Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Scotsman will be Free
Just me, maybe, but I would never use deadly force to defend a car, regardless of what the law says.

Could I in good conscience live with that trade off?

Is the car worth defending yourself in some civil suit to claim damages?

Should it be the death penalty for the crime of stealing a car?

I don’t know the facts of this case, but I would hate to suffer the reality of the aftermath of shooting someone not placing me or another in fear of death or great bodily harm.

Having said that, is that was is going on here? If the shooter is to be believed, he in fact was reasonably in fear of death or great bodily harm, and probably did shoot to protect himself, not to stop the theft.

Therefore, the prosecutor is wrong in drawing the inference - it was not about defending the car, it was about defending himself.

For the prosecutor to conflate what are two separate issues is a good reason why the jury did not find him guilty, and why the prosecutor was maybe overagressive in prosecuting him in the first place.

I hope that the shooter finds peace with his decision, and continues to believe that it is all right for him to defend himself when threatened.

22 posted on 12/20/2009 8:37:23 AM PST by LachlanMinnesota
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies ]


To: LachlanMinnesota

“...but I would never use deadly force to defend a car, regardless of what the law says.”

The gun is to defend YOURSELF against PUNKS, who don’t like having their crime interrupted!


27 posted on 12/20/2009 8:44:10 AM PST by G Larry (DNC is comprised of REGRESSIVES!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies ]

To: LachlanMinnesota
For the prosecutor to conflate what are two separate issues is a good reason why the jury did not find him guilty, and why the prosecutor was maybe overagressive in prosecuting him in the first place.

Exactly. Only a minor correction needed.

The state should be required to reimburse his legal expenses, and the blame should be on the grandstanding prosecutor.

32 posted on 12/20/2009 9:16:43 AM PST by cynwoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies ]

To: LachlanMinnesota

“Just me, maybe, but I would never use deadly force to defend a car, regardless of what the law says.”
Well, you wouldn’t be “defending a car”. You’d be defending your property.
You have to decide what you are willing to live with.
“Should it be the death penalty for the crime of stealing a car?”
Should property owners have to suffer the loss and or destruction of their property rights at the whim of some thief? I don’t believe so. I believe that if you embark upon a criminal activity, whatever befalls you is on you and no one else.
The govt has already proven beyond all doubt that it is incapable of handling most crime. There is too much of it, and the penalties do not deter. As a result we make more laws, criminalize more activity and end up impinging on honest citizens’ freedoms and rights.
Enough already.


58 posted on 12/20/2009 12:50:39 PM PST by Scotsman will be Free (11C - Indirect fire, infantry - High angle hell - We will bring you, FIRE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies ]

To: LachlanMinnesota
Just me, maybe, but I would never use deadly force to defend a car

He used deadly force to defend himself .... after he went out and informed the 3 little angels that he'd called the police the dead one (drunk at the time) rushed him.

63 posted on 07/17/2013 3:12:50 PM PDT by tx_eggman (Liberalism is only possible in that moment when a man chooses Barabas over Christ.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson