Shoot to defend a car?

[Joe Demko]

Many urban minority parents have too many children and live on food stamps and other means of survival because they are too lazy to work. This has detrimental (Spelling?) effects on the children and how they act. Hell most parents don't even care about their children unless something bad happens to them. This kid has a criminal record which includes breaking and entering. Sorry but this kid is going to turn out violent.

Please open a thread on this in a more appropriate forum, where I will be happy to discuss it with you. Bring cites.

 

[Heavy Metal Hero]

I would like to add that I don't feel the shooting is right, but I am not going to lose any sleep over knowing another thug is off the street.

 

[quatin]

Expand on this, please. In what way do you find the difference between the Texas and Ohio laws thought provoking?

That in Texas, you are allowed to use deadly force to protect personal property. So there must be more people in Texas who think it's acceptable to defend property the same was as you protect people than in Ohio. Probably also reflected in how many more executions Texas has than other states. I kinda wonder if it's how people were brought up.

 

[Heavy Metal Hero]

You sir, are in the wrong country.

 

[Cousin Mike]

Many urban minority parents have too many children and live on food stamps and other means of survival because they are too lazy to work.

I am sorry, but I only buy the "Poor, uneducated minority" excuse for so long.

OT for this thread, so I'll keep it short. Crime is not as disproportionate along the color line as most of you have been brought up to think - and it seems that too many people want to attach race to a problem that is universal. Where you have poverty, lack of education, and lack of opportunity, you have crime - regardless of what race you are, area you're from, music you listen to, etc. Certain folks also seem to forget that the majority of people on welfare in this country are young, white single moms.

It might seem convenient to some to put all of societies problems on "minorities," (read: blacks and latinos) but the inconvenient truth is that race has nothing to do with right and wrong. Race has nothing to do with crime, except when it comes to this new age scientific racism that tries to use statistics to "prove" a biased point. Those who claim to be educated should know better.

 

[crofrog]

All for a worthless 12 year old car.

You might see that car as worthless. However depending on the circumstances the owner of that car was in. It might have been his only transportation to his job, that provided the much needed money to feed his family.

That being said the shooting is not unjustifiable.

Chris

 

[Helstrm]

I can only speak for myself but I never intended to say that the kid had rights when he stole that car. Only that as a CWP holder I do not have the "LEGAL" right to shoot someone because he took my car. Nor would I want to live with the fact that I killed a kid over a car.

If we want to look at what ifs.. then consider that this 15 year old kid may have had a girlfiend with him, let's say a 14 year old girl that in attracted to bad boys as many young girls are. Most of them grow out of it and grow up to be upstanding citizens. Well if that bullet killed her how would the replies in this thread differ?

Higher insurance premiums? Not even close to the legal fees after the family sues... Anyway... Kid was wrong for stealing the car and Shooter was wrong for pulling out his firearm in a non-life threatening situation. Do I feel sorry for the kid, No, he was on a one way street anyway. I feel sorry for the shooters family.

 

[Henry Bowman]

I guess I was the first to mention race in this thread. I now regret that. :banghead:

I only mentioned it with respect to the racial tensions that Cincinnati has seen over the last 5 or so years, culminating in several days of rioting (April 2001), our police being hamstrung, and many (not all) residents of the most crime and violence-infested neighborhoods not being willing to step forward and identify perps.

I don't know whether the shooter in this case was fed up with it all or whether he was acting of his own nature. Either way, the shoot looks unlawful and unjustified. Race has not been a media topic, but certainly (improperly) could have been in other circumstances.

Let's return to the relevant topic of the use of deadly force for the protection of property. This is not a CCW case, nor is it in Texas, though the discussion (to the extent based on actual law and not urban myth) is interesting.

 

[Correia]

I'm teaching a CCW class tonight, and I spend over half of it talking about justified use of force.

One of the things I always tell my students is that I'm going to tell you how it is, not how I think it should be.

I think a lot of posters here are real caught up in the how it should be, vs. the reality of the situation.

You can talk a big game about killing somebody to protect your property, but in this case, Ohio law is more than likely going to crucify the shooter. He is probably going to go to prison. Even if he does get off, lawyers start at $250 an hour, so pony up activist boy. I figure that three-four hours of lawyer fees pay for the entire value of the car.

You can pontificate about the good old days when they hung horse thieves, but you don't live there anymore. You can talk about laws in other states, but unless you live there, it doesn't do you a lick of good. You can talk about the maybes, could haves, should haves, what ifs, but in the end, none of those things matter.

In most jurisdictions, you are either in danger of recieving grevious bodily harm, or you are not. In Ohio, you better be in danger.

