Shoot a Thief!

[Two Tall the Neanderthal]

I somehow think it's common sense not to kill anyone in public over stolen property. If you can catch them and beat them near to death, that's another story. Assault charges don't risk prison time. The story changes if you feel that your life or the lives of those around you are threatened. Outside of public and in your residence, the odds are dramatically different. I would certainly not give them the chance to pose a threat. Their simple presence is enough to garner swift action.

Of course none of us know the whole story of this guy and his incident, but from what I?ve read here, it sounds as though he used poor judgment. The ability to keep a cool demeanor during high stress events like this can certainly change the course of your future and those that you effect with your actions.

I pay insurance, and if you want to risk your own neck over stealing my truck, that?s what the law is for, and I could care less. Now if you want to risk your own neck to take anything more precious from me than that, well you?re making a poor choice.

[PoisonSnake]

I don't carry a pistol, so I would probably never be in such a position. But, I know I am the type that would at the very least try to shoot out my own tires to stop the dude ifn' I was packing heat. Ifn' he wrecked after I shot his tires, I'm sure I would be sent up for manslaughter.

Now, this leads me to another thought. Eminent domain. Anymore, I feel that the government is overstepping its bounds with this procedure to acquire properties for their own usage. I can tell you they are not giving fair market value to said owners of property. In my opinion, it is nothing more than thievery. It is happening here in Boone Cty. or will soon happen with a defunct airport trying to acquire some additional acreage to increase the length of the runways. They feel this will improve the airport and said economics of such tremendously. If they came trying to take the HFA from me, I can see where I would be killing mad about it.

[Warmouth]

I'm with you on that PS. Eminent domain has gone way to far.

[Outdoorsfool]

Man, it's a scary time when Dabs and TTTN are the voice of reason! Unfortunately, I find myself agreeing with them. (where's that :cherbear: smiley when you need it?)

[Tigerhaze]

PoisonSnake said:
Now, this leads me to another thought. Eminent domain. Anymore, I feel that the government is overstepping its bounds with this procedure to acquire properties for their own usage.

I don't have a problem with eminent domain if it is used as a last resort, is tightly controlled for a justifiable <u> public need</u> operated by a government entity, and the procedures are rigidly followed. I also think that properties taken under eminent domain should be given more than fair market value due to the inconvienence, although that could invite abuse by people in collusion with government officials.

What's worse is when eminent domain is used by developers to obtain property for their exclusive benefit and use. I don't give a darn if there is a positive economic impact from the project or not; eminent domain should only be used as a last resort for governmental projects that serve a legitimate public need such as basic services and infrastructure.

[Roscoe Dog]

The idiot left his truck running and unlocked. Was he hoping someone would steal it so he could play tough guy? What a gobber.

[Great White Hunter]

Here's my take on it. There are a few folks on the board, that know about the "visitor" we had to our house, last year on Labor Day evening.

The guy had apparently been kicked out of the house by his live in girlfriend/sister. He walked past 12 houses to get to our home. It's 4 a.m. and our dogs are going berzerk. I get up to check it out, and I see something moving on our road that leads up to our house. I'm able to make whatever it is, out in the light from our dusk to dawn light. I get the binoculars out, and realize it's a man walking up to our house.

I immediately grabbed my loaded shotgun, then went to the other side of the house to find out where he was. By this time he was walking past my son's bedroom window. He went to the front door, and fortunately for him, rang the doorbell. If he would have tried to break down the door, or tried to open it, I would have shot him in a heartbeat. No questions asked.

[Outdoorsfool]

Roscoe - I couldn't decide between goober and dumbass! Any dude dumb enough to leave the key in his vehicle, the vehicle running AND the door unlocked at 11:30 at night around a metro area deserves to be walking!

[Showme]

It was a trap. He was wanting this to happen so he could propel lead at someone. He intentionally left it running, knowing it would get stolen. With the Governor supposedly signing this new bill that is going to weaken the proof needed for self defense with a weapon this person is just getting a head start.

Come to think of it, Gogop hasn't chimed in on this one. Makes ya say hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?????

[Roscoe Dog]

Theres a difference between someone breaking into your house while you are there and could do harm to your family and someone stealing your truck because your a dumba$$ while you stand there watching it go down the street.

[JimDog]

Great White Hunter said:
The guy had apparently been kicked out of the house by his live in girlfriend/sister

Do a lot of your neighbors have girlfriend/sisters? I guess this is bowling green we are talking about. Girlfriend. Sister. It's all good.

[Big John]

Missouri Revised Statutes
Chapter 563
Defense of Justification
Section 563.051

August 28, 2006




Private person's use of force in making an arrest.
563.051. 1. A private person who has been directed by a person he reasonably believes to be a law enforcement officer to assist such officer to effect an arrest or to prevent escape from custody may, subject to the limitations of subsection 3, use physical force when and to the extent that he reasonably believes such to be necessary to carry out such officer's direction unless he knows or believes that the arrest or prospective arrest is not or was not authorized.

2. A private person acting on his own account may, subject to the limitations of subsection 3, use physical force to effect arrest or prevent escape only when and to the extent such is immediately necessary to effect the arrest, or to prevent escape from custody, of a person whom he reasonably believes to have committed a crime and who in fact has committed such crime.

3. A private person in effecting an arrest or in preventing escape from custody is justified in using deadly force only

(1) When such is authorized under other sections of this chapter; or

(2) When he reasonably believes such to be authorized under the circumstances and he is directed or authorized by a law enforcement officer to use deadly force; or

(3) When he reasonably believes such use of deadly force is immediately necessary to effect the arrest of a person who at that time and in his presence

(a) Committed or attempted to commit a class A felony or murder; or

(b) Is attempting to escape by use of a deadly weapon.

4. The defendant shall have the burden of injecting the issue of justification under this section.

(L. 1977 S.B. 60)

[Tigerhaze]

Big John said:



(a) Committed or attempted to commit a class A felony or murder; or



(b) Is attempting to escape by use of a deadly weapon.



4. The defendant shall have the burden of injecting the issue of justification under this section.



(L. 1977 S.B. 60)

I don't remember the story stating anything about the thief using or brandashing a weapon; thus the thief would have committed second-degree robery (a Class B felony) and there would be no justification by the owner of the truck for use of deadly force.



It sucks that there are people out there stealing things, but it goes to show that there is a great responsibility when carrying firearms and you should be deadly serious when using a firearm against criminals and be prepared to suffer the consequences of using the firearm whether justified or not (which could in effect ruin your life). Just because you can beat the criminal charges associated with shooting a criminal, you could still have a wrongful death suit waiting for you in civil court.



The guy was definitely not thinking of the consequences by randomly shooting at the car following the thief.

[Outdoorsfool]

People have been prosecuted for using a vehicle as a deadly weapon....and he was attempting to escape by using it.



I haven't seen anyone on here say the shooter made a smart decision or that he should have been shooting. But with that said, I ain't sorry there's one less low life walking the streets.



Tiger - I don't recall seeing much detail about the car. Was the guy actually shooting at the car or was he shooting at the truck and hit the car? If he was shooting at the car, did he know the car was with the thief. If so, how? Was he watching the dude get out of the car and steal his truck? I'm starting to wonder if this really wasn't a set up of some kind to pull vigilante style justice. Either way, I suspect the dude is gonna have several years to ponder the error of his ways and won't have to worry 'bout renewing his C&C license.

[Tigerhaze]

A vehicle is a deadly weapon only if you use or brandish it as such- the story made no mention of the thief trying to run anyone over.

I am not sorry that the accomplices paid the price of helping commit a Class B felony; they reaped what they sowed. However I think maybe that this whole business about MO concealed carry and the "castle" doctrine has gone to some people's heads and the legal system won't be able to tolerate vigilante justice. I know many on here advocate concealed carry and more power to them, but responsibility and restraint must go with the right to do so. Out of everyone on this board I probably live in the worst neighborhood (several murders and shootings around here in the past two weeks), but don't feel the need to protect myself that way and am not sure that I want that responsibility.