When has it ever become legal to shoot someone because they’re stealing your car?

[aGameOfThrones]

Janique Walker knows the cost of a split second.

Her younger brother, 17-year-old Charles Macklin, was killed while trying to steal a Jeep from a Chicago fire lieutenant on the West Side last August. The lieutenant had left the Jeep running, and Macklin jumped behind the wheel.

The lieutenant ran in front of the Jeep and shouted, “Get out,” according to a police report. When Macklin began pulling away, the lieutenant drew his gun and fired through the open driver’s side window, hitting the teen in the chest.

Macklin’s last words were, “Sorry, bro,” according to the police report. The teen died on the pavement. He did not have a gun on him.

The lieutenant had a concealed carry license. He was not charged and he was not disciplined by the department, according to spokesman Larry Langford.

Walker, 20, has organized protests, started a Facebook page and launched a hashtag on Twitter. She says she hasn’t given up hope of getting justice for her brother.

She believes her brother was found guilty by one man with a gun. Walker said her brother should be alive to stand before a judge and take responsibility for his actions.

“When has it ever become legal to shoot someone because they’re pulling off in your car?” she asked. “Even if (Macklin) did that, if he did steal the car. You’ve got insurance — let him go to jail. I would’ve rather had to get a call to go bail him out of jail than to get a phone call that he’s dead.”

Walker organized a protest where her brother was killed. As they marched, she said she was approached by more than one person who said they witnessed the shooting. One woman said she saw Macklin lying on the pavement, struggling to breathe.

“She’s traumatized about it,” Walker said. “I get that. I couldn’t imagine watching a little boy dying in front of me either.”

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-met-concealed-carry-shooting-victim-20180523-story.html

[Zippyjuan]

Most laws are written which allow you to use "minimal reasonable force" to defend yourself and your property. Killing is generally not "minimal reasonable force" unless you can prove you felt your own life was in danger.

I was on a trial recently which hinged on "minimal reasonable force". Two guys in a bar. One drunk, one not. Drunk guy accuses the sober one of touching him. They have a discussion for a couple minutes. Somber guy winds up (with a glass in his hand) and hits the drunk one hard enough to knock him off his feet (and damage his eye). Sober guy continues to chase drunk guy until friends pull him back. Sober guy says he felt "threatened" and in "mortal danger" even though he was the one who threw the first punch when he made no efforts to either push the drunk away or to just walk away from the situation (we had video but no audio from the bar of the confrontation). Two jurors decided they agreed that he could have felt threatened. But the response should be "minimal" and "what a reasonable person in a similar situation would do" according to the law as given to us- hitting that hard before being hit yourself seemed like something not reasonable and minimal. Our decision had to be unanimous so it was a hung jury.

[TheTexan]

When Macklin began pulling away, the lieutenant drew his gun and fired through the open driver’s side window, hitting the teen in the chest.

Clearly, the Officer was in fear of his life. I'm glad he's OK.

[TheTexan]

Most laws are written which allow you to use "minimal reasonable force" to defend yourself and your property. Killing is generally not "minimal reasonable force" unless you can prove you felt your own life was in danger.

Except in Texas where you can shoot someone for stealing a snickers bar (as long as it's night time)

[dean.engelhardt]

Quick Google search came up with this:
In Illinois, you may use regular force in just about any self-defense situation. Deadly force is that which is intended to kill or cause great bodily harm. ... You may not use deadly force to protect property unless you are doing so to prevent a forcible felony.

I suppose the fireman get the benefit of a doubt with forcible felony. Chalk this up to; just because it is legal doesn't make it right. Then again, it is Chicago where people usually get shot anyway.

[thoughtomator]

A jury in South Carolina would line up to shake your hand.

[Krugminator2]

I suppose the fireman get the benefit of a doubt with forcible felony. Chalk this up to; just because it is legal doesn't make it right. Then again, it is Chicago where people usually get shot anyway.


I think just the opposite. I'm morally okay with shooting people who steal cars. I don't think it is a good idea only because of the risk of going to jail.

[fedupinmo]

Their argument is always, "go ahead and let him steal it, insurance will pay!" How about, don't steal it in the first place. Our legal system should discourage theft in the strongest way possible, and this incident was a perfect exercise of that.
So does Jeniqua think he should be shot if the owner doesn't have full coverage on their car? Or should the owner just take the loss and let it go?

[TheTexan]

Their argument is always, "go ahead and let him steal it, insurance will pay!" How about, don't steal it in the first place. Our legal system should discourage theft in the strongest way possible, and this incident was a perfect exercise of that.
So does Jeniqua think he should be shot if the owner doesn't have full coverage on their car? Or should the owner just take the loss and let it go?

This time it was a car, but what if he was stealing a TV? What if he was stealing a candy bar?

Any attempts to draw a line somewhere would be entirely arbitrary, which is why only Officers should be allowed to administer violent road-side justice

[Danke]

This time it was a car, but what if he was stealing a TV? What if he was stealing a candy bar?

Any attempts to draw a line somewhere would be entirely arbitrary, which is why only Officers should be allowed to administer violent road-side justice

What if they steal your horse, can you still hang 'em down there in Texas?

[timosman]

Their argument is always, "go ahead and let him steal it, insurance will pay!" How about, don't steal it in the first place. Our legal system should discourage theft in the strongest way possible, and this incident was a perfect exercise of that.
So does Jeniqua think he should be shot if the owner doesn't have full coverage on their car? Or should the owner just take the loss and let it go?

Life isn't without risks. How about that?:cool:

[Weston White]

Hold yaz' horses, the dumbass left the vehicle running, and was shocked to discover some scumbag was in the process of stealing it...

Somebody, please lock up this asshole, fuck:


Sec. 11-1401. Unattended motor vehicles. Except for a law enforcement officer or an operator of an authorized emergency vehicle performing his or her official duties, no person driving or in charge of a motor vehicle shall permit it to stand unattended without first stopping the engine, locking the ignition, removing the key from the ignition, effectively setting the brake thereon and, when standing upon any perceptible grade, turning the front wheels to the curb or side of the highway. An unattended motor vehicle shall not include an unattended locked motor vehicle with the engine running after being started by a remote starter system.
(Source: P.A. 100-435, eff. 8-25-17.)

[euphemia]

I can't believe anyone is even asking this question. When a punk wants someone's property enough to steal it, he does so at his own risk. He took the risk and lost. That's on him.

[timosman]

Hold yaz' horses, the dumbass left the vehicle running, and was shocked to discover some scumbag was in the process of stealing it...

Somebody, please lock up this asshole, fuck:

Two wrongs don't make right.

[Weston White]

Two wrongs don't make right.

If you fuck up by leaving your wallet (or $1,200 iPhone MXXXXVVVIII) on the counter don't blame the thief, blame your own dumb ass, period. End of discussion.

[euphemia]

If you $#@! up by leaving your wallet (or $1,200 iPhone MXXXXVVVIII) on the counter don't blame the thief, blame your own dumb ass, period. End of discussion.

Um, no. Nobody has a right to anyone else's property, no matter what is it or where they find it.

[Krugminator2]

If you $#@! up by leaving your wallet (or $1,200 iPhone MXXXXVVVIII) on the counter don't blame the thief, blame your own dumb ass, period. End of discussion.

That's the most insane thing I have ever read.

I'll continue to blame the thief.

[DamianTV]

What if they steal your horse, can you still hang 'em down there in Texas?

In Nevada, stealing a horse way back in the day was a crime that was punishable by death, because a persons horse was their lifeline. Before cars were invented, if you took a mans horse, it put the victim at a seriously high risk of death, hence the severity of punishment.

One of the oddball laws we still have on the books is that it is illegal to refuse a person a glass of water if they come to your front door and ask for it. Its still on the books, but has never been removed, but I dont think anyone has been charged with breaking that law for the last 150 years or so.

The point being that a Car is a persons Lifeline today. This is akin to stealing your horse back in the day. Your TV is not a Lifeline, nor is a snickers bar. A car however, is. You ALWAYS have a Right to protect your property due to the nature of the law. Criminals may or may not be prosecuted by the law so there is little guarantee that a person will achieve Justice. The trouble is that Justice leaves a person to pick up the pieces. When something is stolen, there is little chance that the thing that has been stolen will ever be returned. This punishes the victims of the crime when their ability to protect their property is violated, thus, the criminals win.

