Man Sentenced to 9 mos for Shooting Car Prowler

[gym]

Your mid-evil way of looking at things saddens me. Thank god you’re not in a position to make those decisions. There would be no second chances for most teenagers, although you might solve prison overcrowding. Lot's of kids steal, even if it's a piece of candy. We used to polygraph guys that worked in security, and one of the first red flags was if a guy said he "never" stole anything, and "never" used drugs. I guess it must be nice where you live. I bet you like that show LOST

 

[Atroxus]

If you realy want that type of legal system you should consider moving to baghdad. I don't see it happening in this country. Our legal system may not be perfect, but none are because there are these weird imperfect things called human beings involved. I would gladly take our sytem over any country that lops teh hands off of thieves though; as some of these countries also have laws where women are punished for having the bad luck to get raped.

 

[kilo729]

Lets see, she was able to find the grocery store. She could have found a church, asked a police officer, asked a fireman, or even ASKED THE GROCER and I'm sure she would have received all the help she and her siblings needed. Where were her parents? Where were her aunts and uncles? Where were her grandparents? What does the fact that she is Hispanic have to do with it?

I must ask: Did she admit this to you? Was she caught?

Police officers and firemen aren't obligated to do a goddamn thing in this case, and neither is the grocer. Family, dead or gone. She's so Hispanic, that she's often mistaken for being Black. Racism was alive an well in her area at the time. There was no help, only self-preservation. It was a rare example of the classic 'lifeboat scenario.'

You should stop while you're behind, you've got no where to go with this. You debased my mother whilst spewing fallacies, and continue to do so.

(She freely admitted these things to me. Do you suppose she should have been shot in the back of the head had she been caught and fled?)

Hernandez caused whatever "danger" he was in. Hernandez was still in the commission of his crime; running off with his ill gotten gains. Though I don't rightly know, I doubt Sheets would have shot Hernandez if Hernandez had dropped the woofer and hightailed out of there.

So what? You said he wasn't fleeing, I proved you wrong. You're grasping at straws.

That which is endowed can be squandered, a pursuit of happiness can fail, and no one is endowed with a right to steal from another that which they've squandered or failed to achieve for themselves.

No one is endowed with the right to take someones life. The right to defense does not equal the right to be judge, jury, and executioner. Shooting someone over theft is wrong, end of story.

Dude, criminals (and/or their families) have successfully pressed charges, sued, etc from injuring themselves in a break in or getting shot in the process and WON. ANYTHING is possible.

Do you have a source for these claims? Like a real suit, not civil - you can file a civil suit for whatever you damn well please.

 

[rainbowbob]

If the man in the article had shot and killed all five of the criminals as they were fleeing, and I was the judge in his trial, I would have thrown out the case.

Perhaps you are not aware that in the US, a judge is required to operate according to the law. He doesn't get to make it up as he goes.

 

[bri]

Nothing more should need to be said. The very fact that so many here cannot understand both the ethical and legal justification for use of deadly force -- and these are folk that are, presumably, armed and all too willing to use deadly force -- bespeaks of a most sad and sorry state at which we have arrived.

Good lord, I'm appalled at some of the comments here. The antis don't need to come up with any of their own arguments; many members here quite neatly supply the antis with ample fodder ...

Well said, +1.

 

[EHL]

Good lord, I'm appalled at some of the comments here. The antis don't need to come up with any of their own arguments; many members here quite neatly supply the antis with ample fodder

Me thinks that there's plenty of anti's and bleeding hearts hanging around this forum already.

