The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old May 5, 2009, 06:42 PM   #101
Hkmp5sd
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 15, 2001
Location: Winter Haven, Florida
Posts: 4,303
Quote:
But if the bullets are demonstrably and undeniably yours, and if there are damages, why would they (innocent bystanders, not an assailant) ever lose?
They should not lose. But the blame rests the with BG that started entire incident with his crime. He is the one they should sue. Why should the law protect you with an "unintended concequences" clause which places all blame for all harm on the BG and then leave you liable to civil procecution?



But, as you have stated, consult an attorney.
__________________
NRA Certified Instructor: Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun, Home Safety, Personal Protection, Range Safety Officer

NRA Life Member
Hkmp5sd is offline  
Old May 8, 2009, 12:09 AM   #102
Michael Anthony
Member
 
Join Date: April 28, 2007
Posts: 83
Old Marksman read me correctly.

Outcast, you are right... if you believe what the shooter says. However, the short version of my opinion is: "He's lying."

I would wager a hefty sum of cash that the shooter is full of it. Unfortunately there is no way to prove it or know exactly what happened. The only parties who witnessed it were interested parties, and their account of the events would be unreliable.

I would say that in the majority "self-defense" cases, the defender may not necessarily have started out the bad guy, but they overstepped their bounds at some point. The only difference now is they enjoy the luxury of a higher level of credibility than the "scum" who they were shooting at.

He never saw a gun, never believed he saw a gun, never believed the truck was going to kill him; he just had an opportunity to shoot at some thieves and probably get away with it.

It's a bold statement unsupported by facts, but thankfully this is America and I can opine all I want.

Outcast, your reasoning is clearly sound and correct if you do happen to accept the shooter's statements at face value. I'm jaded though, so I don't.
Michael Anthony is offline  
Old May 8, 2009, 12:17 AM   #103
csmsss
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Orange, TX
Posts: 2,986
Quote:
He never saw a gun, never believed he saw a gun, never believed the truck was going to kill him; he just had an opportunity to shoot at some thieves and probably get away with it.
You say that as though it's a bad thing. Some of us would argue he did the public a great service.
csmsss is offline  
Old May 8, 2009, 09:36 PM   #104
Michael Anthony
Member
 
Join Date: April 28, 2007
Posts: 83
csmsss,

Do you include yourself in the "some of us" category?

Are you saying that "some of us" advocate killing thieves, or more specifically in this case: people who are riding in vehicles with thieves (to include accessories, masterminds, hostages and unwitting passengers)?

In most places that's murder. I doubt "some of us" would view murder as a public service.

A safer bet would be the "It's comin' straight for us!" or "I was in fear for my life." mantras. You would be safer with those kind of statements. Well, safer legally and politically... morally and spiritually will be a case by case thing.
Michael Anthony is offline  
Old May 8, 2009, 10:43 PM   #105
srt 10 jimbo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 10, 2008
Location: Fort Lauderdale
Posts: 955
If someone breaks into your house at night are you gonna ask him if he's gonna murder the whole family or are you here to just steal my pot roast outta the fridge. Dont matter, once he gets past the door, I'll shoot and ask questions later.
srt 10 jimbo is offline  
Old May 9, 2009, 12:44 AM   #106
csmsss
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Orange, TX
Posts: 2,986
Quote:
csmsss,

Do you include yourself in the "some of us" category?

Are you saying that "some of us" advocate killing thieves, or more specifically in this case: people who are riding in vehicles with thieves (to include accessories, masterminds, hostages and unwitting passengers)?

In most places that's murder. I doubt "some of us" would view murder as a public service.

A safer bet would be the "It's comin' straight for us!" or "I was in fear for my life." mantras. You would be safer with those kind of statements. Well, safer legally and politically... morally and spiritually will be a case by case thing.
Pontificate all you wish, but it's pretty simple. Anyone participating in a felony is rolling dice with his/her life, and I for one am not going to lose any sleep when he/she loses that bet.

My opinion is that we as a society have far too great a tolerance for criminals and far too great a tolerance for criminal activity. I will never understand people like you who fret over criminals who lose their lives because of the idiotic choices they make.

Oh, and for the record, I have no problems whatsoever with anyone who defends property with deadly force if it is necessary.

Last edited by csmsss; May 9, 2009 at 12:50 AM.
csmsss is offline  
Old May 9, 2009, 07:37 AM   #107
OuTcAsT
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2006
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 1,183
Quote:
Outcast, you are right... if you believe what the shooter says. However, the short version of my opinion is: "He's lying."