Time and time again, we see that Govt thinks it has authority to control every aspects of a persons life. DO you have a Right to protect yourself? Govt would say you have NO Right to protect yourself from Govt, now go hire a Lawyer. Hence, fearmongering of guns. NEVER ask for permission for a Right. That is the exact opposite of what a Right is. I have a Right because Fuck You thats why. Same goes with protecting your property. Are they stealing your Lifeline, your car? Yes? Then shoot the mother fucker and stop asking goddamn permission to protect yourself from thieves. Where you shoot them depends on the judgement of the person whose shit is being stolen. Are they armed? No? Try and shoot them in the leg. Are they trying to attack you? Yes? Then shoot the mother fucker in the head and put them in the ground. We have enough thieves in high positions of power that they are not gonna spend more than five minutes investigating what they consider to be a petty crime, like stealing your car, which is the average persons lifeline to get to and from work. We all know that Insurance Companies will refuse to pay at every opportunity, and if your car is stolen, they sure as fuck wont pay for lost wages due to the theft of your car. Nor will a thief be able to repay you for those lost wages, in the event they are caught and convicted, which again, puts the burden on the victim. Is shooting someone for stealing your car extreme? Sure, but so are the consequences of having your lifeline removed.

The structure of our legal system needs to enable the people to take responsibility, thus, have authority over fixing their own problems with minimal necessary intervention by Govt.

So why dont we look at it from the point of view that if you dont want to get shot, then dont steal other peoples shit? This idea of defending real criminals has to stop.

That ought to stir up some controversy and debate.

[timosman]

If you fuck up by leaving your wallet (or $1,200 iPhone MXXXXVVVIII) on the counter don't blame the thief, blame your own dumb ass, period. End of discussion.

Wallets don't have steering wheels.

[Danke]

Um, no. Nobody has a right to anyone else's property, no matter what is it or where they find it.


The majority does.

[Danke]

"The point being that a Car is a persons Lifeline today."

I think that would be hard to argue with replacement insurance, public transportation, Taxis, etc.

[timosman]

"The point being that a Car is a persons Lifeline today."

I think that would be hard to argue with replacement insurance, public transportation, Taxis, etc.

Unreasonable burden on the owner?:confused:

[timosman]

Is there a possibility it did happen in a way different from what is being described in the OP? One bullet?

[euphemia]

"The point being that a Car is a persons Lifeline today."

I think that would be hard to argue with replacement insurance, public transportation, Taxis, etc.

Sorry, pal, I disagree. My car is paid for and is in good condition, according to the ASE certified mechanic that looked at it yesterday. My husband was darn near killed in 2016 by an old rich witch texting, and we have suffered the loss of that car ever since. Insurance never replaces a vehicle because cars depreciate. I used Lyft twice yesterday and it was way more expensive than the operating costs of my vehicle. There is no public transportation to my mechanic. None.

We are responsible drivers. We have both been totaled by irresponsible drivers and never got full replacement value for our cars.

[euphemia]

If some little punk decides he wants to steal my car, I will chase him down and beat him senseless with my cane. That's not a joke.

[timosman]

If some little punk decides he wants to steal my car, I will chase him down and beat him senseless with my cane. That's not a joke.

How would a punk like that appear in your neighborhood? :cool:

[oyarde]

Guy must have a nicer vehicle than I do . I may or may not kill him depending on my mood . If I did I would feel bad about it later so hopefully not . I do not like to feel bad about killing people , under normal circumstances it does not bother me , just have a few beers and forget about it . Does he deserve it ? I am actually ok with both opinions on that .

[TheTexan]

What if they steal your horse, can you still hang 'em down there in Texas?

No but you can shoot them

We don't really hang people anymore, except for maybe the occasional colored

[Danke]

Sorry, pal, I disagree. My car is paid for and is in good condition, according to the ASE certified mechanic that looked at it yesterday. My husband was darn near killed in 2016 by an old rich witch texting, and we have suffered the loss of that car ever since. Insurance never replaces a vehicle because cars depreciate. I used Lyft twice yesterday and it was way more expensive than the operating costs of my vehicle. There is no public transportation to my mechanic. None.

We are responsible drivers. We have both been totaled by irresponsible drivers and never got full replacement value for our cars.

Depends on the Insurance you have.

Have you thought about a used motorcycle, that would be cheap transportation as you shop for your replacement vehicle.

Carpooling?

[timosman]

No but you can shoot them

We don't really hang people anymore, except for maybe the occasional colored


https://steemitimages.com/0x0/https://s11.postimg.org/3otcypazn/Content.jpg

[pcosmar]

Hang them,,Then shoot them.

