I wish more states had non-permit Open Carry. It would be nice to walk around with the 6 shooter. Obviously all laws would still apply, but I bet crime would go down drastically if you gave citizens the right to react with deadly force to certain crimes. Like if you catch someone in the act of dragging away a child, once you identify the person is not the guardian... Yeah, they'd be dead in an instant.

Freedoms lost are seldom restored.

"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have" Thomas Jefferson

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." Cesare Beccaria, 1767 (Later quoted by Thomas Jefferson)

These two let this woman 100% off the hook.

she probably drives a Nissan, that is why she is so protective over it.

For the castle doctrine: If someone unlawfully enters into my house, including my garage, while I am there I will assume they intend violence and are armed when encountered and I will defend myself to the fullest extent of my ability without waiting for them to shoot first.

If they are trying to break into my vehicle in my driveway or on the street, or are there to do other damage to my property outside of my house, I will go out to protect my property and will defend myself to the extreme if i feel threatened.

Don't steal, don't die?
Sure. Why don't we just lower the punishment to cutting off your hand?

You guys are fu*king crazy. What if someone was just admiring your car and got shot? There are alot of what-ifs I can think of. I guess you morons can't think that far in advance tho, lets just shoot them all.

The most amazing thing in the world! You have to see it --> www.mostamazingthing.com/holycrap/huge.jpg

she probably should've called the police.
no need to blow some kid's head off. let the cops do their work.

She sniped some kid from a window across open air, and it wasn't her property she was parked on. Still think she has the right?

Why don't we just take the second amendment and wipe our fat as$es with it.

the problem is that no course can make you make the right decision once your adrenaline gets pumping... i still don't think a life was worth the car... but s*** happens... if the guy wasn't an idiot he'd still be alive

Quote, originally posted by krimsonviper »

Oh yeah? Well, I saw a Razi on the freeway sitting under a Pezi. I was jealous.

WTF are you babbling about? You saying the guy is protected because he was standing on property that she didn't own while trying to jack her car? You have no right to protect your property if it is not on "your" land?

What the hell does the 2nd Amendment have to do with this? Owning a gun and using it in a "legal" means is two different things and I have NOT stated she did the right thing.

I officially switch my position and agree with the other side.

I plan to buy a gun, and execute teenagers shop lifting from the local Lucky Aid.
If they don't steal they won't get killed.

Knock yourself out. Have fun in prison, hope someone sends you lube.

You know very well I wasn't "babbling". I think it was very clear.

Quote, originally posted by audtatious »

You saying the guy is protected because he was standing on property that she didn't own while trying to jack her car? You have no right to protect your property if it is not on "your" land?

WTF is with putting words in my mouth? PLEASE READ VERY CAREFULLY:

I never said anything about anyone being "protected". She fired a firearm across a public area (sure, the apt building is private property, but generally the parking lots are public), I think that's a little dangerous, don't you? I mean, next time I'm at Walmart and I see a guy across the lot standing around my car, I should pull out my shotgun and fire away, right?

Quote, originally posted by audtatious »

What the hell does the 2nd Amendment have to do with this?

She owned a gun. She used said gun in a manner that is as if she wiped her as$ with the amendment. I guess that wasn't clear enough. I know you said you didn't agree either, but I really needed to say that anyway.

No, the parking lot is not public. It's owned by the complex. Hell, even Gov-owned parking lots are not public anymore if you look at the latest lawsuit via the Post Office and an employee they fired for having a gun in his trunk. Hell, technically, the US Gov owns ALL US property as they can take away everything a citizen owns via non payment of taxes or via the Gov deciding your property would be of better use by some other person or group or company.

2nd Amendment has to do with owning a gun and has nothing to do with the laws on the books concerning its use. Trying to associate her use of the gun with the right of ownership via the 2nd Amendment puts forth that you don't approve of gun ownership and simply want to use her action as a reason to remove the right to own guns from the population in general. Is that your direction?

There is more to this case than meets the eye and I'd be interested in seeing what the final conclusion is.

There you go, putting words in my mouth again. Forget it, OK? I'm not discussing this any more.

I dislike the way modern society views theft as a petty crime. It is not petty. You screw with my s***, you affect my life. There's nothing petty about stealing a car. We're WAY too soft as a society. Punishments used to have a purpose: deterrent. Now they're just "corrective." Screw corrective. After the fact is too late. Punishment must be severe enough to deter. Death is a great deterrent.

Pity is misplaced in this situation. The kid CHOSE to put his greed above the personal interests of another person. At that moment he chose to sacrifice his rights as a human. He does not get pity. "Petty" criminals are often the worst kind. They have no respect for their fellow humans and society's soft laws allow their behavior to be profitable. It was not profitable for this one. Hopefully he serves as a lesson to others.

Stop taking pity on criminals. It's disgusting.

4.08 VLSD, NICO 8-way ECU, full exhaust with custom headers,
Tokico Blues with Eibach springs, Stillen FSTB, 20mm RSB

What is the minimum value of theft for the death penalty to still be an appropriate punishment?

No, I don't.

The world is not perfect. Flowers don't crap money when you wink at them. Break down the situation and its implications. SOMEONE IS GOING TO COME OUT BADLY. Why in the HELL should it be ANYONE but the thief? What do you want to happen? For magic cotton ropes to fly down and convince him to kindly stop stealing the car and surrender himself? Whatever happens, it is on his head. HE is the one who chose to break the law. HE is the one who chose to invade another person's property. HE IS IN THE WRONG. Everything else is irrelevant. We cannot have a world where everything is so legislated that you can't even defend yourself without having to worry about future negative repercussions. The thief chose to steal. He has assumed the burden of responsibility in doing so. The victim MUST BE FREE TO REACT. Otherwise the ENTIRE PURPOSE OF ALL PUBLIC DEFENSE LAW IS UNDERMINED. There can be no peace when criminals are protected at the expense of their victims. Which is exactly what we are talking about here.

Again, I say: don't pit the thief. He deserves no pity. Certainly, it's not an ideal situation for him to be killed. But when the alternatives are a law-biding citizen coming out worse or a law-breaking citizen coming out worse, there is only one option. How much "worse" is irrelevant at that point. And it certainly is not guilt on the victim's head. The victim can only react. The thief is the one who created the situation that lead to his death. How on earth can anyone want to punish the victim?

I am not saying the thief DESERVED to die at all (though I do think that letting the shooter off is a great way to send a message to future would-be thieves). But his death, deserved or not, is NOT on the shooter's head. It is on his head. His were the only choices that caused that to happen. Yes, the shooter chose to shoot. But she wouldn't have had to make that choice if the thief hadn't put her in that spot. Everything comes back to him.

Modern society has a terrible habit of passing responsibility for mistakes along. That should not happen anywhere, but especially cannot be allowed to happen in situations like this. The blame and guilt lay with the dead thief. He is lucky enough to be dead and not have to face them anymore. The woman who shot him will probably feel terrible for the rest of her life. All because some dumb s*** kid had to try and steal a car.

You are not reading the Castle Doctrine correctly.

Your vehicle is considered your property. If you are in your vehicle, it is considered your "home". You have every right to protect it as if someone is breaking in to your house.

she wasn't in the vehicle. she was on the second floor of a building, out of harm's way. so after re-reading this

Quote, originally posted by Chaotic_Warlord »

Castle Doctrine defined via wakopedia: "Each state differs with respect to the specific instances in which the Castle Doctrine can be invoked, and what degree of retreat or non-deadly resistance (if any) is required before deadly force can be used. In general, one (sometimes more) of a variety of conditions must be met before a person can legally use the Castle Doctrine: * An intruder must be making (or have made) an attempt to unlawfully and/or forcibly enter an occupied home, business or car. * The intruder must be acting illegally—e.g. the Castle Doctrine does not give the right to attack officers of the law acting in the course of their legal duties * The occupant(s) of the home must reasonably believe that the intruder intends to inflict serious bodily harm or death upon an occupant of the home * The occupant(s) of the home must reasonably believe that the intruder intends to commit some other felony, such as arson or burglary * The occupant(s) of the home must not have provoked or instigated an intrusion, or provoked or instigated an intruder to threaten or use deadly force * The occupant(s) of the home may be required to attempt to exit the house or otherwise retreat (this is called the "Duty to retreat" and most self-defense statutes referred to as examples of "Castle Doctrine" expressly state that the homeowner has no such duty) In all cases, the occupant(s) of the home must be there legally, must not be fugitives from the law, must not be using the Castle Doctrine to aid or abet another person in being a fugitive from the law, and must not use deadly force upon an officer of the law or an officer of the peace while they are performing or attempting to perform their legal duties. Note: the term "home" is used because most states only apply their Castle Doctrine to a place of residence; however, some states extend the protection to other legally-occupied places such as automobiles and places of business."

it doesn't sound like any of this is applicable since she was not occupying the vehicle.

