|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
September 25, 2017, 07:34 PM | #26 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 14, 2014
Posts: 394
|
At the end of the day 8 years for murder is pretty lenient, and whether he meant to or not that's what he did. He murdered someone's grandma in his zeal to stop a car thief. If it were my grandmother taken away in this manner 8 years would hardly satisfy me.
|
September 25, 2017, 07:51 PM | #27 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 10, 2011
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 647
|
Quote:
|
|
September 25, 2017, 07:53 PM | #28 | |
Staff
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 4,022
|
Quote:
|
|
September 26, 2017, 01:42 PM | #29 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 5, 1999
Location: TN
Posts: 786
|
I will not argue with you OldMarksman. The thief incited the reaction from the man whose vehicle was stolen. Had the vehicle not been stolen the shot would not have been fired.
The blame lies mostly with the car thief. There's not much worse in this world then pedophiles and thieves, the sooner the world is rid of them the better off the world will be, superior court decisions or otherwise. It's those legal bureaucrats and their supposed "superior" court rulings that continues to let these dirt-bags abide amongst the law-abiding causing perpetual strife and harm. The car owner would be jailed had he hit the car thief too, there is too much protection for villains and too little protection for the law-abiding trying to protect what is theirs, I simply believe this is not right regardless of what your "infallible" laws say. As a matter of fact, I am of the opinion that if a criminal is released by whatever authority, and goes and commits any other crimes, those that released them should be held accountable for the same crimes, this would put an end to early releases and keep those in prison who belong in prison, not amongst the populace. This is my opinion, I have no law degree and I won't change my mind on my beliefs, take it for what you will.
__________________
"You can't get 'em all Josey." "That's a fact". "Well how come you doin' this then?" "Cause I got nothin' better to do." |
September 26, 2017, 02:03 PM | #30 | |||
Staff
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 24,987
|
amprecon,
I understand your opinion and your rationale, however you need to be aware that while a lot of what you say may have a certain appeal to some, acting on it will create a situation where the person doing so is likely to be charged and convicted of serious crimes. Quote:
Therefore, they are not your laws or my laws, they are our laws, in the sense that we will all be held to the same standard that they create. Quote:
You don't like car thieves and pedophiles. That's a good list, but it would be a better list if you added people who have so little regard for human life that they are willing to place the value of their property above that of human life. Quote:
__________________
Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?
|
|||
September 26, 2017, 02:08 PM | #31 | |||
Staff
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 4,022
|
Quote:
Quote:
Learned persons have defined those circumstances in serious discussions over the centuries. This was not one of those circumstances, as the now-convicted killer Mr. Tobin Hugh Panton has learned. His action was neither reasonable nor necessary. Who in his right mind would fire ten shots at his own vehicle? Quote:
And now that you have expressed your disregard for the law publicly, you should hope more than anyone that your words do not come back to haunt you. |
|||
September 26, 2017, 04:28 PM | #32 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
If you want a reasoned analysis of the principles and history of when to use lethal force, I suggest:
Killing in Self-Defence (Oxford Monographs on Criminal Law and Justice)Feb 8, 2007 by Fiona Leverick It is a touch dense, but it gets you behind emotional cliches. In this case, I think the shooter takes great personal responsibility. He acted incorrectly. That there was a criminal actor that started the does not release him from the penalties he accrued. The emotional, feel good idea that he's bad, let's shoot and the consequences be damned doesn't hold up. OldM. and John have it nailed.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
September 26, 2017, 05:25 PM | #33 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 24, 2005
Location: Denver area
Posts: 221
|
Quote:
As for right and wrong, and I know we aren't under the secular part of the mosaic legal code, but there's nothing ethically wrong killing someone who's in process of stealing your stuff. Don't take your life into your own hands by stealing things that aren't yours. I'd say most state laws are wrong, but it should mostly just be a pain in the rear to restrain onesself from offing a blatant in your face thief. A problem is that I don't know if most people who haven't take a class even know they can't off a thief in these circumstances. |
|
September 26, 2017, 06:06 PM | #34 | |
Staff
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 24,987
|
Quote:
Killing a thief in the daytime was murder. As far as I can tell, a thief caught after the fact (fleeing with property or in possession of stolen property) was penalized civilly (repayment of the loss plus a penalty fee) but not criminally unless he could not pay.
__________________
Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?
|
|
September 26, 2017, 06:08 PM | #35 | |||
Staff
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 4,022
|
Quote:
Quote:
In fact, in the laws so clearly explained by William Blackstone,, deadly force was generally excusable only in cases in which the death penalty would apply (that included every crime then classified as a felony). But the definition of felony has been expanded many times over since then. We do not impose the death penalty today for using someone else's credit card, and that differs little from lifting a wad of cash from an unattended purse. Quote:
Was Mr. Panton ignorant of the law? Maybe, maybe not. But he certainly was impulsively stupid in his actions. He certainly did not consider the consequences, and he did not even think about the necessity as he shot holes in his own vehicle. Anyone in his right mind would realize that radio and telephone messages to and among a police force would have been much more effective than his own bullets. That is one big reason that the old fleeing felon rule at Common Law, which made sense centuries ago, is no longer with us. |
|||
September 26, 2017, 06:18 PM | #36 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
Quote:
You are at your friend's house. He is doing his income tax and tells you he is padding his deductions as he sits at TurboTax. Since you are a loyal American and he is stealing from our country, shoot him?
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
|
September 26, 2017, 10:13 PM | #37 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 15, 2010
Posts: 1,850
|
There are some ideas in this thread that have me talking to myself:
1) That it is ethical to kill someone in the process of taking your "stuff." As Glenn points out it is not that simple. Is it ethical to kill the neighbor kid for taking a bicycle from my yard? Killing someone over the theft of personal property, with rare exception, would not be considered ethical by most thinking adults. 2) The indiscriminate use of deadly force to stop the theft of personal property is justified. See #1 above. 3) The consequences of indiscriminate use of lethal force to stop, or attempt to stop the theft of personal property is the responsibility of the thief. Grandma's death, damage to the property of others, or any other unintended damage caused by the reckless action of the shooter is the responsilty of the shooter. To conclude otherwise a person would have to believe that his stuff is more valuable than the lives and property of anyone in gunshot range. Even a sworn police officer with the legal responsibility to protect the community at large cannot indiscriminately use lethal force to stop a fleeing felon. 4) That a thief and a pedophile represent the same threat to society. Really?
__________________
"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Benjamin Franklin Last edited by K_Mac; September 27, 2017 at 06:29 PM. |
September 26, 2017, 11:52 PM | #38 |
Junior Member
Join Date: June 30, 2017
Posts: 11
|
"Really dumb to shoot at a fleeing bad guy. Even if you hit the intended target you could still be in a world of hurt." Protecting property with a firearm is, to my knowledge, limited to the state of Texas and it must be after sundown. Eight years is not excessive for this kind of crime. That woman left behind children and grand children, perhaps a husband and siblings.
|
September 27, 2017, 10:26 AM | #39 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
Even in TX, the situation you mention is more nuanced.
As I walk out of WalMart, I realize that I did not take that bottle of vitamins out of my cart to pay for it. The check out person didn't notice it. My, my - what a mistake I muse as my last thought as the security guard unleashes a hail of 38 SPL RNL from his SW Model 10 into my cranium.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
September 27, 2017, 11:46 PM | #40 |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,833
|
The idea that it is morally acceptable to kill someone "taking your stuff" comes down to us from the distant past. A time when someone taking your "Stuff" could mean you and your family starved to death.
A time before insurance companies, FDIC and a social safety net. A time when there was no one, and nothing to help you survive, beyond family, friends, and the church's charity. When someone stole your stock, took your harvest, or the horse you needed to get that harvest, it was literally a death sentence to you and yours. Therefore, killing the thieves was morally the right thing to do. What they did resulted in a death threat (slow, through starvation) to your family, so yes, they deserved what they got. This situation still existed in our old west, to a degree, and was the recognized order of things, as they always had been. We hung horse thieves and cattle rustlers. We shot the bank robbers as they rode out of town with our money. Why do you think ordinary citizens grabbed their guns and joined the posse going after the bank robbers?? Sure, it was the right thing to do, but why did they do it, when today most people wouldn't? Because it was THEIR money that got stolen from the bank, and the ONLY way of having any hope of getting it back was to take it back from the people who stole it. This is NOT the case today. Insurance, either private or government means there is a way of getting mere property (and money is just property) back. Society expects you to accept the loss, and file an insurance claim, rather than use deadly force to defend mere property. Chasing a car thief gun blazing, hitting at least two neighborhood homes, and killing a grandma asleep in her house is simply totally wrong behavior. It is, however, the kind of thing we see "heroes" on TV do almost every night (minus they killing grandma part). I can understand a guy, amped up by seeing his jeep taken, NOT THINKING beyond the immediate moment, doing what TV has "trained" him to do. I can understand it. I cannot condone it, nor his poor marksmanship, which caused the death of an innocent individual. The jeep can be replaced, Grandma cannot. 8 years may seem stiff, or not nearly enough, depending on your point of view.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
|
|