Leave a Clear Note as to the Crime,, for passers by to read.

[aGameOfThrones]

Hang them,,Then shoot them.

Leave a Clear Note as to the Crime,, for passers by to read.

Make sure the note points out that he died by being hanged not because of Gun Violence :cool:

[aGameOfThrones]

If you $#@! up by leaving your wallet (or $1,200 iPhone MXXXXVVVIII) on the counter don't blame the thief, blame your own dumb ass, period. End of discussion.

I’ll be honest, that sounds like blaming a rape victim for the type of clothes

[Swordsmyth]

He got what he deserved and once upon a time nobody would have questioned the shooter.

[timosman]

If you fuck up by leaving your wallet (or $1,200 iPhone MXXXXVVVIII) on the counter don't blame the thief, blame your own dumb ass, period. End of discussion.

I would expect to be able to come back to pick it up. Is this not how it works in our country? We don't steal. :confused:

[timosman]

I’ll be honest, that sounds like blaming a rape victim for the type of clothes

It is normal in some countries.:cool:

[Pauls' Revere]

Most laws are written which allow you to use "minimal reasonable force" to defend yourself and your property. Killing is generally not "minimal reasonable force" unless you can prove you felt your own life was in danger.

I was on a trial recently which hinged on "minimal reasonable force". Two guys in a bar. One drunk, one not. Drunk guy accuses the sober one of touching him. They have a discussion for a couple minutes. Somber guy winds up (with a glass in his hand) and hits the drunk one hard enough to knock him off his feet (and damage his eye). Sober guy continues to chase drunk guy until friends pull him back. Sober guy says he felt "threatened" and in "mortal danger" even though he was the one who threw the first punch when he made no efforts to either push the drunk away or to just walk away from the situation (we had video but no audio from the bar of the confrontation). Two jurors decided they agreed that he could have felt threatened. But the response should be "minimal" and "what a reasonable person in a similar situation would do" according to the law as given to us- hitting that hard before being hit yourself seemed like something not reasonable and minimal. Our decision had to be unanimous so it was a hung jury.

Just curious, what was the verdict? and sentence?

How did he "touch" the guy? a simple bump trying to get to the bar or did he grab ass without permission?

[not.your.average.joe]

Completely ignoring the fact that he is an officer, isn't it okay to defend your property from being stolen? What is the difference between this and a burglar breaking into your house and getting shot? I've read all kinds of headlines on this forum about men hailed as heroes for defending their homes against invaders and nobody questions it. Is it the man's badge that turns people against him?

[Zippyjuan]

Just curious, what was the verdict? and sentence?

How did he "touch" the guy? a simple bump trying to get to the bar or did he grab ass without permission?

Hung jury since not all could agree. A couple said they felt he could have justified the punch to himself (ignoring that the standard was not what he might think but what the average person in that situation would have done). This was actually the third trial.

The "touch" was actually a couple girls in the bar (he and his friend had previously talked to) who stuck a couple straws together to make them longer and tickled him on his neck with it a couple of times. He turned and couldn't see who was doing it. He is currently legally blind in one eye (the one he was hit in), has had two surgeries on it and needs another. The guy who threw the punch got angry on the stand a couple of times and also admitted his hand was very sore for a couple weeks so it was a pretty hard punch- he cocked his arm all the way back to throw it. He had a tall, plastic Corona glass in his hand when he threw it.

[Weston White]

Um, no. Nobody has a right to anyone else's property, no matter what is it or where they find it.

Well, that is its own distinct issue, while one certainly has no valid legal basis or reasoning to track them down and shoot them to death for having stolen their property.

[Swordsmyth]

Well, that is its own distinct issue, while one certainly has no valid legal basis or reasoning to track them down and shoot them to death for having stolen their property.

One does have a valid moral basis to use deadly force to defend or recover one's property (of sufficient value and importance) and the law SHOULD reflect that.

[euphemia]

Well, that is its own distinct issue, while one certainly has no valid legal basis or reasoning to track them down and shoot them to death for having stolen their property.


I don’t think that’s what happened here.

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

I have absolutely no sympathy for the "victim". Good riddance. The criminal element can be justly wiped out by peaceful people. Saved someone else the trouble, possibly reacting to a far worse crime.

[timosman]

I don’t think that’s what happened here.