I would wager a hefty sum of cash that the shooter is full of it. Unfortunately there is no way to prove it or know exactly what happened. The only parties who witnessed it were interested parties, and their account of the events would be unreliable.

I would say that in the majority "self-defense" cases, the defender may not necessarily have started out the bad guy, but they overstepped their bounds at some point. The only difference now is they enjoy the luxury of a higher level of credibility than the "scum" who they were shooting at.

He never saw a gun, never believed he saw a gun, never believed the truck was going to kill him; he just had an opportunity to shoot at some thieves and probably get away with it.

It's a bold statement unsupported by facts, but thankfully this is America and I can opine all I want.

Outcast, your reasoning is clearly sound and correct if you do happen to accept the shooter's statements at face value. I'm jaded though, so I don't.
I do take the story at face value, as did the sheriff, DA, and almost everyone else who heard the story...Hence the lack of charges, or arrest. Reading your statements I will ask the same question I asked another poster earlier, if a situation like the farmer was in is not sufficient to protect yourself within the law, exactly what line has to be crossed before you deem it necessary? And more importantly, when faced with this scenario, how long will it take you to achieve this "moral high ground" before you react? I fear that few seconds of hesitation might well cost you your life. As a wise man reminded me earlier this week, part of the problem with folks now days is the failure by the last generation or so to pass along the wisdom their parents had passed to them. The instinct and courage necessary for survival being one of those values that sadly is disappearing.

This steady move toward a "kinder and gentler" civilization has emboldened criminals to the point where situations like the farmer encountered, and worse, are commonplace. Back in the days when most people were armed, and had the courage to stand their ground, these things were mostly un-heard of, as most criminals realized that "stupid " might well cost them their lives.

I too am jaded, particularly when I hear someone trying to justify criminal activity with a victim mentality, to wit;
Quote:
people who are riding in vehicles with thieves (to include accessories, masterminds, hostages and unwitting passengers)?
I would posit that the passenger in this case knew full well that they were stealing this vehicle, and might be confronted at some point, unwitting passenger indeed? This is a stupid act, and one in which she actively participated, knowing the possible consequences. Victim? Hardly. Personally, I choose to protect myself and family first, and seek absolution later.

I've added a link to another thread on going in general, A homeowner was on his own property, and shot the criminal, Was he justified in shooting? If so, why is his case different than this one? inquiring minds want to know.

http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/...d.php?t=356591
__________________
WITHOUT Freedom of Thought, there can be no such Thing as Wisdom; and no such Thing as public Liberty, without Freedom of Speech. Silence Dogood

Does not morality imply the last clear chance? - WildAlaska -

Last edited by OuTcAsT; May 9, 2009 at 10:00 AM.
OuTcAsT is offline  
Old May 9, 2009, 10:34 AM   #108
OldMarksman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 1,950
Quote:
I do take the story at face value
Why would you necessarily take "at face value" the story of any person who has killed another and then makes the only claim that can save him from a murder conviction?

Do you not believe that if one person shoots another he will almost certainly claim "self defense" unless there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary, whether the dispute that led to the shooing arose from a bad debt, an argument over turf, infidelity, or a fight over a member of the opposite sex?

OK, so in this case the deceased was allegedly committing theft. Any idea how many really bad people --crooks-- do claim self defense when they are involved in a killing?

Yeah, one would generally believe the word of the person who was not stealing, but the fact that the man said he believed the deceased "might be holding a gun" bothers me. Sounds to me like an attempt to justify shooting someone because a truck was being taken, which is unlawful and which has been since long, long before farmers first had machines with internal combustion engines.

Yeah, the man claimed self defense. Considering that his alternative would put him in jail, I don't think one would have any reason to necessarily assume he was being entirely truthful.

As Michael Anthony said, the only witnesses are interested parties.
OldMarksman is online now  
Old May 9, 2009, 12:01 PM   #109
OuTcAsT
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2006
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 1,183
Quote:
Sounds to me like an attempt to justify shooting someone because a truck was being taken, which is unlawful and which has been since long, long before farmers first had machines with internal combustion engines.
Obviously you have not studied at least some of legal history,
at least as it involves theft of horses (the precursor of the auto and tractor) Thieves were summarily executed if caught and tried, and shot outright by property owners with no fear of prosecution, as it was considered a serious offense.

