January 15, 2013 - 8:18 am
A couple of Florida robbers had a brief moment to regret the choices they made in life.
Two car thieves in San Antonio forgot where they were committing their crimes. They tried to steal an SUV. In Texas. The result is about what you’d expect.
Missouri man shows robber why it’s a mistake to commit crime.
Houston carjacker runs into two armed “angels,” plus an angry dog.
Killing someone for stealing a car is self defense? This is more about executing criminals for messing with your stuff- is that really something to be proud of? Or maybe we should just chop their hands off like the Muslims. Is it only barbaic when they do it?
Sorry to post again in rapid succession but seriously??? One of these articles is about a 31 year old guy who saw a 55 year old stealing COPPER from his truck, he then chases the guy down confronts him and SHOOTS him…You’re pointing to THIS as if it were a GOOD thing? This is responsible gun ownership to you? How is chasing someone down self defense? At the very least it’s not very Christian- not to be self righteous here but come on….chasing criminals down and shooting them?
“… confronts him and SHOOTS him…” The shooting may have been a justifiable act of self-defense. The man had a right to chase the thief. He attempted to detain him for the police. Then…? The article doesn’t say. The police however are investigating. You’re concatenation however leaves out even the meager details of the report.
Are you familiar with all the laws (states and federal) pertaining to ‘use’ of deadly force by police or a private citizen? There are also two very different courts for which can address this issue. The laws (especially 2010 Tennessee v. Garner) have a good deal to say about ‘chasing’ a ‘fleeing’ felon and then exerting a self-defense, defense. The more deadly force is used irresponsibly, the more these courts will become involved and you know what that leads to — right?
Sure. My only point is that we know next to nothing about the Missouri case that was linked – whether it’s a good example or not. That said, strike the Missouri case linked and the basic snark behind Mr. Preston’s post remains pertinent, with many other cases to cite.
Okay. Just concerned me when you blatantly stated “The man had a right to chase the thief” I took it as you infering a ‘universal’ right to ‘chase’ and shoot.
There are not enough details in the reports to say whether the firearm use as justifiable. But, yes, chasing and stopping thieves until police arrive is acceptable. If they in turn become an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury, then using deadly force is justifiable. Are we simply to let criminals prey up on us?
Nicely summarized, JKB. The critical detail that might justify (or not) the shootings are missing. But yes, you are most certainly allowed to both (a) chase a thief and (b) detain them via a citizens arrest (assuming you saw the theft occur).
There is something you can do that is between “letting criminals prey on you” and blowing their heads off. It’s called calling the police like a normal person. Even if they are a crack head scumbag loser- you want to live with taking someone’s life over $500 or $5000 or how much? Whatever the law says, do you really feel you have the right to kill someone over a car or a laptop or a bunch of copper scrap? We don’t have the death penalty for stealing and no normal person would support that- so why put yourself in the position to carry out that sentence in the heat of the moment?
They were acting normally.
Since you can pretty much count on the police not being timely, and you can’t count on their competence, they were acting quite rationally.
And justly.
I wonder how many of those advocating for greater restrictions on firearms, or of those dismissive of the need for AR or AK pattern rifles for defense of life, property, and as a check on tyranny, also find the scenes at the barricades in Les Miserables…inspirational? I rather doubt that those very appreciative audiences have oversampled defenders of 2nd Amendment rights.