Zippy likes to move goalposts. Works every time.:cool:

[Zippyjuan]

Zippy likes to move goalposts. Works every time.:cool:

Um- that had nothing to do with anything I said. But thanks for your usual fascinating contribution to the discussion!

[euphemia]

Depends on the Insurance you have.

Have you thought about a used motorcycle, that would be cheap transportation as you shop for your replacement vehicle.

Carpooling?

Are you kidding? Me on a motorcycle? Did you not read the part about my cane? Husband found a replacement, but there is always a price. We are not wealthy people. We also don’t have a garage. A motorcycle would be a risk for us to own. We buy used.

Back to the OP: I look at a Jeep and see a means of transportation with a mechanical inferiority to my own sturdy Honda CR-V. The young man in the OP looked at a Jeep as an opportunity to do wrong. He took a risk and he lost. I’m sad for him and his family because the loss of integrity is the biggest loss of all. I can’t imagine the pain of losing a brother or a child.

[Danke]

Are you kidding? Me on a motorcycle? Did you not read the part about my cane? Husband found a replacement, but there is always a price. We are not wealthy people. We also don’t have a garage. A motorcycle would be a risk for us to own. We buy used.

Back to the OP: I look at a Jeep and see a means of transportation with a mechanical inferiority to my own sturdy Honda CR-V. The young man in the OP looked at a Jeep as an opportunity to do wrong. He took a risk and he lost. I’m sad for him and his family because the loss of integrity is the biggest loss of all. I can’t imagine the pain of losing a brother or a child.

How much is your vehicle worth to you? I guarantee if you kill someone, it will be a minimum of $20,000 in lawyer fees. And a lot of lost time, stress, etc. Shit, if you are unlucky, you could go to jail for a long time depending on the judge and jury. You want to take that chance?

[timosman]

How much is your vehicle worth to you? I guarantee if you kill someone, it will be a minimum of $20,000 in lawyer fees. And a lot of lost time, stress, etc.

Good point. You should always think about consequences. On the other hand if you work for the state ...

[Swordsmyth]

How much is your vehicle worth to you? I guarantee if you kill someone, it will be a minimum of $20,000 in lawyer fees. And a lot of lost time, stress, etc. $#@!, if you are unlucky, you could go to jail for a long time depending on the judge and jury. You want to take that chance?

In the current legal environment you may be right but that doesn't mean things should be the way they are.

[Weston White]

That's the most insane thing I have ever read.

I'll continue to blame the thief.

Certainly, but not by justification through lethal force. And for consideration:

"Finders, keepers; Losers, weepers" a well known idiom based from Roman civil law, which evolved under the concept of usucapio; also known as usucaption.

Uti possidetis, ita possideatis, in concern of international and foreign conflicts settled by treaty: "as you possess, thus may you possess."

Adverse possession and squatters rights, for "possession is nine-tenths of the law."

Parker v British Airways Board [1982] 1 QB 1004:


On 15 November 1978, the plaintiff, Alan George Parker, had a date with fate - and perhaps with legal immortality. He found himself in the international executive lounge at terminal one, Heathrow Airport. And that is not all he found. He also found a gold bracelet lying on the floor.

We know very little about the plaintiff, and it would be nice to know more. He was lawfully in the lounge and, as events showed, he was an honest man. Clearly he had not forgotten the schoolboy maxim "Finders keepers." But, equally clearly, he was well aware of the adult qualification "unless the true owner claims the article". ...

[Weston White]

"The point being that a Car is a persons Lifeline today."

I think that would be hard to argue with replacement insurance, public transportation, Taxis, etc.

And now the vehicle is sitting in an evidence yard, is damaged and contaminated. So the government goon is still without his precious vehicle.

[Weston White]

One does have a valid moral basis to use deadly force to defend or recover one's property (of sufficient value and importance) and the law SHOULD reflect that.

Not deadly, just reasonable force.

[ARealConservative]

Any attempts to draw a line somewhere would be entirely arbitrary, which is why only Officers should be allowed to administer violent road-side justice

Where/when/how does this Officer get so much more power and authority compared to what I can do?

[TheTexan]

Where/when/how does this Officer get so much more power and authority compared to what I can do?

http://work.chron.com/sign-up-police-academy-5364.html

[fedupinmo]

This time it was a car, but what if he was stealing a TV? What if he was stealing a candy bar?