This has gotten way off topic. Seriously though, it's no wonder we have to fight tooth and nail just to allow states to pass CCW laws because so many of our own membership here coddles criminals and are quick to condemn anybody who defends themselves or their right to protect themselves from being a victim. I know that many here would argue that the person who used force to defend their property is now the criminal. What makes them a criminal though? Think about it... What kind of messed up laws transforms a victim who fights to keep ownership of either their chastity or property into the criminal? Many in here have touched on the backwards view that many Islamic countries have on women being raped and their resources or options for justice. On this same token, many in here believe that it is OK for any crumb bum to waltz into our house or garage and help themselves to our property and we have to give it up because "their life is too important". I'm not advocating immediate termination of life, but I will confront and demand that they return my property. If they make any sudden moves, I'm not sure if I'll risk waiting to see what his intentions are. He may be reaching for a gun or knife. He may be diving for cover so he can fire at me from relative safety. He may be running to get his homies so they can rush me. There's too many variables for me to risk otherwise.
Then others will say, that property is not worth the risk for them. That's all well and good but maybe it's not for me or others. I view my property/heirlooms as portions of my life, that I have worked and toiled for to earn. If somebody walks away with that, they have just stolen a piece of my life. That, to me, is worth fighting for.
If you still can't follow me with that, let me explain using another common example: In many police departments there's phamplets discussing the issue of rape and what women (their primary audience) should do should they become the victim of rape, both during and after the actual assault. These phamplets almost universally agree that women should comply with the assailant and "give in" to their demands to avoid being hurt/killed. There's a good number of individuals out there that disagree with this because they value their chastity too much to give it up without a fight, even at the cost of their life. These people value their chastity even to the point of hanging their life in the balance. How ludicrous would it sound if I proposed a law that punishes somebody who fought back as opposed to just laying there and taking it? In essence, that's what we're getting by alot of the guys in here finger wagging at those of us who instead of prostrating ourselves and "taking it", display some backbone and say "I'm not just going to lay there and take it! I will fight back to defend what is rightfully mine!" Yet, the prevailing mentality is that to fight back over something as "unimportant" as property is criminal. That's why the anti's have us scared. We can't even agree on the simple basic premise that everyone of us has an inherent right to be secure in both our person and our property for which we have expended both labor and time in earning. Otherwise, we would be no better than slaves; toiling and laboring for the benefit of another. When will we stop looking to blame the victim should they do anything else other than just "laying there and taking it"???:banghead:

 

[Cosmoline]

Yeah, nice way to get popped with a threatening/brandishing a firearm charge there, sport.

If you have a brandishing law, and if that brandishing law does not exempt home owners.

Washington's RCW 9.41.270 has exceptions for:

(a) Any act committed by a person while in his or her place of abode or fixed place of business;

...

(c) Any person acting for the purpose of protecting himself or herself against the use of presently threatened unlawful force by another, or for the purpose of protecting another against the use of such unlawful force by a third person;

Other states such as Texas are very different. Personally I would never dream of confronting a criminal in my place WITHOUT a loaded rifle. Even then it's risky but I'm willing to take that risk. My GOAL is not to arrest or to shoot, but to get them to go away so they no longer pose a threat to me. It's just that simple. If they do decided to try to kill me, the rifle is there to end the matter quickly and in my favor.

 

[Atroxus]

Me thinks that there's plenty of anti's and bleeding hearts hanging around this forum already.

This has gotten way off topic. Seriously though, it's no wonder we have to fight tooth and nail just to allow states to pass CCW laws because so many of our own membership here coddles criminals and are quick to condemn anybody who defends themselves or their right to protect themselves from being a victim. I know that many here would argue that the person who used force to defend their property is now the criminal. What makes them a criminal though? Think about it... What kind of messed up laws transforms a victim who fights to keep ownership of either their chastity or property into the criminal? Many in here have touched on the backwards view that many Islamic countries have on women being raped and their resources or options for justice. On this same token, many in here believe that it is OK for any crumb bum to waltz into our house or garage and help themselves to our property and we have to give it up because "their life is too important". I'm not advocating immediate termination of life, but I will confront and demand that they return my property. If they make any sudden moves, I'm not sure if I'll risk waiting to see what his intentions are. He may be reaching for a gun or knife. He may be diving for cover so he can fire at me from relative safety. He may be running to get his homies so they can rush me. There's too many variables for me to risk otherwise.
Then others will say, that property is not worth the risk for them. That's all well and good but maybe it's not for me or others. I view my property/heirlooms as portions of my life, that I have worked and toiled for to earn. If somebody walks away with that, they have just stolen a piece of my life. That, to me, is worth fighting for.
If you still can't follow me with that, let me explain using another common example: In many police departments there's phamplets discussing the issue of rape and what women (their primary audience) should do should they become the victim of rape, both during and after the actual assault. These phamplets almost universally agree that women should comply with the assailant and "give in" to their demands to avoid being hurt/killed. There's a good number of individuals out there that disagree with this because they value their chastity too much to give it up without a fight, even at the cost of their life. These people value their chastity even to the point of hanging their life in the balance. How ludicrous would it sound if I proposed a law that punishes somebody who fought back as opposed to just laying there and taking it? In essence, that's what we're getting by alot of the guys in here finger wagging at those of us who instead of prostrating ourselves and "taking it", display some backbone and say "I'm not just going to lay there and take it! I will fight back to defend what is rightfully mine!" Yet, the prevailing mentality is that to fight back over something as "unimportant" as property is criminal. That's why the anti's have us scared. We can't even agree on the simple basic premise that everyone of us has an inherent right to be secure in both our person and our property for which we have expended both labor and time in earning. Otherwise, we would be no better than slaves; toiling and laboring for the benefit of another. When will we stop looking to blame the victim should they do anything else other than just "laying there and taking it"???:banghead:

