Meathorse 0 #26 October 9, 2002 Quote That is a fallacy, that the choices are either one or the other. There are others Oh yes! Of course. If there were no other option then what a world this would be. Was trying to be a smart ass, guess it didn't go over too well Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SBS 0 #27 October 9, 2002 no problem. I just didn't pick that up. My fault as well...I'm probably being a little too serious in this thread. :) Steve_____________ I'm not conceited...I'm just realistic about my awesomeness... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AggieDave 6 #28 October 9, 2002 In Texas even if you are defending yourself from bodily harm, if you shoot and miss and hit someone else, YOU are liable. If you shoot someone and the bullet passes through them, hurting someone else, YOU are liable.--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SBS 0 #29 October 9, 2002 In Texas even if you are defending yourself from bodily harm, if you shoot and miss and hit someone else, YOU are liable. If you shoot someone and the bullet passes through them, hurting someone else, YOU are liable. ----------- Not addressing you personally AD, but I'm sure that who is held responsible for the death will make the dead innocent feel much better... ;) -S_____________ I'm not conceited...I'm just realistic about my awesomeness... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #30 October 9, 2002 any one mention any innocents? absolutely he should be responsible for his shots.____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChileRelleno 0 #31 October 9, 2002 IN REPLY___________In Texas even if you are defending yourself from bodily harm, if you shoot and miss and hit someone else, YOU are liable. If you shoot someone and the bullet passes through them, hurting someone else, YOU are liable. Yep, along with the right bear arms and protect you, your family and property comes the responsibilty to handle that firearm in a safe manner. Know your target and whats behind your target, in some instances it may be required for the greater safety of all to take someoneout even with the risk of innocent bystanders. i.e. the criminal is randomly firing at anything and everyone or you are taking direct fire and have to kill or be killed. In that case the investigation should hold you clear of negligence. Now as to what I think of this case. IMO he was within his rights to protect his property. ChileRelleno-Rodriguez Bro#414 Hellfish#511,MuffBro#3532,AnvilBro#9, D24868 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SBS 0 #32 October 9, 2002 IMO he was within his rights to protect his property. ---------------- What kind of protection is that??? He's shooting up his car, and what would he expect to happen??? If you are shooting at someone in a car, would you expect them to calmly pull to the side cause you're shooting at him/her? Assuming that the goal is not to hit air with every shot, which was obviously not the case here, there are a couple of options: 1) You hit the car, just damaging it further than it would be if the guy made a clean get away 2) you shoot out the tire, which will probably make him lose control and crash your car that you're supposedly trying to save 3) you shoot him, and he crashes the car that you are supposedly trying to save The motive sounds good in theory, but is not practical. He was not "protecting" his property in action. When you talk about people having the right to bear arms, just like you said, CR, you have a responsibility to use that firearm responsibly...that means having the ability to think things out and deciding if you are, in fact, responding properly to a situation, or simply reacting. -S_____________ I'm not conceited...I'm just realistic about my awesomeness... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freeflir29 0 #33 October 9, 2002 QuoteThe motive sounds good in theory, but is not practical That's just what the law calls it. Personally, I think the stupid bastard should die for trying to steal my property!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #34 October 9, 2002 There was a case here a couple years ago of a man seeing someone naked and banging on his sliding door at 2 in the morning. He got his gun and shot the guy. Turns out the guy he shot was his neighbor who had an allergic reaction to some medicine that caused him to become delusional. That's why vigilante justice is wrong and why those who participate in it should be punished. To deter others from doing the same thing. I'm completely in favor of people owning, and if properly licensed and trained, carrying guns. But they should be used in life and death circumstances only, because that's what you're meteing out when you use one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hottamaly 1 #35 October 9, 2002 Well, if jail time and/or probation or the "system" won't keep these punks from stealing otheres property (because they're too lazy to work for a living) maybe some vigilanty strikes against them will start giving them the idea that we are