This is what gives the rest of us a bad name

The fact that the shotgun was unloaded or even broken would have no bearing under some states laws. The fact that you pointed a firearm at them is a use of deadly force. Do the laws of that state allow you to use deadly force against someone you think has committed a misdemeanor theft?

Isnt being a responsible gun owner about knowing and following the law in a case like this?
 
Quote: It looks like liberalism has infiltrated every aspect of the American society, including this group of people. Sad day for all of us indeed.

+1! Sad indeed.

Holy Red liberals are every where Batman!
 
Deadly Force

To those who feel that the use of deadly force would be justified in the theft of a few doolars of gas, who you be as agreeable to that level of force if it were a family member. Kids do crazy things. They sometime think it's funny to steal small items. Can I blow them away protecting a lawn ornament? Guess so.

No property is worth someone's life.
 
Florida gives jail time for shooting out tires?
Click to expand...

Since he didn't know that you don't have a duty to retreat, I wouldn't be taking any advice from him. But that's just me.
As previously stated, if they don't want to risk harm they need to stay away from me, my family and my possessions. Am I going to blast someone over $5.00? No. If I catch them in my domicile will I use the necessary force required to stop them from further criminal activity in my domicile which includes all structures on my property including my car in Florida. You bet.
 
rscalzo said:
No property is worth someone's life.
Click to expand...
This is the type of thinking that has, in many ways, led us to where we are today.

Regardless of how you calculate the value of an item, theft of that item literally places you in bondage (slavery) to the crook. You worked, however long, to obtain the necessary funds to acquire the item. By the act of theft, the thief has placed you in servitude for his own gain.

So how much is your freedoms and life worth, when someone can make you their personal slave, even if only for a few minutes? If you feel you cannot or should not take recourse against the thief, then why rail against a government who does the same?

They are different only in the degree of slavery imposed.

As for Tennessee v. Garner, that case was specific as to what force a government actor could use. It says nothing about the case at hand.
 
Exactly right....

Public executions for petty theft are the only chance we have to save society

Who is with us:eek:

What....due process....right to fair trial.....innocent until proven guilty

Bunch of commies...got no stomach for it

Ok...how about we cut off their hands?

That ought to help...you would know to really watch the one handed guys closely;)
 
No one is saying to not take recourse/action against a thief. What we are saying is that we should be judicious in the use of deadly force and the taking of another person's life over something minor. We should obey the laws in doing so.

There have been several groups who worked with the police in taking their neighborhoods back without ever firing a shot. Force should be the last resort not the first resort.
 
I think what alot of people on here are losing sight of is that the people that are arguing in favor of the farmer are not saying he did not break the law. They are not arguing in favor of his actions. They are arguing the principal behind them.

They are arguing that a man trying to protect his community and do the right thing is something you do not often see these days and that it is a trait that should be respected and not beaten down by an overbearing legal system.

I personally don't think that applies here. I think he was someone itching to confront someone over recent frustrations with petty thefts and made some very bad choices...but I can agree with the principle of their argument if not the application of it.

Did he make some bad decisions? Definately. Did he break the law? Absolutely. Was he trying to do the right thing? Probably. Should he be punished? I don't think so. At least not severly. If I had been the owner of the property he chased the guy away from what would be my reaction? Gratitude. I would be glad he chased them away before they got bolder and decided to venture into my home.
 
Thank you, Playboypenguin. You have said in one post what many of us were trying to say.... Wish I was as eloquent as that, sometimes!
 
exactly... farmer had good intentions but chose poorly.

with crime increasing and departments losing ground or holding even there needs to be some kind of community based policing with the citizens assiting the police by being additional eyes and ears in the neighborhoods.
 
Did we just miss what the news has reported, or are we so tied up in defending one states' law as applied to another state that we don't care?

Where does it say that the old boy brandished the weapon prior to the thief voluntarily stopping? He was following the thief, and made no attempt to interfere with him. It was the thief who was running at high speeds, and it was the thief who did so with a child on board. Nobody mentioned "blowing anyone away". NOBODY. The elder man's question was on the legality of shooting out a tire. He obviously didn't do that, either.

In the end, this entire line of discussion has left the factual, and is tending into the fantasy. Many states DO NOT HAVE a "standard to retreat". In most states the principal of the "Citizen's Arrest" exists, and in a few, the citizen may act in an agressive manner to implement the arrest. It would have behooved us all to research the existing law of the jurisdiction, make comment based on those laws, and have ignored the laws of where we live.

In the end, the old man chased a thief, and showed a weapon to him after the man voluntarily stopped. Picture the response if that had been a sworn officer who witnessed the same action. He would have approached the vehicle with gun drawn, while his multiple back-ups roared up, and also rushed the car with weapons drawn. All over "$5.00 worth of gas". Everyone would have been ordered from the vehicle at gunpoint, including the child, searched, cuffed, and taken away via cruiser. Somehow, the old man's actions seem almost peaceful compared to that. Please don't tell me that, after a high speed chase, the take-down wouldn't have been a felony stop, either.:)

So, shall we deal with the facts of the case?
 
"Smith pointed a gun at Christian Young, 28, and a woman at the vacant farm next to Smith's place in Bradford Township. He then chased their vehicle at speeds of 70 mph"

PP- exactly right....;)
 
I am glad the charges were dismissed.

"I will still be a vigilant person," he added. "But I'll leave my dog and shotgun at home."
Click to expand...

I don't think he needs to leave either at home just make better decisions based in accordance with his recent legal education.
 
That would have been in the initial thread? The one that has since been modified as the actual Police Report became available??
 
2ndamd, it wasn't a Judge. The DA decided he couldn't prove his case beyond a reasonable doubt, so he dropped the charges.
 
More people need a dart gun with some sort of local anesthetic. Nail the guy in the leg and he won't be able to move for a couple of hours. Hitting them in the back would greatly influence the balance making it easier to chse him down and tase him. And it removes the opssibility of assault with a deadly weapon. (note: liberals, this is meant mostly as a joke;) Mostly :D )
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top