Posted on 01/19/2023 3:25:44 PM PST by grundle
Nope. Sorry. That's murder.
I’d vote not guilty.
shot him three times
Same here
I would vote for acquittal.
Law or not; steal my property and I reserve the right to hunt and kill
If I am on that jury, he is going to walk away. The world is a better place by a factor of 1. Don’t care if it was a car or a candy bar; the act is the same, the result is the same
One person decides that what belongs to someone else; can be taken. Parasites should be exterminated. They serve no purpose, and innocents don’t need to be prey
You okay with that?
Ditto that.
Dang, a ginger skinhead neck-beard!
Jury nullification. People who value law & order should never, ever ignore a jury summons, you never know when you can save an innocent person from persecution.
Same I heard about Michigan. On WJR a discussion a few years ago led to the giggling moron lawyer laughing (!) about how in MI you cannot protect yourself in a carjacking and the female host said "But a lot of our stories have said the driver and sometimes' their child were killed by the carjacker" and the lawyer said "Still you go to prison if you shoot the carjacker. It's protection of property." She was fuming and said "Well I want to know who the jackasses in the Legislature are who pass idiotic laws like that."
Her first making of a connection between elections and consequences.
What about home-—livestock-—other “Property”???
You try to steal my horses-—& I WILL SHOOT.
“I’d vote not guilty.”
Sad, but we now have to, since the Left will AUTOMATICALLY vote Guilty if it means putting away a pro-America person.
Maybe shoot your tires out, then the thief can’t take off with your car. It might cost you a few bucks but you could probably start a go-fund-me and collect the money you’d need for the new tires. And you’d have new tires.
Still, I have to wonder, if everyone took this action against property theft, would the rate of property theft go down, or would the murder rate of persons other than thieves go up, as thieves became better armed and more aware of the risk?
The latter is probably why we have such laws. It is not necessarily a net gain for society to have vigilante justice, although I’m not entirely opposed to the concept either. If you figure that law enforcement’s response to property crime is likely to be useless then you’re the last chance to dispense justice.
NOT always-—Sometimes the horse thief just got hung from the nearest tree.
Our justice system isn’t just, so I’m fine with vigilante justice.
Failed the Shoot - Don’t Shoot test.
It is pretty universal that you cannot keep shooting once the thug is no longer an immediate threat.
First offense so hopefully a light sentence, probation sounds right.
I concur...
Apologies, my earlier comment was not meant to be a reply to you, I just came in after you had posted and forgot to set it to “all” as I usually do. So it doesn’t really follow your comment in any intended form.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.