Quote:
Why would you necessarily take "at face value" the story of any person who has killed another and then makes the only claim that can save him from a murder conviction?
I feel secure in the fact that modern police investigation, aided by forensic specialists, can accurately determine if a shooting is "bothersome" enough to warrant an arrest or trial. Thus far none seems impending so, that lends credibility to the man's story in my book. The law is on his side, the police believe him, the DA believes him, most rationally thinking individuals who have read the details believe him ( save a few "jaded" folks ) So I am comfortable with these assessments of his credibility.

Quote:
but the fact that the man said he believed the deceased "might be holding a gun" bothers me.
Do you not think that angle might not have "bothered" the investigating officers? I'll wager that they also took that into account before simply dismissing it. In a split-second situation, if you perceive that someone is pointing a gun at you, how long should the requisite time be before you react ? Until you are "dead certain" or certainly dead?

Honestly, the victimization of criminals by people who claim to have taken their own safety into hand frightens me.

But the criminalization of someone defending himself within the law nauseates me.
__________________
WITHOUT Freedom of Thought, there can be no such Thing as Wisdom; and no such Thing as public Liberty, without Freedom of Speech. Silence Dogood

Does not morality imply the last clear chance? - WildAlaska -
OuTcAsT is offline  
Old May 9, 2009, 05:22 PM   #110
Michael Anthony
Member
 
Join Date: April 28, 2007
Posts: 83
Outcast, I agree with you on many points, particularly the more general ones about society. I also believe that non-police (and some police) have gone way too soft. It seems that you know that society views killing over theft as murder, but that this belief is incorrect and detrimental. Do I have your viewpoint correct?

Csmsss on the other hand seems to believe society is too soft, but advocates murder in place of working to change society's stance towards crime. This is a strange stance to take in a public forum

I agree completely about the victimization of criminals Outcast, particularly when those who are defending themselves do so within the law. The fact remains though that according to most modern law, property does not equal life. I also agree with you fully that the passenger probably knew what was going on. The shooter could probably safely assume she was an accessory as well. If all three of us were mistaken, however, the price paid to find out would be a high one.

I won't fault you for assuming the results of the investigation lend credibility to his story; I just know better

(P.S. "Felony" is a far too broad a standard to use. Last time someone got shot for forging a check I'm sure the shooter got charged )
Michael Anthony is offline  
Old May 9, 2009, 05:28 PM   #111
OldMarksman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 1,950
Quote:
Obviously you have not studied at least some of legal history,
at least as it involves theft of horses (the precursor of the auto and tractor) Thieves were summarily executed if caught and tried, and shot outright by property owners with no fear of prosecution, as it was considered a serious offense.
True for a limited period of a few years in some U. S. territories, but as each of them achieved statehood all but one adopted the English Common Law which goes back about a milenium.

Some may have codified exceptions to the common law prohibition of the use of deadly force to protect property in cases other than unlawful forcible entry into occupied premises, but I'm not aware of them, except for very recent limited exceptions in Georgia (OK in forcible felony) and Texas (OK only at night absent other means of protecting property).

Quote:
I feel secure in the fact that modern police investigation, aided by forensic specialists, can accurately determine if a shooting is "bothersome" enough to warrant an arrest or trial. Thus far none seems impending so, that lends credibility to the man's story in my book. The law is on his side, the police believe him, the DA believes him...
You apparently have more information than the CNN article contains. Sheriff's deputies have released an affidavit signed by the shooter, on which the article is based, and have made no mention of any findings of their own. They have submitted the case to the prosecutors, who have not yet published a response.

Or am I missing something?

Quote:
most rationally thinking individuals who have read the details believe him ( save a few "jaded" folks )
I cannot imagine any rationally thinking individual "believing" the story of anyone they do not know about something they have no knowledge of simply because said individual has signed an affidavit.

Quote:
But the criminalization of someone defending himself within the law nauseates me.
On that we agree. Was the orange grower doing that? He says so.
OldMarksman is online now  
Old May 9, 2009, 05:52 PM   #112
csmsss
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Orange, TX
Posts: 2,986
Quote:
Csmsss on the other hand seems to believe society is too soft, but advocates murder in place of working to change society's stance towards crime. This is a strange stance to take in a public forum
How dare you. How dare you. How dare you.

In no way, shape or form did I advocate the commission of ANY illegal act, let alone murder. You have chosen to twist my words beyond comprehension in order to slander and malign me.

Only someone utterly deficient in intellect or honesty could interpret such a thing from my remarks. You, sir (and I use that word as loosely as it can be used) are not worth even a single further comment. Rot in hell.
csmsss is offline  
Old May 9, 2009, 06:37 PM   #113
OldMarksman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 1,950
Quote:
In no way, shape or form did I advocate the commission of ANY illegal act, let alone murder.
csmsss, I'm afraid I interpreted your remark "he did the public a great service" (by shooting at thieves) about the same as did Mr. Anthony.