 

[ArfinGreebly]

How Much Life?

I've frequently chewed on this.

If a man steals my stuff, it's just stuff.

Now, I worked for years to afford the stuff, and it represents those years of expended effort. To replace it, I'm gonna spend more years of expended effort.

The man stole a piece of my life.

Yes, insurance will mitigate some kinds of loss from some kinds of theft but there is much that can't be replaced that easily (for example, I don't personally carry theft insurance on my older car -- the one I drive to work every day).

Although . . . when I was 12 our house burned to the ground and we lost it, everything in it, and the car parked next to it. Suspected arson, but no actual suspect. We all lived through it. There was stuff we couldn't replace (family photos, sentimental trinkets, etc.) but we all lived through it.

That catastrophe became just one more event in our lives. The loss gave us some perspective. Still, it cost us years to recover fully.

If I had caught the bastard setting the fire, I would probably have tried to kill him. Looking back, that's one personal trauma I never had to get over. The fire? The loss? All temporary. We moved on.

I guess, in the end, even if someone steals what I've worked for, he's only stolen the past.

As long as he doesn't try to steal my future, I'll let someone else bring his karma to him. As long as I have my future, I can rebuild -- even create something better.

The part of my life that's important is the part that's in the future.

If he wants to steal my future, he's gonna have a fight on his hands and, if he's not better trained than I am, he's gonna lose.

 

[Cousin Mike]

Mr. Bowman, it wasn't the mention of race in your post. That's relevant to the point, and as any Ohioan knows, it's simply the God's honest truth. Cincinnatti has a race problem. My issue was with the often repeated lie that minorities are the only people in this country that commit crimes. Sorry if I was unclear.

The hypocrisy in this thread is astounding. If the government started executing car thieves, you people would be in an uproar about how this country is turning into China... and rightfully so. But if a private citizen does it, then it's okay. These same folks who claim to take issue with Middle Eastern tradition and radical Islam (of maiming/executing people for simple property crimes) now seem to be advocating the right of citizens to commit that same injustice on inner-city teenagers...

Awfully selective "justice," isn't it?

You can't have it both ways, people. Either you think killing a thief is right, or you think it's wrong. Either you agree with other countries that do this, or you don't. Talk is cheap. It's extra cheap in public gun forums.

What are any of you guys doing in your local communities to bring the "good ol' days" back, when they hung people for minor infractions?

Nothing... or you'd be in prison, like this guy is about to be... and once again, rightfully so.

 

[Nick1911]

ArfinGreebly, fantastic reply.

 

[hso]

Nicely said, ArfinGreebly.

I like the concept that deadly force is warranted when someone is trying to "steal" your future and not when they're only after things of the past. Very well said.



There is no question that the punk stealing the car was in the wrong, but there is no valid moral or ethical justification for killing someone who is stealing your car while you are not in danger. You shoot to defend your life or the life of another. You can't defend a thing like a car.

Those of you advocating shooting the punk thief need to think carfully about what the ratio is between those agreeing with you and those that aren't and decide if perhaps you're off base on this position. Remeber that you're not at the average PTA meeting, but on an RKBA board where everyone that disagrees with you not only advocates the individual's right to self defense and use of firearms, but probably many of them carry on a daily basis and have thought through their responsibilities.

 

[Big Calhoun]

I wouldn't have done it

No sir. I'm a pansy when it comes to the cold and it's gotten colder here in Texas. Lately, the neighborhood has been getting a li'l bit sketchy. Yet, I still have warmed up my car the past 2 or 3 mornings. IMO, it is a chance that I'm taking and I acknowledge that. If someone makes off with my car (which I do worry about), then that's my fault for starting it in the first place. That's what insurance is for. Unless the person is driving at me, they can have it.

 

[Thin Black Line]

Police said Quavale was found in the driver's seat of a 1994 Ford Taurus with a gunshot wound

That would bluebook retail for about $2200.....well, at least human life is
more expensive in the US than Iraq.....it's a car, ppl.

That said, if my kids are in the car when someone attempts to steal it, I'm
going to see that person in infrared mode and they'll wish they had been
shot by the time I'm through.

 

[Doug.38PR]

the guy shouldn't feel bad. He defended his car, something he that he payed a lot of hard earned money for that took time from his life to do.

Prosecutor shouldn't press charges. Let it go and let the man go on with his life.

This might not happen. But I don't think realistically I would just let some goon make off with something that doesn't belong to him. Nobody should. If the gun is the only means of stopping him available then I should use it.

I may go to jail, but let a jury decide.