Quote, originally posted by PoorManQ45 »

I wish more states had non-permit Open Carry. It would be nice to walk around with the 6 shooter. Obviously all laws would still apply, but I bet crime would go down drastically if you gave citizens the right to react with deadly force to certain crimes. Like if you catch someone in the act of dragging away a child, once you identify the person is not the guardian... Yeah, they'd be dead in an instant.

on the contrary, i'd wager that there would be more unjustified injuries and deaths than there are now. so many people would get guns "just in case" and the majority of them will turn out to be trigger-happy morons shooting everything that moves.

My funtoi... Meets my dirty caramel desires. tested and approved by "The Tita" himself.

From the criminals perspective, there are a few outcomes he was aware of before trying to steal the car: gets away with it, gets scared off, gets caught by the cops, gets the crap beat out of him or gets killed for his actions. He made a choice and was killed.

Again, I'm on the fence about her actions as I feel she could have played things out differently. BUT, I don't feel sorry for the criminal as his choices lead to his death.

In Florida a law has been passed that requires employers to allow their employees to leave weapons in their vehicle. I believe it still has to be out of sight.

A vehicle is considered your private property, no matter where it parked.

no one contested that, way to make an irrelevant post.

It's in regards to the Post Office comment I made in which any public lot that is used for PO employees or to store PO trucks is considered private property and those using the lot cannot have a gun in their vehicle. So, if you are a lawful gun owner and have a gun in your car you can't go to the post office unless you park elsewhere and walk in......or something like that.

The law says you can only use deadly force when the crime being committed also involves force, intimidation or violence. Theft and robbery are NOT pretty much the same thing. Theft is non-violent Robbery involves force or intimidation. You can use non-deadly force to protect your property in the event of a theft. Here, she was not justified in using deadly force because:
1) the theft was not occurring in her habitation or in an inhabited vehicle; 2) the crime being committed was non-violent; 3) the property being taken was not immediately necessary for her survival.

none of these things you mention occurred in this situation .... stop discussing things that didn't happen and so we can have rational discussion about what DID happen

Quote »

* An intruder must be making (or have made) an attempt to unlawfully and/or forcibly enter an occupied home, business or car. * The occupant(s) of the home must reasonably believe that the intruder intends to commit some other felony, such as arson or burglary These two let this woman 100% off the hook.

you are saying, she is in Texas so she is protected under Castle law. the argument is that Castle law DOES NOT APPLY. the text of the law says occupied vehicle. She was not in the vehicle nor was she using it as her habitation. nor was she in immediate danger.

She does have the right to defend her car on her own property as per Texas law but: 1) is the parking lot considered her property? 2) you can't use deadly force to protect unless it is a robbery or violent crime- this was a theft, only non-deadly force is protected by law

Modified by mrodrig2 at 7:18 AM 11/5/2009

You might want to go look up the violent crime statistics...

IIRC, California, which has the tightest restrictions on guns, has something like the 3rd highest crime rate involving guns.

Compare this to states that have legal open carry, which rank among the lowest gun related crimes.

i'm not quite sure what you're getting at. legal open carry will reduce the number of gunshot wounds and deaths? how do you figure?

Was force, deadly or no, necessary to protect her property in this case? No.

Should she be punished for this instance? Maybe, that decision is not clear without more details.

Statistics show that states with open carry have less violent crime. The stats are the stats, argue those. Either the citizens in those states are less violent/more moral than those in the states with higher stats OR open carry alone lowers violent crime as there is a greater chance of the criminal running into the wrong person thus they choose not to perpetrate crimes that can get them shot.

Breaking into a car is a death penalty according to her? I'd hate to see how she punishes her child when it brings a poor grade home from school.

Shooting into an apartment parking lot is just plain stupid anyway.

Dirty e30 for sale http://forums.nicoclub.com/zerothread?id=455991 $600

And let's not punish the whole population due to some areas with social, cultural and economic factors which increase the amount of violence. Of course, simply deeming those areas as incorrigible without trying open-carry is retarded as well. Restrictions were supposed to lower violence and it has not.

But, that's neither here nor there in regards to this case.