You also said

Quote:
I have no problems whatsoever with anyone who defends property with deadly force if it is necessary.
Had he shot and killed "some thieves" in Texas in the daytime, or at any time of day anywhere else (absent the need to defend his own life), it would have been an illegal act: murder. Note that Georgia permits the use of deadly force to protect property under some circumstances, but not in cases of theft.

In case you believe this is some new, soft, liberal state of affairs, it is not. It has been the basis of law for centuries.

Don't take it personally, but that's I how you came across to me, and I do not think anyone who know me considers me utterly deficient in intellect or dishonest.

If I interpreted your remarks incorrectly, pardon me.
OldMarksman is online now  
Old May 9, 2009, 09:07 PM   #114
OuTcAsT
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2006
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 1,183
Quote:
It seems that you know that society views killing over theft as murder, but that this belief is incorrect and detrimental. Do I have your viewpoint correct?

Michael;
Respectfully, no. I do not believe that the laws against killing to protect property are incorrect or detrimental. In fact I have re-read my posts and fail to see how I portrayed that point of view.

But the fact of the matter is that this case has little to do with the theft (as far as the farmer is concerned) Because he did not shoot to protect property, but for his own life. If I thought that there was any doubt about this point I would be the first to condemn this as a bad shoot. So to answer your question, no.

By the same token, I refuse to bemoan the fact that when someone is stupid enough to commit a property crime, and in the process puts someones life in the gravest of danger, so much so that they are compelled to defend themselves with deadly force, that the criminal may be on the losing end.

Theft is one thing, trying to kill me to get it is quite another.

Quote:
I won't fault you for assuming the results of the investigation lend credibility to his story; I just know better
Then this is where we will have to agree to disagree.

OldMarksman


Quote:
True for a limited period of a few years in some U. S. territories, but as each of them achieved statehood all but one adopted the English Common Law which goes back about a milenium.
Yes the states did eventually begin to adopt the tenets of Casuistry as a basis for trying cases, but some states still had executions as a penalty for certain property crimes into the 20th century. I am not advocating this as a proper penalty, just stating a point of fact.

Quote:
You apparently have more information than the CNN article contains. Sheriff's deputies have released an affidavit signed by the shooter, on which the article is based, and have made no mention of any findings of their own.
Perhaps I misread but; (emphasis mine)

Quote:
MIAMI, Florida (CNN) -- Authorities do not plan to file charges against a Florida orange grove owner who fatally shot a 21-year-old woman, saying he is protected under the state's controversial "no retreat" law.
Quote:
Authorities will forward their information to prosecutors, Judd said, but are "not going to file any charges [against Jones] at this point, because we don't see any reason to arrest Mr. Jones," Judd said. "... It appears, at this point in the investigation, Mr. Jones was completely, legally justified in his actions."

I believe you may be confusing the charges against the driver/thief which are still under on-going investigation.

Quote:
I cannot imagine any rationally thinking individual "believing" the story of anyone they do not know about something they have no knowledge of simply because said individual has signed an affidavit.

All I can say is, his affidavit was convincing enough for other people he did not know, the Sheriff, the DA and even;

Quote:
Brian Malte of the Brady Campaign. "This person, regardless of the situation, may have done the right thing,
Yet he is still being tried in this court of public opinion?


Quote:
In case you believe this is some new, soft, liberal state of affairs, it is not.
No, there always have been bleeding hearts who wring their hands and screech loudly any time a criminal puts himself in jeopardy by committing a crime and winds up on the wrong end of things, nothing new there, but in this particular case I cannot see how the sentiment has become so misplaced.
__________________
WITHOUT Freedom of Thought, there can be no such Thing as Wisdom; and no such Thing as public Liberty, without Freedom of Speech. Silence Dogood

Does not morality imply the last clear chance? - WildAlaska -
OuTcAsT is offline  
Old May 9, 2009, 09:13 PM   #115
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,311
This thread keeps skirting on the edges of ethics/morality. Back at post #81, I specifically stated that this isuue was moot. Yet here we are, still hedging our bets.

Before this delves further towards the gutter, it's Closed.

Edit: I see that OuTcAsT crossposted with mine. Just so there is no confusion, he is not the reason for this threads closure.
__________________
National listings of the Current 2A Cases.

Last edited by Al Norris; May 9, 2009 at 09:35 PM. Reason: Added clarification.
Al Norris is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:19 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.11665 seconds with 7 queries