I have never heard of or seen a pamphlet saying that a woman should do nothing to defend themselves from an attack. I have heard of women being trained to decide how she will respond if attacked. That *if* you are going to fight you should fight with everything you have because you may well be fighting for your life, however if you don't think that you are capable of fighting back you should be prapared to comply so that maybe you won't be killed after. In other words chose a tactic and make sure you are 100% commited to that course of action, because half measures very well might get you killed.

You talk about there being bleeding hearts and "antis" here, but I don't see it. Nobody here has said anything about refusing to defend someones life or well being. We may not be as eager to kill an unarmed person as you are, but I think that the majority of us would not hesitate to kill in the defense of ourselves or another person.

 

[alfack]

^^^^What's up homie^^^^

It's all cause and effect. I'm pretty sure the low life bastard would still be roaming this planet, if he had not made the conscious decision to steal anothers' property.

 

[Benmc753]

A shot anywhere with a mosin-nagant will kill someone, what did he expect? There's a reason the dragunov shoots the same round.

 

[kilo729]

Comparing theft or robbery to rape is seriously stupid.

As stupid as suggesting only women get raped.

You talk about there being bleeding hearts and "antis" here, but I don't see it. Nobody here has said anything about refusing to defend someones life or well being. We may not be as eager to kill an unarmed person as you are, but I think that the majority of us would not hesitate to kill in the defense of ourselves or another person.

Pretty much this.

A shot anywhere with a mosin-nagant will kill someone, what did he expect? There's a reason the dragunov shoots the same round.

*Mac voice*: ACCURACY OF A SNIPER RIFLE, POWER OF AN M16. ONE SHOT FROM THIS BABY, AND IT'S ALL OVER.

 

[Kleanbore]

I know that many here would argue that the person who used force to defend their property is now the criminal.

Not sure who would argue that. Deadly force, on the other hand, presents a different judgement.

What makes them a criminal though? Think about it... What kind of messed up laws transforms a victim who fights to keep ownership of either their chastity or property into the criminal?

Sexual assault is one thing, but thievery is another. What kind of laws? How about the laws that go back almost a millenium and that form the foundation of the original laws of all of our states except Louisiana, where things really do not differ much anyway? Yes, Texas (alone) has gone back still further, to Leviticus, and permitted the use of deadly force under limitied circumstances and if, and only if, the theft occurs at night...

I'm not advocating immediate termination of life, but I will confront and demand that they return my property. If they make any sudden moves, I'm not sure if I'll risk waiting to see what his intentions are. He may be reaching for a gun or knife. He may be diving for cover so he can fire at me from relative safety. He may be running to get his homies so they can rush me. There's too many variables for me to risk otherwise.

He may be this, he may be that. Did he have the ability and the opportunity to kill or maim you, and did you have reason to believe that you were actually in jeopardy at the time? Can you present convincing evidence to that effect? That's what will matter to you, notwithstanding what the possibilities may have been.

Then others will say, that property is not worth the risk for them. That's all well and good but maybe it's not for me or others. I view my property/heirlooms as portions of my life, that I have worked and toiled for to earn. If somebody walks away with that, they have just stolen a piece of my life. That, to me, is worth fighting for.

That's OK, fight for it. Just think for a minute before overstepping your rights by using deadly force and becoming a common criminal in the eyes of the law.

Yet, the prevailing mentality is that to fight back over something as "unimportant" as property is criminal.

I don't think so. One can use reasonable force, short of deadly force, to protect tangible moveable property. The laws against using deadly force (except under very limited circumstances in Texas) are not the result of the "prevailing mentality." Rather, they are the result of centuries upon centuries of carefully considered legal thinking at the highest levels.

Seriously though, it's no wonder we have to fight tooth and nail just to allow states to pass CCW laws because so many of our own membership here coddles criminals and are quick to condemn anybody who defends themselves or their right to protect themselves from being a victim.

That doesn't make any sense at all. However, if people keep promoting breaking the law by using deadly force where it is not lawfully justified, that insistence can reasonably be expected to work against the right of individuals to keep and bear arms.

 

[EHL]

I have never heard of or seen a pamphlet saying that a woman should do nothing to defend themselves from an attack.

The fact that such a thing has never been encountered by you and your perceptory senses does not make it any less a reality.

however if you don't think that you are capable of fighting back you should be prapared to comply so that maybe you won't be killed after.

That's right, let's just hope that the guy who had no inhibition in grabbing somebody and forcing himself on them is decent enough to at least leave them alive afterwards, right. Criminals are like animal-like predators. They are looking for weak victims. Somebody who fights back often makes a criminal think twice about the worth of proceeding with their attack against this individual who just won't roll over. There's plenty of examples as well as well documented evidence indicating that somebody willing to fight back is much less likely to come out even injured, as opposed to those who entrust their lives and well-being to a degenerate.

You talk about there being bleeding hearts and "antis" here, but I don't see it.

That's because you are probably (at least judging by your posts) safely in that category, but can't admit to it because of the perjorative label that comes with it.

Nobody here has said anything about refusing to defend someones life or well being. We may not be as eager to kill an unarmed person as you are, but I think that the majority of us would not hesitate to kill in the defense of ourselves or another person.

You make many ASSumptions that I would seriously council you to reconsider. You ASSume that "well being" cannot be defined as financial and emotional well being. Somebody being robbed or burgled is not helping their "well being", it is indeed hurting them more than you know. Maybe you are better off financially than others. So maybe it is just "stuff" that can "easily be replaced". Hurray for you. Other's are not so fortunate to just be able to replace everything just violated out of their hands with the opening of a checkbook or a call to the adjuster. Some people actually have to work hard, for years, just to aquire what little material possesions that give them pleasure. When that is just taken away you have literally robbed that person of their life's work. When you so callously imply "just buy more" or "get another one", you're basically scoffing at their loss and their sacrifice in even earning that possesion. You should seriously consider this before making Assumptions about the average guy who just happens to fight for things that he might not be able to just "get another one".

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Killing an unarmed man over theft is not self-appointed enforcement of the law?

No. Only a law enforcement officer can enforce the law. Sheets was protecting his property. Sheets - same as you and me - have the right to protect their property. Even if it isn't a written law making theft unlawful, we all have the right to protect our property.

I don't see a problem using "reasonable" force to protect your property, and if your life or the life of another person is on the line I think it is every american's *duty* to intervene(even with lethal force) if they are capable.

So long as it is "reasonable" for me to protect my property, same as it is reasonable for me to protect my life, I'll employ what ever reasonable force I have on hand to stop the theft of my property or threat to my life. I don't have the luxury of being able to carry or even own every "reasonable" level of force. I am fortunate that I can carry three levels of force with me. A 45 with a 4" barrel, a 45 with a 3" barrel, and a 380 with a 2 3/4" barrel. I have no skill at martial arts and at my age, such things are out of the question anyway.

Good lord, I'm appalled at some of the comments here. The antis don't need to come up with any of their own arguments; many members here quite neatly supply the antis with ample fodder ...

Of which you are a bigger help to the antis by printing out of context quotes and passing them off as fact. And, don't worry about any antis using any of this stuff against us. They make up much "worse" stuff all on their own!