Any attempts to draw a line somewhere would be entirely arbitrary, which is why only Officers should be allowed to administer violent road-side justice

That all depends... was the TV in a store or an occupied dwelling? In Missouri, if the thief breaks in to an occupied dwelling to steal the TV, then yes, you are well within your rights to shoot.
Letting thieves just get away and letting the "experts" deal with it gives the impression that thievery is just fine and dandy with society. A little bit of instant justice goes a long way towards pointing out what has been pointed out here in this thread... thievery is a risky business, and can end in death. Maybe if that message was better understood, more folks would think twice before stealing...

[Schifference]

I think the justification for killing an intruder is fear for your safety not retaliation for the attempted or actual theft. If the person stole something and is out of your house on the sidewalk walking away and you shoot them I would think that you would have a hard time defending your action.

[H_H]

I think just the opposite. I'm morally okay with shooting people who steal cars.

Obviously. This is called civilization.

You get too many dunderheads believing the opposite, and that's the end of your civ. Back to the caves, boys! "Sorry, bro."

[H_H]

If you $#@! up by leaving your wallet (or $1,200 iPhone MXXXXVVVIII) on the counter don't blame the thief, blame your own dumb ass, period. End of discussion.

Behold, the forces of anti-civilization. Arrayed for you in all their glory, right here on this very thread.

Civilization = high mutual trust. High trust societies -- like Japan, like ours used to be before Vibrancy -- function well, run smoothly, and don't have to spend 20% of their GDP on security and surveillance systems.

This makes me think of the advertising campaigns they had in the 60s telling people to lock their cars and "it's your fault" if your car gets stolen and you didn't lock it. So bogus. So stupid.

Our world (in America) really has relatively little security on an absolute scale. Very little is nailed down. We have open-walk-through stores, where the customers can just freely walk through the aisles of merchandise, rather than having to ask the clerk who gets it for you from safely behind the counter. Should those stores -- who nowadays experience billions of dollars in theft -- blame their own dumb selves?

Well, eventually they will. You'll get your wish. Even now there are neighborhoods, large sectors, even whole cities, where this store layout model is no longer viable due to Vibrancy reaching a critical percentage. So, the ones that can't or won't change close up ("food deserts!") and the other more tolerant, open-minded ones embrace the diversity and the new order it brings and install inch-thick bulletproof glass, lock everything down, and keep their "customers" safely behind the glass, away from them and their merchandise. Is that the world you want to live in? Is that how you want things to be everywhere?

[Weston White]

Sure, so just blame the sun for melting your ice cream because you took to long to finish it, then grab your pistols and angrily shoot up the sky, see how well that works out.

[asurfaholic]

I’m ok with shooting thieves in the process of stealing a car-

How many times do you hear about stolen cars being crashed/hitting pedestrians running from a pursuit? It happens enough that I believe there is absolutely a good reason to shoot a car thief.

I just think about it like this- if someone is willing to steal something worth so much money from someone else- they already let you know how much they value your own life (not much) and there is also the question about their mental stability. They are committing a felony and fight or flight kicks in if confronted. A car thief is a very dangerous thief.

I take great offense to the wording of the article in the OP. That’s not a little boy someone needs to slap that dindu in the face and wake it up.

[euphemia]

How much is your vehicle worth to you? I guarantee if you kill someone, it will be a minimum of $20,000 in lawyer fees. And a lot of lost time, stress, etc. $#@!, if you are unlucky, you could go to jail for a long time depending on the judge and jury. You want to take that chance?

I take that risk every day. I'm sober and careful every day. A car would be my lifeline if I ever needed to get to my daughter or her children in a hurry.

I think probably the jail time is way too short for those who kill or maim with their vehicles. Just based on family experience.

[Krugminator2]

Sure, so just blame the sun for melting your ice cream because you took to long to finish it, then grab your pistols and angrily shoot up the sky, see how well that works out.


What? Humans are not the sun. Humans are not wild animals incapable of reason.

You don't take something that isn't yours. It is stealing. Stealing is wrong. It is very easy to not steal. You just don't do it. I wear a somewhat high end watch. If I set it down and someone took it, I feel like Casino captures the right moral tone on how I would like to see the situation handled in my ideal society.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_QNyyqd2Kkg

[Weston White]

What? Humans are not the sun. Humans are not wild animals incapable of reason.

You don't take something that isn't yours. It is stealing. Stealing is wrong. It is very easy to not steal. You just don't do it. I wear a somewhat high end watch. If I set it down and someone took it, I feel like Casino captures the right moral tone on how I would like to see the situation handled in my ideal society.

Sure, sure that is the libertarian NAP for you, 0-60MPH in 2.3-seconds.


https://media.tenor.co/images/8d07c79e2995474dbdc77530167de5b6/raw

[A Son of Liberty]

Sure, sure that is the libertarian NAP for you, 0-60MPH in 2.3-seconds.


https://media.tenor.co/images/8d07c79e2995474dbdc77530167de5b6/raw

Yeah, you're right... After all, what right does a person have to protect his property?

Property is the benefit of labor. Stealing property is stealing a person's labor - stealing their time and effort. Gladly suffering theft is riding b!tch. Breaking someone's hand may or may not be "extreme", but a good a$$-whoopin', one way or another, sets a thief straight, or at least teaches him don't come around here no more, as there's more where that came from, and worse.

You don't know the mind of a thief. Today it's your watch, tomorrow it's your life. He should be glad all he got was a busted up hand, and take the threat seriously.

[Pauls' Revere]

When did it become legal to steal cars?

[timosman]

Did the victim get enough warning before being shot?:confused:

[aGameOfThrones]

Carjackers are Dreamers Too!

[Anti Federalist]

Hmmm...I'm going to discount what the hosehead may have learned from his cop buddies here (he's coming right for us!!!) and give him the benefit of doubt.

You are stealing my car and while in the process threaten to run me down?

Yeah, perfectly justifiable and legitimate shooting.

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

[Wooden Indian]

He should've given the poor downtrodden negro feller his Jeep and his wallet! By God, not only did he make him (am I allowed to use that pronoun?) go through all the work of stealing a damn car, but then actually defended his property with force!?

What's next, America? This wouldn't happen in Denmark and this wouldn't happen with Hill-Dog!

[DamianTV]

Well, lets say for a second you dont shoot them. Then, when you call the cops, they show up and shoot YOU.

Also, someone want to link to that thread about not having ANY reasonable expectation for the cops to show up and help you? Anti Federalist ? *hint hint*

[H_H]

Sure, so just blame the sun for melting your ice cream because you took to long to finish it, then grab your pistols and angrily shoot up the sky, see how well that works out.Nah, don't conflate. Anyting but dat, mine dude. Not the conflation.


By all means deal wit ree!ality as-is. Put up da bars in yo windows. Do whatevs yous gots to do. Good life advice, Weston. And here you are, handing it out for free.But you ain't, like, to blame. "Non-bar-putter-uppers are the real criminals" is not, like, a meme that's going to fly. It's not the meme you want to hitch your wagon to, Wes. Let it go.

[Bern]

Except in Texas where you can shoot someone for stealing a snickers bar (as long as it's night time)

Do you even Joe Horn, bro? Kill some thieves in broad daylight on your neighbor's property and you are likely to get no billed by a Texas grand jury.

[angelatc]

Hmmm...I'm going to discount what the hosehead may have learned from his cop buddies here (he's coming right for us!!!) and give him the benefit of doubt.

You are stealing my car and while in the process threaten to run me down?

Yeah, perfectly justifiable and legitimate shooting.

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

Correct me if I am wrong but I didn't see anybody say the thief tried to run him over. The Public Servant (Praise him!) jumped in front of the car, pulled the weapon and shouted for the thief to get out of the car. In response, the thief turned his wheels to the left and tried to pull away from the curb.

I am totally on the side of the shooter here. But I didn't see anybody say the thief tried to run the PS over.

[Philhelm]

This time it was a car, but what if he was stealing a TV? What if he was stealing a candy bar?

Any attempts to draw a line somewhere would be entirely arbitrary, which is why only Officers should be allowed to administer violent road-side justice

My interpretation was that it was a firefighter, not a cop (fire lieutenant).

Edit: I'm inclined to differentiate between law enforcement and non-law enforcement when it comes to lethal force.

[ARealConservative]

http://work.chron.com/sign-up-police-academy-5364.html

so that link is their source of authority?

[DamianTV]

so that link is their source of authority?