 

[hso]

Carry a second set of keys and lock the thing up while you let it warm up. $1.25 is a lot cheaper than the deductable on the insurance!

 

[Helstrm]

Carry a second set of keys and lock the thing up while you let it warm up. $1.25 is a lot cheaper than the deductable on the insurance!

That is what I do. My Suburban won't fit in the garage and I don't want to drag my 4 year old out to a freezing car. But if it is stolen then oh well. Still not worth killing over. IMO plus I have On Star... Let the cops find my Truck.

 

[Joe Demko]

The guy shouldn't feel bad. He defended his car, something he that he payed a lot of hard earned money for that took time from his life to do.

Then it would seem the car's owner is entitled to an equal amount of time from the thief's life in order to be "made whole." How do you justify taking all the life the thief had remaining?

 

[Doug.38PR]

the thief surrendered his rights in life either by jail or by death when he interfered with the man's life by taking his car. Property is not nothing. It is something you take time and money and hard work into paying for. Stealing from someone is a violation just like rape. Your life has been violated. This has been the Western Christian Civilization view of property for the past 1500 years until our thinking became more socialistic

 

[CodeSlinger]

The hypocrisy in this thread is astounding. If the government started executing car thieves, you people would be in an uproar about how this country is turning into China... and rightfully so. But if a private citizen does it, then it's okay.

Interesting point, but let me change it slightly. If the government started stealing 1.2 million cars per year from otherwise law-abiding, tax-paying citizens, I believe the armed citizenry would take severe offense and take action against that government with arms. But if criminals do it, according to the sentiments expressed in this thread, "it's okay."


Many on this thread have also said that "property" is not worth defending with lethal force. How would you change your position if it were a different piece of property? If it were, say, your firearms being stolen instead of your car? Does it really make a difference to your ability to protect yourself if it's a criminal doing the stealing vs. the government?


It is an oft-forgotten point that the original set of inalienable rights wasn't "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" as listed in the Declaration of Independance. That was a relatively last-minute change from the original three, listed in the Declaration of Colonial Rights written by the First Continental Congress: "Life, Liberty and Property."

 

[Correia]

I may go to jail, but let a jury decide

Yeah, because that's a smart gamble to make...

Okay, in fantasy world we can shoot everybody who steals from us, or wrongs us in any way, or looks at us crosseyed.

In real life, you better have a damn good reason to shoot somebody.

Wake up people. You shoot somebody in this situation, in a state with laws that forbid that activity, you are probably going to go to jail, and if you don't go to jail, you are going to spend a hundred times what that car was worth defending yourself.

A reaccuring theme I see in a lot of S&T threads is this. We get two groups of posters. Those who wish things were a certain way, and those who just say what the reality of the situation is.

The Wishers manage to get offended at those of us who tell it how it is. It doesn't matter what your grandpa did in the olden days, or how they used to hang horse theives, or how you think you should be able to shoot through doors, or how if they're in your house they're dead meat, or any of the other multitude of stupid arguments we've had in here.

At the end of the shooting, reality is going to come crashing painfully down. They your moral outrage and libertarian convictions are worth jack and squat.

So if you want to talk about the laws and how they're wrong and how you should be able to do something else, I would strongly suggest you take it to Legal & Political, not Strategies and Tactics.

 

[Doug.38PR]

Wake up people. You shoot somebody in this situation, in a state with laws that forbid that activity, you are probably going to go to jail, and if you don't go to jail, you are going to spend a hundred times what that car was worth defending yourself.

I'm not denying that. That is what the law states as it is currently written. This is how modern political judges and prosecutors (persecutors) think. You will likely have to face this in reality. (and pray a jury will be made up of sensible real life people not bleeding heart sheep)

BUT, that being said in reality are you really going to just let someone violate you and help themselves to your domain?

EDIT: on the side, let me pose this question to chew on. Many in here have said that you shouldn't use deadly force unless your life is in danger.
Well, following that through, if someone is raping you or your loved one, you shouldn't use deadly force against them (you can't shoot them) because they are just raping, they are not killing. You should force them off or call the police after the crime is committed, let them catch the criminal and put them away.
Is anyone going to follow this line of thinking?

 

[Correia]

And where do some of you get off telling us that because we're not supporting this guy, that we're some how in favor of the thieves? We didn't write the laws.

The thief was bad. I think anybody with half a brain can agree to that.

But the shooter is still going to go to jail. Deal with it.

Doesn't matter how hard you wish it was some other way. It isn't.

 

[Thin Black Line]

This has been the Western Christian Civilization view of property for the past 1500 years until our thinking became more socialistic

Certainly not the Christian view unless you feel it only applies to cloaks.