In some states, but apparently not in Washington State, the unlawful entry of the automobile to take the sub-woofer would constitute burglary, but since the perp was already departing with stolen item it was no longer possible to prevent that crime.

Prevent? No. Stop? Yes.

The crime of "burglary" doesn't cease when the perp is carting off the ill gotten gains. Even if the perp drops the item and runs, he is still guilty of the burglary. I will grant that if the crook drops the stolen goods and runs, no one has the right to shoot him. Capture and prosecute? Absolutely. That's where law enforcement chimes in.

In a different society where the power to adjudicate has not been constitutionally delegated to government, it would be up to us as individuals to defend our property and ourselves and separate out the criminals. As it stands, we do live in a society where the power to adjudicate(separate out the criminals) has been granted to a government, but the power to protect our property - and our selves - has not been granted to government. The protection of our property and ourselves is up to us as individuals.

kilo729

Your mother admitted being a thief. How is whatever I've said debased her or amount to a fallacy? Had your mother been caught, I can suppose with the info you have given out here that she and her siblings would have been put in the custody of the state, fed, educated, and clothed. Regardless, it appears she turned out just fine. She gave birth to YOU!

As for all the rest, if you disagree with me, don't steal from me. End of story.

 

[HydrostatiK]

Sweet lord, you aint gotta blow someone's head off over a subwoofer. Wow.

Hopefully the departed's accomplices learned something about their mortality.

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

sure you do its the internet. if you listen to joe horn work himself into a frenzy you see the same mentality at work

 

[EHL]

if you disagree with me, don't steal from me. End of story.

Couldn't of said it better myself.

Comparing theft or robbery to rape is seriously stupid.

As stupid as suggesting only women get raped.

It wasn't a comparison, believe it or not. It was an analogy. But robbery/burglary, at their core, is a violation. Your belongings were rifled through and possibly destroyed in a frantic search for a quick score. The very things that you have cared for, tucked away, and cherished have either been broken or pilfered. Don't know about you, but I'd consider that a violation.



Also, nobody said only women get raped. You were the only one who mentioned that.

 

[Kleanbore]

Sheets was protecting his property. Sheets - same as you and me - have the right to protect their property. Even if it isn't a written law making theft unlawful, we all have the right to protect our property.

Sheets never claimed he was protecting his property. He and his attorney knew that that was a non-starter. Rather, he claimed he was protecting his life.

In any event, Sheets in Washington, and you in Oklahoma, do not have the right to employ deadly force to do so, and if you do they'll jail you for it. That's nothing new, by the way.

So long as it is "reasonable" for me to protect my property, same as it is reasonable for me to protect my life, I'll employ what ever reasonable force I have on hand to stop the theft of my property or threat to my life. I don't have the luxury of being able to carry or even own every "reasonable" level of force. I am fortunate that I can carry three levels of force with me. A 45 with a 4" barrel, a 45 with a 3" barrel, and a 380 with a 2 3/4" barrel. I have no skill at martial arts and at my age, such things are out of the question anyway.

A threat to your life is one thing, and the theft of your property is another. There is a legal distinction between reasonable force and deadly force. Neither you nor I get to decide what is "reasonable' and what is deadly--there is a definition of the latter. Use deadly force to prevent the theft of your property (except in Texas, more than thirty minutes after sunset and more than thirty minutes before sunrise) and you will have become a felon.

The crime of "burglary" doesn't cease when the perp is carting off the ill gotten gains.

Legal opinion? In Texas, and only in Texas, one can use deadly force to recover property taken in a burglary. In other places, the rightfulness of using deadly force to prevent a burglary has to do with the implied threat to the personal safety of the residents. Once the perp is going away, there is no such threat, and the right to use deadly force no longer exists.

As it stands, we do live in a society where the power to adjudicate(separate out the criminals) has been granted to a government, but the power to protect our property - and our selves - has not been granted to government. The protection of our property and ourselves is up to us as individuals.

Yeah, but you have to do it in accordance with the law, or suffer the consequences. In forty eight states, the use of deadly force to protect property is proscribed and would result in criminal prosecution; in the other two, there are very stringent limitations.