all tired of this. These punks, gangs, etc. think they can do whatever they want, when they want and to whom they want. There aren't enough police to be everywhere and if we start defending our own, well, who knows...maybe we can take the streets back! just my .02cents worth Skydiving gave me a reason to live I'm not afraid of what I'll miss when I die...I'm afraid of what I'll miss as I live Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Deuce 1 #36 October 9, 2002 Wow. We're on fire today! Hump day or what? In California the Penal Code (remember that scene from Kentucky Fried Movie?) allows cops to shoot "fleeing felons". Pfft! It's a felony to write a bad check. "Hey! this is a bad check! Come back here!" BLAM! Pretty stupid. You'd lose your job and probably get prosecuted. If it was determined that the culprit (Perry Mason word) was about to commit a violent felony, and the danger to the public posed by shooting at the theif was outwieghed by the impending felony, shoot away. Like an armed bank robber leaving a scene. Or if the car was being used as a weapon by trying to run people over. I don't think the fella will be prosecuted. If it was clear that no one else was endangered by him shooting at his own car while occupied by a thief, he's within his rights. You can defend your property with force. But if he was busting caps at his car with people and businesses on both sidewalks he's an idiot, and proof that all y'all are more qualified to carry guns than a whole lot of folks that have CCW permits Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freeflir29 0 #37 October 9, 2002 Quote If it was determined that the culprit (Perry Mason word) It has a more classy ring than "Perp" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ernokaikkonen 0 #38 October 10, 2002 >some vigilanty strikes against them will start giving them the idea that >we are all tired of this. I think you've tried this in the US for a couple of hundred years now. How well is it working? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diver123 0 #39 October 10, 2002 You sure are arrogent and quick to judge when there is something negative taking place in the U.S.... Don't make this into a "my country is" "your country is" thing... Let's try and keep this issue within it's original context cause I doubt very seriously that ANY country or civilization in this world is without flaw... How does the saying go? One bad apple doesn't spoil the bunch... "pull high! It's lower than you think..." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ernokaikkonen 0 #40 October 10, 2002 >You sure are arrogent and quick to judge when there is something >negative taking place in the U.S.... Well that message didn't come out rigth. Sorry. I was just trying to point out that vigilantes running around and shooting at bad guys isn't going to stop crime. Anywhere. Law enforcement officers are for that IMO. It wasn't your country I was judging but the idea and the thinking behind it(in the post I responded to). >Let's try and keep this issue within it's original context cause I doubt >very seriously that ANY country or civilization in this world is without flaw... Oh, I'm sure every country has it's flaws, mine too. But again, the idea of stopping crime by arming private citizens and having them shoot at people they judge to be worthy of shooting doesn't feel like a way to make the world a better place. And to actually answer to the original question of the thread: - The perp had it coming, no sympathy for him. Stupidity kills. - The shooter used excessive force, he wasn't in danger. I wouldn't charge him with murder-1 but maybe manslaughter(and the moron wrecked his own car!) - Shooting at a moving target in a public place is highly irresponsible, he should face charges of reckless endangerment or whatchamacallit. Are we on the same page now?Erno Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hohonukai 0 #41 October 10, 2002 I think the off-duty security guard reacted on how he's been trained to react. In the moment of the situation, you have to put yourself in his shoes where he's been trained to react accordingly to take control of the situation and then you have to feel what he's feeling, taking it personal, because it is hitting him on a personal level. Not sure if he meant to hit the thief or not, if he did, he sure has great aim, if he didn't, his aim sucks. But specifically, to answer the question was it self-defense? No, it's not self-defense, he wasn't being physically attacked. Do I blame him for his reaction? No, he's been trained to take control of the situation. Was it worth the thief's life? No, a car's not worth anyone's life, regardless if the person's a shithead or not. I'm not a prosecutor nor a judge, but I see charges being pressed because of the society we live in now. It's a tough call, personally for me to sway to either side, see, cause I completely stand behind the right to bear arms but there is a judgment call when it's the right time to practice it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