Rights do not come from the Constitution, nor the determination of a majority of people. Rights exist because YOU exist. The most essential of those Rights is Property Rights. Not in what you own, but what you are. Your Property Right is the Right of Self Ownership. The Right is extended to other physical items because of what you are has allowed you to create or acquire those things. That is the REAL source of Authority.

Any time someone decides to deprive you of your property, that is a Violation of Rights, UNLESS negotiation has taken place in some form. That could be as simple as letting your neighbors kids play with your kid in your yard. When that negotiation has not taken place, you also have a Right do defend your own property against the violations of others. The extent of Defense should be within reason. You wouldnt shoot your neighbors child if they came over, knocked on your door, and asked if your kid could come outside to play. I think we can agree that is excessive, hence, Minimal Necessary Force. In the case of a Car Thief, you cant just shoo them away, or politely ask "dont steal my car" or "dont beat me within an inch of my life". If they are stealing your car, they have determined their own needs outweigh your Self Authority, thus, the Minimal Necessary Force to stop a car thief can be understood as "stop or I will shoot you". And if they do not stop, then be prepared to shoot them because they will have no problem shooting you just to take what you got.

---

Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will, within limits drawn around us
by the equal rights of others. I do not add "within the limits of the law", because law is
often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual."

-Thomas Jefferson

[ARealConservative]

Where/when/how does this Officer get so much more power and authority compared to what I can do?


Rights do not come from the Constitution, nor the determination of a majority of people. Rights exist because YOU exist. The most essential of those Rights is Property Rights. Not in what you own, but what you are. Your Property Right is the Right of Self Ownership. The Right is extended to other physical items because of what you are has allowed you to create or acquire those things. That is the REAL source of Authority.

Any time someone decides to deprive you of your property, that is a Violation of Rights, UNLESS negotiation has taken place in some form. That could be as simple as letting your neighbors kids play with your kid in your yard. When that negotiation has not taken place, you also have a Right do defend your own property against the violations of others. The extent of Defense should be within reason. You wouldnt shoot your neighbors child if they came over, knocked on your door, and asked if your kid could come outside to play. I think we can agree that is excessive, hence, Minimal Necessary Force. In the case of a Car Thief, you cant just shoo them away, or politely ask "dont steal my car" or "dont beat me within an inch of my life". If they are stealing your car, they have determined their own needs outweigh your Self Authority, thus, the Minimal Necessary Force to stop a car thief can be understood as "stop or I will shoot you". And if they do not stop, then be prepared to shoot them because they will have no problem shooting you just to take what you got.

---

Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will, within limits drawn around us
by the equal rights of others. I do not add "within the limits of the law", because law is
often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual."

-Thomas Jefferson

I'm not sure you were following along.

[Anti Federalist]

Correct me if I am wrong but I didn't see anybody say the thief tried to run him over. The Public Servant (Praise him!) jumped in front of the car, pulled the weapon and shouted for the thief to get out of the car. In response, the thief turned his wheels to the left and tried to pull away from the curb.

I am totally on the side of the shooter here. But I didn't see anybody say the thief tried to run the PS over.

That was a tongue in cheek response...you know how the cops always claim "he was trying to run us down" even when you're driving away from them...I was drawing the same response.

[dean.engelhardt]

Completely ignoring the fact that he is an officer, isn't it okay to defend your property from being stolen? What is the difference between this and a burglar breaking into your house and getting shot? I've read all kinds of headlines on this forum about men hailed as heroes for defending their homes against invaders and nobody questions it. Is it the man's badge that turns people against him?

Sure it is reasonable to protect your property. That doesn't mean it always reasonable to use deadly force. It is almost always reasonable to shoot someone breaking it your house because you have no retreat and there is a reasonable expectation the invader could pose a threat to your life. I don't think most people would be OK with a person shooting a kid for cutting across their lawn.

[Swordsmyth]

Sure it is reasonable to protect your property. That doesn't mean it always reasonable to use deadly force. It is almost always reasonable to shoot someone breaking it your house because you have no retreat and there is a reasonable expectation the invader could pose a threat to your life. I don't think most people would be OK with a person shooting a kid for cutting across their lawn.
What is not moral and what should be illegal are two different things, "trespassers will be shot" signs exist for a reason and if the owner fails to exercise discretion that is between him and GOD, the same thing applies to shooting thieves, I wouldn't think it right for a store owner to shoot someone for shoplifting a stick of gum but the law should allow it.