Do you have a gun? Do you intend to use it lawfully?

 

[ArfinGreebly]

Amidst The Heat

In the middle of this (rather heated) discussion, there are a couple of things I notice.

One: The perp was shot in the head. Much is made of this. The shooter was a) shooting down from above, b) shooting at a moving target. With open sights.

The general rule for shooting either uphill or down is that your shot will go high.

The general rule for shooting at a moving target is that you won't hit where you thought you would.

My conclusion and conjecture is therefore: it was a lucky shot (or unlucky, depending on viewpoint). I'm guessing he wasn't aiming for the head. Therefore, in my humble estimation, continuing to emphasize "shot him in the head" is pointless. He aimed for a moving target, shooting downward, and hit higher than he aimed.


Two: Regarding legal/moral perspective: we see the "shooting over property" theme brought out repeatedly, with the emphasis that "it's only property." We also see that historically, deadly force was appropriate only for felonies, and further that felonies of that day were all violent crimes (or crimes involving force, if you prefer).

However, a certain amount of legal turbulence has been engendered down the years by the elevation of property crimes -- a whole host of non-violent, even victimless crimes -- to felonies.

Which calls into question the moral thinking involved. If society has become comfortable with the idea that a crime of property can be a felony, does it not speak to the level of perceived "violence" transmitted by such a crime? If property crimes are so harmless, why then do we hold them to be felonies, if not for the violence such crimes do to the lives of their victims?

I'm not a legal scholar, but I see this as inconsistent. You may only defend life, but stealing certain things is "violent" enough that it's felonious?



For what it's worth, I am inclined to think that laws which require the victim of a crime-in-progress to have expert legal advice before acting to protect his property or his person actually create a climate that encourages career criminals to continue to ply their trade, knowing they can game the system.


Nothing in these comments should be construed as endorsing shooting at a distant felon escaping with one's property. I can understand the glandular overload that led to it, but I can't endorse it.

 

[Kleanbore]

I'm not a legal scholar, but I see this [the elevation of property crimes -- a whole host of non-violent, even victimless crimes -- to felonies] as inconsistent. You may only defend life, but stealing certain things is "violent" enough that it's felonious?

I don't think that the elevation of the theft of high-value goods to the status of felony had anything to do with "violence."

Rather, I think it had to it had to do with the penalty. Same thing for wire fraud, mail fraud, Federal false claims, Ponzi schemes, fraudulent public financial reporting, tax evasion, and a whole host of non-violent crimes that are now classified as felonies. You can't shoot to pevent any of those!

I believe that that distinction had a lot to do with Warner and on prior and subsequent changes to the fleeing felon rule.

It's a simple matter of changing the meaning of the term felony.

 

[LowEx]

It seems to me, with what little information there is to go on, that the law should have given additional benefit of the doubt to to victim of the burglary.

That is not to say that I think that what the victim did was morally, ethically, or tactically sound. Just that with this alignment of circumstances, he probably should not have been prosecuted for it. That is, philosophically speaking.

I've always believed that if your are involved in the obvious commission of theft, breaking and entering or the like, that you are taking your life out of your hands and putting it in those of whomever you are perpetrating the crime upon.

A person goes to jail due to the poor moral and/or tactical decision he makes in a situation that has been thrust upon him by the actions of criminals. How can you possibly argue that the law should have this right? The right to imprison a man who may or may not have made bad decisions while his property (and by extension, his self) was under attack. That it apparently does is not what I intend to debate, but should it?


If I was thrown into the situation and the life of the thief was in my hands, then I certainly would not take that life. I hope that I would successfully thread the needle between retaining what property and sanctity remains, and putting myself in a position where deadly force may occur. I'm not interested in killing anyone over even my irreplaceable property. That said, if my neighbor did it, I would not label him a blood thirsty vigilante who kills the less privileged for fun. I'd like to think I'd have enough sense to pray for the man, not condemn him.

 

[Atroxus]

The fact that such a thing has never been encountered by you and your perceptory senses does not make it any less a reality.



That's right, let's just hope that the guy who had no inhibition in grabbing somebody and forcing himself on them is decent enough to at least leave them alive afterwards, right. Criminals are like animal-like predators. They are looking for weak victims. Somebody who fights back often makes a criminal think twice about the worth of proceeding with their attack against this individual who just won't roll over. There's plenty of examples as well as well documented evidence indicating that somebody willing to fight back is much less likely to come out even injured, as opposed to those who entrust their lives and well-being to a degenerate.


That's because you are probably (at least judging by your posts) safely in that category, but can't admit to it because of the perjorative label that comes with it.



You make many ASSumptions that I would seriously council you to reconsider. You ASSume that "well being" cannot be defined as financial and emotional well being. Somebody being robbed or burgled is not helping their "well being", it is indeed hurting them more than you know. Maybe you are better off financially than others. So maybe it is just "stuff" that can "easily be replaced". Hurray for you. Other's are not so fortunate to just be able to replace everything just violated out of their hands with the opening of a checkbook or a call to the adjuster. Some people actually have to work hard, for years, just to aquire what little material possesions that give them pleasure. When that is just taken away you have literally robbed that person of their life's work. When you so callously imply "just buy more" or "get another one", you're basically scoffing at their loss and their sacrifice in even earning that possesion. You should seriously consider this before making Assumptions about the average guy who just happens to fight for things that he might not be able to just "get another one".

Gotta love when people automatically label someone as "anti-gun", "bleeding-heart", etc. over differences in opinion. Since you are willing to kill an unarmed person over a sub-woofer, where do you draw the line exactly? Just how little provocation do you need to respond with lethal force? Do you think that any criminal offense is worthy of the death penalty? Should we shoot someone for rear-ending us on the highway for destroying our property? Morally where that line is drawn varies from person to person, and likely we will not change eachothers minds in regards to what is morally acceptable use of lethal force. Legally though, like it or not you will be held accountable to the laws of your state if you kill someone. Morals and ethics aside, I at least know that should I come to a situation that I have to use lethal force that it will be within the bounds of the law for where I live.

 

[NMGonzo]

checking Hernandez for a pulse and found the man dead

**laughs**

 

[Kleanbore]

A person goes to jail due to the poor moral and/or tactical decision he makes in a situation that has been thrust upon him by the actions of criminals. How can you possibly argue that the law should have this right? The right to imprison a man who may or may not have made bad decisions while his property (and by extension, his self) was under attack.

I'm afraid that's the way the world works, and it always has. If you use deadly force on someone when it is not justified under the law, you can face criminal prosecution. Heck, even pointing a gun at someone is a serious crime unless the situation is such that that act was in fact necessary.

Unfair? Well, how should we distinguish between murder, voluntary or involuntary manslaughter, aggravated assault, etc. on the one hand, all felonies, and lawful homicide on the other?

It is extremely important to know when and under what circumstances deadly force is lawful. There is some excellent training available to you in Arizona.

An excellent white paper on Arizona law by attorney Michael Anthony is apparently no longer on the web, but I strongly recommend it if you can find it.

One part of it has been overtaken by events. Until recently, one could be found guilty of aggravated assault for reaching for a gun even if some toughs had been pushing you around and threatening you and your family with serious harm. That's been changed somewhat for the better. Perhaps the document is being revised to reflect the change.

 

[EHL]

One part of it has been overtaken by events. Until recently, one could be found guilty of aggravated assault for reaching for a gun even if some toughs had been pushing you around and threatening you and your family with serious harm. That's been changed somewhat for the better. Perhaps the document is being revised to reflect the change.

That point about laws changing for the better is exactly what I think some of the fellows here have been espousing. Just because something is a law doesn't necessarily make it the moral or ethical right. Your own observation points out the fact that sometimes laws serve to protect the aggressor or criminal as opposed to protecting the innocent. Instead of casting stones at the guy who reacted at somebody stealing from him, albeit in a way that others may not have reacted, we should recognize that he would not have even been forced into this situation were it not for the criminal acts inflicted on him. Laws can change, sometimes for the better. I'd urge you not be to be so quick to write someone off as a vigilante or blood thirsty guy who "got off easy" just because you think you would have acted differently.