This is what gives the rest of us a bad name

So If I call the offense in, give a description of the car and persons, call the police dept who apprehends them. I then testify in court and the person is convicted and sentenced we have accomplished the same thing without endangering anybody over a minor offense. I have done my duties as a citizen.

If there is an armed robbery, assualt or someone is in grave danger of a serious injury of death thats a different ball of wax.

I think only about 6% of cases make it to court these days. The rest are settled out of court by plea bargains or agreements. I wonder what kind of sentence the guy got over the $5.00 worth of gas? So the vast majority of the time the reasonable person part of the due process never comes into play by a jury.

This was at the last of the article......

In a 1983 case, a jury ruled that a Holloway, Minn., man should pay $77,000 to a burglar he chased down and shot in the foot. The case was settled for half that or less; the burglar got probation
Click to expand...
.

Before you pull that gun and decide to shoot somebody you might want to brush up on local and state firearms laws, use of force laws, the local view on apprehending suspects in a petty theft incident. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. I would think that as an armed citizen we would want to be familiar with the law and what we can or can not do with that firearm. That as an armed citizen you are also liable for any criminal or civil violations of the law you commit in violation of the laws or above and beyond what a reasonable person would do.

The law is the law whether or not we agree with it.
 
Punishment to fit the crime?!

The only time deadly force should be used is in response to the same. "Blowing a person away" is NOT an appropriate response to theft.

I am bothered by the bloodthirstiness exhibited by some on this board. Perhaps it is attitudes like those that embolden others to take away our rights.

The punishment must fit the crime. That is a concept as old as civilization.
 
I take my hat off to you Antipidas for your position and sticking to your guns. I agree wholeheartedly.

I have a few thoughts though just to expand on this thread a little. I used to work at a grocery store as a sacker back in high school and early college. I once witnessed two of the managers chasing a crook out of the store who snatched a lady's purse while she was walking out the door. The crook jumped into a car that intentionally picked him up and they took off.
NOW, suppose a store manager, like yourself, chases down some crook. He is bigger than you (and let's assume you are not Jean Claude Van Damn or Chuck Norris or even Harrison Ford with a airplane propeller to back you up ;) ) He might very well decide to stop and wipe the floor with you. This man has committed a crime, you are attempting to lawfully arrest him as your civic duty. He is resisting and is or is about to inflict bodily harm to you (and if he finds a gun on you he will likely turn it on you.)......what happens next?

OR, what if you tackle him and, because he is bigger, gets the better of you (and you have a gun on you)


These thoughts really apply to LEOs just as much as citizens.
I think police used to be allowed to fire at fleeing crimials. The rational was that if they are breaking the law and fleeing from the law then they must suffer the consequences of doing so just as if they force the policeman to club them over the head with a night stick and end up with a fractured skull (or even dead) If you can't use you gun under any circumstances short of them pulling one too, then why chase them down? What police are forced to do now is a little silly. You see this on COPS and those police chase film reels all the time. A crook takes off running and the policeman has to run after him. 1) if that crook can run faster than him, then he can get away 2) if the cop catches him, then what's to stop the crook from taking off running again if there are no conseqences? Pepper stray? (Pepper spray doesn't always work and it is also a close range weapon) I watched a thug, in a police station, almost beat the stuffing out of a policeman the other night on a SPIKE TV police documentary. Even when the officer finally did get to his pepper spray it had no effect on the goon.

I'm not advocating an excuse to gun anyone down at the drop of a hat, but just some thoughts on where a situation can go.
 
Reading is fundamental here. The citizens had reported multiple minor larcenies in the area to the police. They always arrived too late to apprehend the violators. It is apparent that they also failed to follow-up on descriptions, tags, and everything else. This wasn't a once in a lifetime occurence there. Making a judgement based on part of the story is, as always, wrong.

As far as sounding blood-thirsty goes, it wasn't the people defending the decision of the 74 year old who were going to
If you takle me I am going to kick your butt and then sue you AND the store for unlawful detainment, assault and anything else I can think of
Click to expand...

Now, that sounded like some street-punk. I'm sure, well mostly sure, that nobody wants to come off sounding like that, but it's an antis dream. The discussion of how, why, and what actually occured, and what we felt was correct or not, was just that, a discussion, and far too involved to be of any help to the local VPC chapter. However, the casual threat of violence is something that they can grab onto, and use to disadvantage. How about we stick to the subject, and leave the " I'd blah, blah, blah" to the threads on the MSM Boards.
 
In this country the standard is innocent until proven guilty. You are also have a right to due process. Does running from a police officer and offering no threat to any other person constitute a situation for shooting the fleeing suspect? Basically if you shoot him you have just acted a judge and jury and deprived him of his civil rights and due process. Is that a standard you want?

The case would be totally different if the fleeing individual was armed and a threat to others.

