Yes it does, and even then it is still very tricky. IE a victim facing away from you is very different from facing towards you. IMO in my house = self-defense.
Illegal immigrants steal trailer from old man, one gets shot. Old man goes to jail.
- Thread starter jdomaha
- Start date
Yes it does, and even then it is still very tricky. IE a victim facing away from you is very different from facing towards you. IMO in my house = self-defense.
i realize there isn't much logic in this thread.. but: how do you shoot someone in the FACE who is driving AWAY from you? the guy said:
fuck you. i shouldn't have to spend money on lojack for a fucking trailer. because some asshats think it's ok to deprive me of property i need for my livelihood.
fuck. you people piss me off sometimes. it rages me to know that there are people that think this way.
go die in a fire.
/cue "tell us how you really feel"
Whatever bro, go crazy with the gun then, I guess you'll be happy when you reach prison. It's not about ideology, it's about using your head to stay out of prison.
That's a really poor analogy and doesn't really make any sense at all.
In Colorado you can defend your property with force, but the only thing you can defend with deadly force is your own or someone else's life. Castle doctrine doesn't apply since this was taking place on a public street - it was not someone intruding into his space.
I'm confident that the DA and police department know what they're doing in this case. The fact that people think they have the right to defend their property with lethal force is a bit disturbing.
I hate that no one in this thread realizes the real problem.
Government: "We'll protect you."
Citizen: "I'm being stolen from."
Government: "Well, we won't actually protect you. But you're not allowed to protect yourself because we'll protect you."
Citizen: "wat."
Government: "We'll protect you."
Citizen: "I'm being stolen from."
Government: "Well, we won't actually protect you. But you're not allowed to protect yourself because we'll protect you."
Citizen: "wat."
Tell that to the rioters in Oakland.
The fact that people think society is better served if we all became docile victims is a bit disturbing.
Well let me try and break this down for you again...
Here are your options for protecting your trailer:
option A) buy insurance/security to mitigate losses : insurance/security expense lost asset recovered
option B) Shoot them as they flee: illegal & will land you in prison / loss of liberty
option C) Call cops / probably will result in a 100% loss unless you are very lucky.
you disapprove of option A, and you don't assume to end up in prison, so I guess what you meant was: "fuck the lojack, I'll just call the cops and take a 100% loss" ?
While it might seem harsh to a lot of people the main reason we have so many of these scumbags running around taking stuff that does not belong to them is that there is no risk.
The cops in big cities could care less. I live in a rural area and it is much better but then pretty much everyone here has guns and is not afraid to use them. I am pretty sure that if it had happened here and the local DA let the two scumbags go without charges and put the old man in jail he would be toast.
If a few more of these assholes ended up face down on the pavement then a lot more of them would decide that maybe the risk was too high to go around stealing other peoples stuff. Really not much fun for a thief when the victim shoots your ass. Maybe they will go out and actually get a job or something.
The cops in big cities could care less. I live in a rural area and it is much better but then pretty much everyone here has guns and is not afraid to use them. I am pretty sure that if it had happened here and the local DA let the two scumbags go without charges and put the old man in jail he would be toast.
If a few more of these assholes ended up face down on the pavement then a lot more of them would decide that maybe the risk was too high to go around stealing other peoples stuff. Really not much fun for a thief when the victim shoots your ass. Maybe they will go out and actually get a job or something.
More like shoot the neighbour's child asleep in bed. Two wild shots at a vehicle speeding away is reckless endangerment of anyone else in the surrounding area.
It's like the cops that tried to shoot the snake out of the tree a few years back and killed the 5 year old kid fishing with his grandpa on the other side of the lake. Shit happens and discharging a firearm all willy nilly into the night isn't really a good idea if your life isn't in immediate danger.
I'm all for protecting yourself, your family and your property and would have no problem shooting someone I found robbing my home. I don't believe this guy should be up on 4 counts of murder but some of the other charges are probably warranted. That, and the two Mexican dirtbags should do serious jail time for being repeat offenders and then be deported.
I find it pretty ironic that someone named "MadMaxNine" with a gun in his avatar would be speaking up against armed self-defense.
Castle doctrine absolutely applies. The trailer is his dwelling, not just a property. They broke into his dwelling. Off with their heads.
What is actually distrubing is that there are people amongst us who do not respect the Second Amendment and our Constitutional rights to self-defense.
He absolutely had the legal right to do that in Colorado:
DA and police douchebags are way out of line.
I've already stated that I would drop them if they were inside my home. Opening fire on a public road while they are speeding away with a trailer is another ball game all together and is irresponsible and a risky interpretation of "make my day".
I find it ironic that a guy with a gold coin as his avatar would rather risk his freedom on such shaky premises than pay less than what such coin is worth for a year of covering the shitty trailer, if it's not already covered as an extension of homeowner's insurance.
I find it ironic that a guy with a gold coin as his avatar would rather risk his freedom on such shaky premises than pay less than what such coin is worth for a year of covering the shitty trailer, if it's not already covered as an extension of homeowner's insurance.
I absolutely understand the second amendment and our rights to self defense. I have a concealed weapons permit and carry a 9mm. But this isn't the old west. There's lots of reasons we have rules in place about when it is appropriate to use LETHAL force to protect your property. It IS legal in Colorado to use force to defend your property, but lethal force only if your life is being threatened.
Here's a rational perspective from reddit:
In most states, it's not okay to simply shoot someone just because they are committing a crime, and it is especially illegal to shoot someone as they are fleeing the scene of a crime. There are many good reasons why these laws are in place, mostly for the simple fact that it is not justifiable to kill someone simply for theft. Do you really want to live in a vigilante society where citizens are allowed to be defacto judge, jury, and executioner? I know I don't.
"But they tried to run him over!"
The only argument that this guy has going for him is his claim that they "almost ran him over," which isn't even the same thing as actively trying to run him over. Maybe he jumped in front of the vehicle and they swerved out of the way. Maybe he's lying. There are just too many possible scenarios here to just accept that statement because the guy said so. It's hard to imagine that thieves trying to flee a scene would actively attempt to kill the owner with a vehicle, and there are no evidence to this account given in the article. I'm going to trust that the police officers and the DA have thoroughly investigated the case, and determined that it was not a case of self defense, as that is their job, and I trust their opinions more than some sensationalist article.
"But they were criminals!" "But they were stealing his trailer!"
Yes, they were probably horrible people and they probably deserved what was coming to them. Does this give an 82 year old man the right to make this judgment call and actively try to kill them? We have good reason for not generally letting people shoot at criminals unless their life is in danger. Just to illustrate my point, here's a scenario:
John is a repo man. He has a contract to repossess a vehicle, but the paperwork got messed up and he ends up at the wrong address and tries to reposes the wrong car. The owner sees him taking the car, assumes he is a thief and shoots John dead. Oops.
And there are plenty of more cases like this where people might be perceived of committing a crime who are actually innocent. This is why we generally don't want to encourage citizens to randomly start shooting people for committing crimes. When you see somebody committing a non-life threatening crime, you call the fucking cops. You don't try to shoot them as they are fleeing.
It sucks when there is such a clear cut case of a guy just trying to defend his property, and he gets shafted by the system. But we have these laws for good reason, and they need to be enforced if they are going to carry meaning. It's not up to the DA to decide that this is a "good guy" and the others were "worthless criminals." This fact does not make it okay for him to shoot them. If it is determined that it was not a case of self defense, then the appropriate charges will be made. In all likelihood, if the guy is convicted, a judge will hand him a slap on the wrist for his sentence given the circumstances. That's where courts have lots of room to make exceptions in cases like this, like this, and it's also why "mandatory minimum" laws are such a bad idea.
I'm just shocked that so many people would think it's okay to disobey the law and shoot somebody for fleeing the scene of a robbery. The fact is that there may be no evidence that they were actually trying to run the owner over, and the DA may be very justified in prosecuting. But why do we get virtually no defense of the other side of the story here on reddit? Where is the sense of balance and reason?
That's why I said "this case" and was careful to word it that way.
Old man's in the right. This is part of an overall effort to discourage gun use. The very fact that the old man is charged and the thieves aren't tells you all you need to know.
People be stoopid, what can you say.
We dun be likin crime, derefore we be shooting dem criminalz no mattuhs wut. Shewtin shewtin shewtin.
lmao I got two negative reps from this post. Not that I would care, but the messages were hilarious
high risk: ignorant
bb_wolfe: Stop posting idiot, you're too fucking stupid to be here.
If either of you two want to explain why you disagree, I'm all ears.
You don't care what the situation, you would avoid taking a life? What about a serial killer? A murderer? A rapist?
I would have no problem killing someone like that.
You just sound like a bitch and a pussy, which is probably why you got neg repped. Don't act surprised. We've been killing for years, if you think I'm going to cry over a dead thief, rapist, or murderer, you're insane.