so long as we have to stand idle as we wait for the wheels of Justice to make us whole.
     
    azrocks likes this.
  14. Sam1911

    Sam1911 Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2007
    Messages:
    34,964
    Location:
    Central PA
    You're welcome to move to Afghanistan or Mogadishu or some other bastion of the rule of men and enjoy the way they do it there, not having to wait for the wheels of justice and all. (I hear that employers there know how to treat a lady, for sure!)

    You'll be free to obtain whatever justice you're able to exact by force, at least until someone else exacts their own retribution upon you, in turn.

    Civil society and the rule of law is a blessing of modern civilization, however much it does require placing patience over our caveman instinct for revenge.
     
    azrocks and Phaedrus/69 like this.
  15. X-Rap

    X-Rap Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2006
    Messages:
    6,656
    Come on Sam, I've clearly said the shooter was in the wrong and sending me to Afghanistan puts you in league with Cher and George Lopez.
    The law is the law and we can only hope to change what we believe to be injustice.
     
  16. Good Ol' Boy

    Good Ol' Boy member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2016
    Messages:
    2,199
    Location:
    Mechanicsville, VA


    What exactly is unjust with the current system? The fact that patience is required?

    You've stated you don't believe lethal force is appropriate in all cases, so what is unjust with the rest of the cases?
     
  17. Sam1911

    Sam1911 Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2007
    Messages:
    34,964
    Location:
    Central PA
    Good heavens I'm not trying to send you to Afghanistan. I'm pointing out that the places not evolved enough to put a legal system, by which society as a whole decides cases and passes and inflicts punishments, in between a man and his vengeance are not nice places. And the nicer places in this world have all moved beyond kill-over-property, and might-makes-justice ways of handling grevances.

    And, contrary to the sphagetti western way we think real men behave (oh thank you Marion Morrison), it has been that way for centuries throughout the "western" world.
     
  18. Kleanbore

    Kleanbore Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2008
    Messages:
    9,091
    What would you suggest changing?
     
  19. X-Rap

    X-Rap Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2006
    Messages:
    6,656
    I'll have to give that some thought but presently many of us could come upon thieves headed down our driveway and would break the law if we did anymore than take their license plate number and call 911.
    Theft is a personal violation and it's not always so cut and dried as simply calling the insurance company. There are plenty of irreplaceable heirlooms and other possessions that no insurance can replace.
    Does that equal someones life? I can't say but there is some truth in questioning a thief if his life is worth the items he is stealing rather than the other way around.
     
  20. DMK

    DMK Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    8,816
    Location:
    Over the hills and far, far away
    I have a firearm and health insurance to protect human life.

    I have auto and homeowners insurance to protect property.

    They are not very interchangeable with good result. Ethical or not, defending property with deadly force is not worth the legal nightmare.

    That is the sad truth it seems. Even worse, when someone acts on their misinformation it only feeds their agenda so it's a win-win for them. :(
     
  21. Kleanbore

    Kleanbore Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2008
    Messages:
    9,091
    Consider a few things.

    Should one attempt to do much more than photograph the offender and send the pic to the police who have already been called, one would put oneself in potential danger of death or serious injury, How many of them are out there? It is far more prudent to remain inside and unnoticed. A gun in hand is not a talisman that can ward off evil.

    In my state, one may lawfully use non-deadly physical force to prevent theft, if there is reason to believe that it is necessary. Not for me, thank you!

    There are those who have suggested taking a gun along "in case". The gun cannot prevent one from getting shot or otherwise harmed. And many a defense of justification has been negated by the fact that the resident chose to go out armed rather than avoid a confrontation in the first place.

    Some years ago, an airline mechanic in Texas heard someone fiddling with his trailer at night, While a guest called 911, the mechanic headed out with a shotgun. He was stabbed and his arm was shot off with the shotgun.

    When Sir William Blackstone was origin his Commentaries on the Laws of England, a thief who had made it past the end of the street was as good as gone. Today we have telephones, police cars and helicopters, radios, and the likelihood that a thief whose handiwork is detected as it is done will be apprehended is far greater than that of his escape. And the recovery of stolen property is far more advanced today.
     
  22. Speedo66

    Speedo66 Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2008
    Messages:
    5,614
    Location:
    Flatlandistan
    No one seems to have yet mentioned "Tennessee vs. Garner". This was a famous case where a cop shot and killed a fleeing burglar and the case went all the way to the US Supreme Court where they basically said you can't shoot a fleeing felon if he's not posing an instant risk to you or others.

    No mention of Texas property laws, but that's the law of the land. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_v._Garner
     
  23. Kleanbore

    Kleanbore Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2008
    Messages:
    9,091
    Garner v Tennessee was a civil case that involved the Fourth Amendment. It applied to the police.

    The police have a duty to enforce the law. That includes a responsibility for apprehending suspects.

    We as private citizens do not have such a duty. We may use deadly force than it is necessary to do so, and that is almost always when it is necessary to prevent crimes.

    In some states, the law and or case law touches on the use of deadly force to stop a fleeing felon. A number of conditions much exist. In no case would it apply to theft.

    In some states, a command from a police officer is necessary for justification. Heaven help the citizen who cannot prove that he had received such a command.
     
  24. Vern Humphrey

    Vern Humphrey Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2002
    Messages:
    19,669
    Location:
    Deep in the Ozarks
    There is an old saying, "Justice delayed is justice denied."
     
  25. Archie

    Archie Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2002
    Messages:
    2,316
    Location:
    Hastings, Nebraska - the Heartland!
    This is not a grand dictate from on High, it is common statutory law generated by leftists and is based on the premise "A thief's right to steal your property is more important than your right to keep it". This sort of law and all those who support it are pro-criminal and anti-society and peaceful life.
    That part is true indeed. One must understand current applicable law and the ramifications thereof. In other words, know how statutory law can and will destroy one's life for doing the right thing. Understand that if one violates the letter of the law, regardless of condition or motivation, one will most likely suffer the consequences.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice