This is what gives the rest of us a bad name

Check your state laws before you do the citizens arrest thing. Some states require that a felony be committed. Also remember that you could be held civilly or criminally liable if you use excessive force or deprive the suspect of his rights. Also a law enforcement officer may have certain protections under the law in the performance of his duties you may not have. Not to mention in some cases you could render the evidence null and void by your actions.

So if you decide you want to be a John Wayne for minor crimes

1. Know your state law
2. Know the use of force laws
3. You might want to learn what rights the suspect has.

me:

Guy steals $5.00 buck worth of gas.... get the license plate number...call the police department.
 
I am with Eghad

In the wrong state you could get slapped with unlawful detainment, kidnapping, assault

And that is only if you don't manage to shoot the guy:D

I always get a kick out of people talking about holding someone at gunpoint

Doing so assumes that they are unarmed...and you better hope so

If they start walking away...what exactly are you going to do:confused:

Heck...if they started walking slowly towards you while saying over and over that is was all a big mistake you would be well advised to give ground

Even if you accidently shoot them you are likely to be prosecuted for manslaughter
 
It is a shame that our nation's spirit of self-reliance has been so undermined by a system that demands nearly total reliance on others.
 
GC, that is correct...but it remains the country we live in. And it's why most of us who carry do so...

But are you really gonna get into that legal mess for five bucks worth of gas? Or even five hundred bucks? Just not worth it.

I have no problem with the farmer...people gotta do what they feel is right. No one was hurt...I just don't know I'd have handled things that way.

-L.
 
The justice system has become consumed with concern over process rather than results.

In the past, a citizen would have been praised for apprehending a criminal. Today, the citizen is likely to get into more trouble than the criminal because the citizen did not follow all of the arcane rules of the process.
 
It seems to me that we are examining this from two perspectives:

1) the attempted preservation of self (old dude was wrong or should
have somehow acted differently)
2) the attempted preservation of society (thank God for people like old
dude, there should be more like him).

What am I all about? God, country, family, community? My own well-being? Sure, the old dude was out of line in the contemporary sense. You don't go around chasing people with your shotgun and asking cops if you should "blast" someone. But let's not look too closely at the specifics of what he did. Let's look at the fundamental principle that's at stake. Do I wish I lived in a community full of people like him, who would look out for each other... some more appropriately than others... but look out for each other just the same? You damn right. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!!!!!!!! Get that liberal, entitlement, "I'm a victim" crap away from me. Punk stole gas. Punk should be punished. Punk endangered kid and female. Punk should be punished. Punk ran from consequences. Punk should get a beating. Old dude went a little off the deep end. At least he went.
 
A number of years ago, I heard a noise on my front porch at about 11:00pm. Looking through a window, I found a man standing on my front porch. While I was watching him, I noticed TWO additional men walking around the side of the house, towards the rear door (there's nothing else there). I dialed 911, and was toild that "all of out officers are tied up, stay in your house, and on the phone." In a fit of pique, I told the dispatcher that I was armed, and would have to guard all of the entrances, and the ground floor windows. I said that I was going to check them, I'd leave the phone off the hook, and if she heard firing, to just send ambulances. Inside of three minutes, I had FOUR cars at my house, holding three men with "burglary tools". The officer said that the call was for a man with a gun. Amazing how well a little "stretch" can be made if you try hard enough.

After a history of late arrivals, the old man may have been trying something quite similiar. Right or wrong, it will speed up the arrival of the authorities.

He had an empty shotgun, and it was in the truck. That's not brandishing or menacing. I agree that the idiot in the lead car was the one initiating the "chase". HE was the one guilty of child endangerment, not the farmer.

Stupid comparisons to starving children or grandmothers without food have nothing to do with the facts of the incident.

I think that you saw the inevitable response to official indifference, and the charges are being made more to cover this indifference up, than to punish anyone.

As for shooting someone for theft, it wasn't too long ago that farmers sprayed idiots like these with rock salt from a 12 ga. That was considered a reasonable punishment. They also allowed horse thieves, today's car thieves, to be killed if caught during the act, and hung if convicted. The idea that the loss of your property will always be replaced is wrong. It's not going to happen, as some things stolen, and of little intrinsic value, are extremely important to the person in possession of it. Theft is wrong, thieves are not noble, and the idiots who promulgate this tripe are just as much thieves of responsibility in humanity as the others are thieves of property. They should be treated as such.
 
A bit different situation, but similar result...

About a year ago in Colorado Springs, several high school girls were out TP'ing a house. As I recall, it was a football rivalry and the cheerleaders were pulling a prank on one of the rival team's player. The next-door neighbor observed this group of girls rolling the house and trees, and called the cops. Then he went outside with his BB gun and held the girls there until the cops showed up. The cops arrived, gave the girls a lecture and slapped cuffs on the guy with the BB gun. Charges were later dropped.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4191/is_20060505/ai_n16365029
 
It seems to me that in this thread there is a conflict of realities. Some seem to believe that this is the 1870s, and we're all homesteaders living 500 miles away from civilization. That an intruder, thief, or any other person we see as breaking our laws should be shot like a cattle rustler.


This vision of 2007 America is incorrect. I know some don't like that. But your feelings do not shape reality. The reality of 2007 America is that you DON"T have the right to point a gun at, threaten, chase, or shoot whomever you see fit. "If he's on my property, I'm givin him both barrels" is a sentiment that is left behind in the past. We no longer form posses and string up thieves by the tallest oak we can find. Bemoan this fact all you want, but it's the truth. You see a crime that doesn't threaten lives, you call the police. That's it. You don't grab your trusty old shotgun and chase him down. You wanna act like that, move to 2nd or 3rd world nation that doesn't have rule of law, or organized agencies to enforce those laws. If you live here in that States, and you live in the year 2007, you let the police handle this stuff.
 
It does not have to be an either-or situation, G-Cym. People do not have to revert to vigilante justice, nor do they have to surrender all self-reliance and be utterly dependent on the government. I believe there is a middle road that is more attractive.
 
I must echo G-Cym's sentiments...

...and while I do also understand I cannot sit back and let the police do all my defending, I still believe there are times when a gun comes in handy. I can think of plenty of times when I was glad I had a shootin' iron nearby. I didn't necessarily need it, but having it if I did is somewhat inspiring.

However, none of these situations involved theft... I mean, would you guys whip out your pistols if local law enforcement wasn't in the grocery store when someone shoplifted a bagful of steaks or a case of beer?

Somebody around here...(I think maybe Pax?) has a website, called, I believe, corneredcat.com. And the premise is the comparison of the CCW'er to the Cornered Cat...she doesn't use her claws, except to get away. She doesn't use 'em for any longer than she needs to, and they only come out when she's backed up against a rock and a hard place. And I just recall thinking that was about the smartest thing I ever read.

I'm not saying the law is the end-all and be-all. If I have to break a law to stay alive one more day, so be it. But this doesn't strike me as deathly. I totally appreciate the farmers' sentiments. I chased down a burglar locally as I saw him fleeing. It was stupid, and reckless, but it's what my mom taught me to do. But 'ground and pound' is a little different than running about with a firearm. I guess for me, the issue here is the escalation to deadly force in a situation where it wasn't necessary. I mean, all he had to do was get plates. The rest of the work could have been done via computer. Heck, the cops could have visited this yahoo's house the next morning. There was just no urgency...no one hurt, no getting the gas back even if the cops cuffed him immediately.

I'm not really trying to change any minds. I'm not real good at that anyway. (ask my ex :-)) I just have given lots of thought to the situations that would involve me pulling out my weapon, and they are slim. Even if being mugged...you want a wallet? Fine. Take it. That's not life-threatening. I understand nobody likes a criminal - I don't either. But I value a human life...my own as much as a thief's. And if it comes down to mine or a thief's...well, it's mine every time. But until I see a heater in somebody else's hand, or threats, or something to make me think I am in danger of dying, I'll keep it in a holster.

YMMV.
Respectfully,
-L.
 
It's not the 1870s, but the law about horse thieves also applied in cities back East as well as on that rural landscape. It was the 1950s and 1960s, and later in the Mid-West, where rock salt was considered a legal alternative to lead.

2007 America is different in different states. Try not to speak for every area of the country until you've been there, because you're wrong. Nobody here has decided to
you DON"T have the right to point a gun at, threaten, chase, or shoot whomever you see fit.
Click to expand...
, and attempting to change what has been said is dishonest. While it may make your world go smoother to paint everything with your particular brush, it doesn't make it true.

There is a limit to how much flouting of the law people will stand before taking action. In this case, nobody was hurt. Who's to say that the old gentleman wasn't in pursuit to get the license number, and the thief was attempting to outrun him to prevent just that? Do you have a right to exceed the speed limit to obtain that information? 15 above the limit is reason to suspend your license. Would you stop at every stop sign at 0300 in the morning? Signal your turns?

2007 America would have you believe that certain things are done certain ways. Why? Because the MSM have an agenda, and their interpretation of that agenda colors what the allow into the news. Look at the laws, and you'll see that citizens are still legally able to interfere in many non-violent criminal situations.

Just to put the shoe on the other foot, try this. An elderly female, handicapped by her advanced age, is at her mail room in an apartment complex, as are you. She withdraws her Social Security check, and is pushed to the ground by a robber who grabs her check. He has to go by you to leave the mail room. What are you going to do? You're legally armed, but he's not harming the old woman. He has her means of support for the mext 30 days. He's also larger and younger than you. Do you step aside? Hopefully memorizing a description of him? Do you attempt to physically detain him with your hands? Do you draw your weapon? You are now the arbiter of that woman's future, and the future behavior of the thief. He's banking on your intimidation of him by his actions, but may well be willing to fight.
 
So crime is socially acceptable now? Disparity of force you say? I'd draw down on him and get the old womens check back, thats her livelyhood. It may not be the statutory lawful thing to do, but it would be the right thing to do. I'd rather fight the court than explain to the women I'm armed but fear jail so good luck eating this month.

May not be right, but my actions would be right twofold. One, I'd get her check back, and two, I'd send the thief the message that maybe he shouldn't continue his life of felonious assault & robbery. He knocked her down and to an elderly person that could be life threatening.
 
Sometimes, I just don't understand my fellow travelers on this chunk of space debris.

Every citizen who observes a crime has a duty, at the very least to be a good observer, so that an accurate account may be given to the authorities. That's the very least a citizen should do. The barest minimum (no effort) on the part of the citizen.

Petty crimes are an annoyance. I think everyone can agree with that statement. But, petty crimes, repeated over and over again, can become a vexing irritant, particularly when the police do nothing or next to nothing. Petty crimes, repeated over and over again, can become a major irritant, most especially when the police can do nothing or next to nothing.

When citizens cannot get the help they perceive they're supposed to get from law enforcement, what is one supposed to do? Do we just accept the idea that it's OK for criminals to continue their activities unhindered? Do we simply shrug our collective shoulders and let someone else do the dirty work?

We hire people specifically to keep the peace and enforce the laws. But when they can't be there, it is still up to the average citizen to do that job. Just like it was for the first hundred or so years of this country's beginnings.

Now some of you can continue to misuse the term and call it vigilante justice of you want. But that is nothing more than an excuse for not becoming involved in the overall health and safety of your neighbors and society in general.

In another time, it was called cowardice.
 
"Now some of you can continue to misuse the term and call it vigilante justice of you want. But that is nothing more than an excuse for not becoming involved in the overall health and safety of your neighbors and society in general.

In another time, it was called cowardice."

So I am straight

You are (or are not) in favor of killing/getting killed over petty theft?

Say it was your son/daughter engaging in petty theft

Would you advocate some concerned citizen holding them at gunpoint with all the possible outcomes of that act...or would you rather they reported it to the police ...who are trained,equipped and most importantly authorized to arrest someone for petty theft????

A shining example of how badly this was handled can bee seen in the mere fact that a weapon was even involved

A whole lot of bad things can happen in a situation like this

None of them are worth it for $5.00

Why exactly was a weapon required?

I doubt the police would have felt the need to "draw down" on the thief

Why not simply confront the bad guy...he probably would have run off

Society is not going to break down if you simply call in the theft ...including the license number and a description

I am not calling it vigilante justice...I am calling it a poorly thought out approach

Now...if he had screwed up and shot the thief....vigilante justice might apply...along with murder
 
In another time, it was called cowardice.
Click to expand...

You are on staff so its your board but I find such a statement uncalled for and rude. I and other members of this board are not cowards because we are not prepared to shoot another man over $5 worth of gas. It is poor argument when you have to resort to an ad hominem attacks to prove your point. Does it make your argument stronger to call those who disagree with you a coward? With all due respect I think that we should be above such attacks and you should voluntarily remove the comment.

Now back on point. I think that man over reacted. I think that a long line of events came to a head and he decide to chase this guy down. His emotions and his sense of duty to his neighbor moved him to action. I am not necessarily going to drag him on the carpet for that.

But in the end he did much more then simply observe the crime and then try to apprehend the offender. He Asked "if he should blow it away." At that point he over stepped the bounds of apprehending a suspect. He was asking for permission to kill someone over $5 worth of Gas. I can understand his gut reactions up to that point. Once he uttered those words he crossed the line. Its not about the theft at that point. This man wanted to be judge, jury and executioner. That is not the way it is done in this country. He made a mistake and took the actions of protecting another persons property too far and he will face a judge and jury as a result of his actions. That is the way it is supposed to work.
 
Why not simply confront the bad guy...he probably would have run off
Click to expand...

If we follow the logic set forth, why confront the bad guy at all? Plenty of people have been killed for less than $5 worth of merchandise. Why not just avoid any contact with petty thieves, shop lifters, etc.?
 
I and other members of this board are not cowards because we are not prepared to shoot another man over $5 worth of gas.
Click to expand...

Take a torch to that strawman.

Nowhere did Antipitas address this exact scenario much less state if you do not shoot someone over $5, you're a coward. Your attempt to become offended is unnecessary.

Antipitas appears to be addressing the recurring sentiment that when citizens choose to become involved in thwarting crime or doing their part to ensure criminals are brought to justice, they're too easily labeled as vigilantes.
 
No straw man here. I am reading Antipitas words and drawing direct conclusions from them. He addressing peoples statements in the context of what this man did. It is implied withing his argument. If it is not let him come he and say so. Do not insult my intellegence and try to make it appear that he ment something else. My comment stands. The statement is insulting and nothing but an ad hominem attack.

This man crossed over the line you may choose to ignore that but it doesn't change that fact.

Rellascout
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top