n2skdvn 0 #42 October 10, 2002 Quote I completely stand behind the right to bear arms what about the right to arm bears??????j/k touchy subjct for me to. if the guy was willing to take that chance he got what he deserved. but the secuirty guy should of thought about the innocent people around him.if my calculations are correct SLINKY + ESCULATOR = EVERLASTING FUN my site Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jaaska 0 #43 October 10, 2002 IMHO it all comes down to the way the society has been dealing with the situations like this. Now, somebody already posted a message concerning about a burglar breaking in your own home... I've asked this from couple of my friends (we had a sort of an argument about the value of life vs. property). Picture yourself waking in the middle of the night. You go looking for the source of the noise and as you step on your doorstep, you see a bulrglar running on your yard, back turned on you, away from your house, and carrying your brand new TV-set... What would you do? What if you had a pistol in your hand? Alarmingly (is that a word? ) I have gotten answers where people actually tell me: "He's still on my yard, holding my personal property - I would shoot the son of a bitch!" and give me a look "what a dumb question!" Well, to me that sounds like an execution - There's now way that one would think of shooting the guy to pits and pieces in order to get the bloody tv-set back. The TV would be in pits and pieces as well. The only conclusion is that out of pure rage, one just pops the guy. I mean, if the guy is running away (holding the tv would not give him any chance to use his arms etc.) the threat he supposedly caused on you/your family is gone. Of course it's easy for me to judge for in most European states firearms and problems caused by them are in totally different scope if compared with US. Since it's highly unlikely that a common thief or a bulrglar would have guns here, I would not be as scared for my life etc. as my counterparts over the sea. The NSA, right for guns etc. of course is a another thing, which can be discussed in a different thread. PS. There was a internatial group of people where we discussed this matter (mostly from the States and Europe) and out of those people, you could clearly see the cultural difference that there is among some issues b/w Europe and the States... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nacmacfeegle 0 #44 October 10, 2002 "you see a bulrglar running on your yard, back turned on you, away from your house, and carrying your brand new TV-set... What would you do? " Probably nothing, anyone who can carry a 32 inch Sony Wega, and still run should not be interfered with. I might set the dog on him.... Or I might just let it go, thats what insurance companies are there for.... I'm in Scotland, and very few of us have access to firearms, and besides, I don't really like guns in the house. I've no problem whatsoever with the use of firearms for 'legitimate purposes' whatsoever, like hunting, sport clat shooting and vermin (burglars?) control. But not for defence of my home. As you rightly mentioned there are different cultures and influences at work here, I'm sure the Afrikaan contingent will have a different view on this as well. Diffrent strokes, diffrent folks, its what keeps the world an interesting place... -------------------- He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ernokaikkonen 0 #45 October 10, 2002 >Probably nothing, anyone who can carry a 32 inch Sony Wega, and >still run should not be interfered with. Good one!>I'm sure the Afrikaan contingent will have a different view on this as well. Well yeah I'd suppose, for them "self defense" and "firearms" in the same sentence would probably suggest attacking wild beasts and such... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bluefingers 0 #46 October 10, 2002 Quotefor them "self defense" and "firearms" in the same sentence would probably suggest attacking wild beasts and such... Ja hell, yesterday I caught this chongololo in my kitchen .... *wipes brow* Kerry Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Deleted 0 #47 October 10, 2002 You don't need a firearm if you have a perfectly good baseball bat! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quatorze 1 #48 October 10, 2002 you can't unload a baseball bat either. I'm not afriad of dying, I'm afraid of never really living- Erin Engle Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ernokaikkonen 0 #49 October 10, 2002 The horror! The horror! I hear they can be really ferocious... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quatorze 1 #50 October 10, 2002 Quote The horror! The horror! I hear they can be really ferocious... That's why the make scattershot for .357's, those and those pesky water mocassins in the swamp around the DZ. You haven't really lived until your canopy hunting trip is ruined by one of those sweet little snakes I'm not afriad of dying, I'm afraid of never really living- Erin Engle Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