Most police officers are trained in the continuum of force. Here in Texas you can use a force equal to that of the person you are attempting to detain. If he offers physical resistance you can use physical force. The continuum can go from no force to talking to deadly force in an eyeblink. You can also use descalation of force. If the suspect decreases his use of force then you have to go to that level.

I dont have the physical ability to tussle about anymore. Not to mention the fact that getting cut and bruised up isnt a good idea for a diabetic.
 
Tripp20,

No offense, but you obviously do not understand the concept of a strawman argument.

The point I made is completely relevant to the argument being made by the people that say theft is theft no matter if it is $5 or $500. They are making the point that it is the act of stealing and not the amount stolen that matters. Therefore, according to that reasoning, stealing a $.05 grape is the same as stealing a $5 item.
 
No offense, but you obviously do not understand the concept of a strawman argument.
Click to expand...

No offense taken. Just promise you'll click the link for a definition of strawman argument in my last post.

This (your words) is an example of the beginnings of a strawman argument:
Since so many of you refuse to see degrees of offense, should someone who eats a grape at a grocery store be gunned down.
Click to expand...

You are taking points made in this thread to the absolute extreme (i.e., your one grape example) in order to refute the argument originally made by showing outlandish it is.

The point I made is completely relevant to the argument being made by the people that say theft is theft no matter if it is $5 or $500.
Click to expand...

But theft is theft no matter how much is stolen, right? Ok - so we agree there.

But what if I - the victim - was poor and that grape meant a lot to my family's well-being? Well heck I might just kick the crap out of someone over a grape. :)

So in that sense I suppose some theft is different to some folks than others.

They are making the point that it is the act of stealing and not the amount stolen that matters.
Click to expand...
Well of course they both matter. The act, and the amount of damages. But the amount does not matter (to some of us) with regard to whether or not we wish to get involved -- which is what I've been discussing all along -- whether or not to be involved.

Therefore, according to that reasoning, stealing a $.05 grape is the same as stealing a $5 item.
Click to expand...

Are we going in circles? Who's on first?
 
Well of course they both matter. The act, and the amount of damages.
Click to expand...
Trip20,
That is just the point. Some people on here were saying that the amount does not matter. That a theif is a theif no matter how much they steal and they deserve to be shot. Those were the comments I was addressing.
 
My question would be did Farmer Brown have his gas pump secured with a good lock? If he did we might not be having this discussion.
Click to expand...

So now it's the farmers fault this guy is a thief?:confused:
Holy cow, this has got to be the dumbest thing I've read all month, but it's still early.
 
Last edited:
Yes I have to agree the amount does matter, and particularly when contemplating the law as it defines the "seriousness" of the crime.

The amount (or type of theft) also matters with regard to determining what type of response would be rational, though I must say a response is always reasonable and necessary.

For those such as myself that believe a response is always necessary regardless of the crime (please don't bring up jaywalking :p ), I'd point out that the value of stolen goods is not always a significant factor. Some people will flip out when accused of stealing a grape.
 
My question would be did Farmer Brown have his gas pump secured with a good lock? If he did we might not be having this discussion.
Click to expand...
I just can't get behind the idea that people should be forced to secure their items in order to not have them stolen. Much less the idea that they might be to blame for the crime for failing to do so. I am sure that is not what the original poster of this statement was meaning. probably a bad choice of words.
 
I confess!!!! It's my fault!

Thank you all for shaming me into confessing.
The good citizen ....er check that. The extremely dangerous gun nut, that dared to stop a crime in progress is NOT to blame.

The filthy theif that was stealing gas with his family around.....er check that. I mean, the good dad that we should all have pity on is NOT to blame.

It was MY fault. I support the 2nd amd (who would have guessed). Therefore, my actions of supporting a matter of liberty caused this extremely dangerous gun nut to over react. I am both indirectly and directly responsible for endagering the child. Afterall. It was my reckless abandonment of social norms to go out and condone the selfish liberity of the 2nd amd, and that directly made the extremely dangerous gun nut think that he was doing right by his neighbor.

Give the guy a break. He is a rural folk and thus, he is simple. Not sophisticated like so many others in the "normal" society. Like say for instance, a sophisticated person like playboy here. He is truely wise.

Now, I am a different breed than the extremely dangerous gun nut, in that I am a sophisticated city dweller. Therefore, I have caused this tragedy to occur. It was NOT the choice of the good dad to put his family and himself in harms way or any others in harms way. Nope that was not his choice. Society treated him unfair and he deserves the utmost consideration and the best treatment ever bestowed upon an American. After all he was probably a sophisticated person that conforms to all the societal norms except on this one occassion where WE as a society force him to DECIDE to break the law.

I must except full responsibility for this tragedy. I do apologize and will try to curtail my influence over people. I will focus my extremely powerful manipulation of people by encouraging others to not smoke (damn I have to quit now), eat tons of organic veggies and tofu, and to sue fast food resturants. Because, we no longer have a choice in America. McDonalds makes us eat their food and give them money. We have to eat there because of their clever advertising. We can not resist. We have no mind of our own to DECIDE for ourselves.

For any of you so called sophisticated people reading this and nodding their head in agreement.......you're the sheep, not us.
Please do not project your version of right and wrong on us. I reject your anemic arguement that the person who tried to stop the crime in progress some how became the criminal.

Tennessee v. Gardner (1986) was a peice of trash (use another word if needed) decision from the supreme court. This is the case which started the line of thinking and the arguement that many of you espouse.

Its okay to think for yourself and to be accountable for your own actions. The police can not be every where. The "extremely dangerous gun nut thought he was doing right by his neighbor.....The other person that should be held criminally and civilally liable because he did not lock up his gas pump?

Some of you are simply AMAZING!

Some of you make arguements with out even understanding where the law was contrived. Do you hear yourself talking???? Amazing!
 
Antipitas...

You seem to make a point that this was a repeated offense. I can understand how trying that must have been. You see, I've had several bicycles stolen over the years.

And while it isn't my fault they get stolen, it has made my life much cheaper and easier to lock 'em up when my heinie parts are not directly applied to them.

I'm not saying Farmer Brown has a responsibility to lock his items. However, night after night, if my stuff, (or my neighbors) was getting ganked, the first thing I'd do is buy me a good solid piece of Master steel. Sometimes the best offense is good defense.

I used to work at O'Reilly's. (a regional auto parts store...some of you will be familiar with it, some not.) Whenever gas prices went up, I sold locking gas caps like they were going out of style. I'm sure some of these people owned guns...and probably never used them.

This is not intended to put the onus of responsibility on Farmer Brown or his neighbor, rather, I'm just pointing out that for me, gunplay is serious business, and I look to avoid it. Stealing sucks, absolutely, and the guy deserves to have a load of birdshot installed in his nether regions. But still, the lock might be a better jumping off-point. Granted, Farmer Brown will be out five bucks or so, but Johnny Siphon is probably gonna move up the road to easier pickin's.

I understand that at this point, the gas was gone. But I still think Farmer Brown should have gone to bed, and in the morning gone and bought some steel chain and a good lock.
 
Last edited:
just can't get behind the idea that people should be forced to secure their items in order to not have them stolen.
Click to expand...

do you leave your keys in your car with the doors unlocked?

do you own a gun safe?

do you lock your house door when you leave ?

then you could possibly be securing your goods so as not to have them stolen.

Thievery is probably the worlds third oldest profession. If you don't practice personal security that's being naive and foolish.

It doesn't make you responsible for the crime if you dont secure your property. It prevents you from being a statistic and one less crime the police have to deal with.
 
+1 to Eghad. While we SHOULD not have to lock up our belongings, the truth of the matter is that we DO have to.

It's an imperfect world we live in. But if we are realists we have to realize that there are some battles we cannot win. We cannot eliminate crime from our society. So we have to sometimes do things that we should not have to, like lock up our homes and our cars. It HAS BECOME our responsibility to secure our property.
 
Excellent point

It is not accepting or condoning theft to take steps to make it more difficult

It is simply smart

What would you say to someone that leaves a pile of money in the middle of their front yard and then lies in wait to shoot whoever comes near?
 
I assumed (incorrectly?) that the comment regarding how one should not be forced to lock up their belongings had little to do with the real-world fact that it's a good idea to do so.

Rather I think the comment was made in the context of how some will use this as a point of contention while blaming the victim for the crime in whole or in part. This is what I think PlayboyPenguin meant when he said he couldn't support that idea.

I'll make another assumption that we all agree it's a good idea to lock up your stuff. So the last few posts are a bit puzzling as securing your property is pretty much universally accepted as a good idea.
 
I assumed (incorrectly?) that the comment regarding how one should not be forced to lock up their belongings had little to do with the real-world fact that it's a good idea to do so
Click to expand...
Trip20,

Correct. The point was that people should not have to live in a world were violation of personal rights and property are considered the acceptible norm and it is the victims fault if they allow themselves to fall prey to the criminals.

The optimal solution should not be "lock up your stuff and put up a barbed wire fence"...it should be "let's put an end to the crime". The fight against the criminal element should not stop at putting a lock on something. The lock is just a precaution until the true solution can be acheived.
 
do you leave your keys in your car with the doors unlocked?

Yes

do you own a gun safe?

Nope

do you lock your house door when you leave ?

Once again....no

Gosh I love living in the sticks surrounded by good people! Never even heard of theft occurring out our way.....woe to the person who tries (and is caught of course)!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top