Media spins story about 80 year old man shooting robber

[PRB]

Maybe the stupid bitch should have though twice about invading someone's home and putting herself in danger if she's pregnant.

Or maybe she was coerced by her accomplice, in which case, she'll rat him out. Luckily she wasn't actually pregnant, people will say anything to avoid getting shot, it didn't work on this man.

It's not like she just accidentally walked into somebody's home to rob them. Can't trust her not to bust into your home, how do we even know she was pregnant.

Breaking into a home is a crime, but it has nothing to do with whether you're an honest person.

I hope there's more stories like this. It's not right to invade someone's home, and I have no sympathy for someone who gets shot in the process of breaking into somebody's house. It's not even right for cops to invade someone's home, with or without a warrant. Since when did having a warrant mean you can knock someone's door down at 1am and shoot half of their family?

Yep, I want to see more burglars shot and killed, it's better for civilians to kill civilians than police to kill them.

[Christian Liberty]

I think if someone is running away with your property you have the right to shoot them. To say otherwise would be to effectively give the criminal the legal right to steal from you. An individual has the right to use as much force as is needed to prevent a crime that is being done against him from taking place.

Now, just because you have the right doesn't mean that it is right. Yes, I think any store owner who shot at a shoplifter who took a candy bar would be in the wrong. But, to say he doesn't have the right is to give criminals security when they decide to steal. As the value of the property goes up more and more, I could more and more see why someone would want to defend their property violently, doubly so considering the police will almost certainly never help them get their property back.

I don't see this as comparable to the cop murders we complain about on here. First of all, the property owner himself has the right to decide that his property is worth using deadly force to protect, the cops don't have the right to decide that for him. Second of all, we're rarely dealing with a runaway thief with these out of control cops either. More often its "contempt of cop" or a drug raid or something. You know, cases where the civilian very likely had the right to shoot the cop (although I'm not saying that would be right either, again, only that he would have the right.)

[Christian Liberty]

Maybe the stupid bitch should have though twice about invading someone's home and putting herself in danger if she's pregnant. It's not like she just accidentally walked into somebody's home to rob them. Can't trust her not to bust into your home, how do we even know she was pregnant.

I hope there's more stories like this. It's not right to invade someone's home, and I have no sympathy for someone who gets shot in the process of breaking into somebody's house. It's not even right for cops to invade someone's home, with or without a warrant. Since when did having a warrant mean you can knock someone's door down at 1am and shoot half of their family?

I don't think JUST having a warrant makes it OK, but I think there could be situations where such a warrant could be justified. Like, if there's a bunch of evidence that the guy is a serial killer and would very likely kill anyone (or especially any cops) who knocked on the door normally. I wouldn't blame the cops for doing a no-knock raid with a warrant in that situation (of course, even then, killing family members would still be murder.) Now, I understand that this is almost never the reality and that most of the time its a drug raid or its the wrong house or its some minor crime or whatever, but I won't outright say that a no knock raid is NEVER justified. Just almost never.

As for civilians shooting robbers, if the person is just a thief and not a killer I kind of think its a shame, but I still think people have the right to protect their property from aggression. And there are a lot of weird aspects to this considering how police are in this country, in theory I'd say you'd just call the police if the person runs away, but in practice the police can't be trusted. But then, if you kill them you probably have to call the police anyway. Its a lose/lose.

[PRB]

I think if someone is running away with your property you have the right to shoot them. To say otherwise would be to effectively give the criminal the legal right to steal from you. An individual has the right to use as much force as is needed to prevent a crime that is being done against him from taking place.

Basically you're saying, you have a right to shoot somebody even if he/she is not a threat to you, just because you want to punish him/her.

[PRB]

As for civilians shooting robbers, if the person is just a thief and not a killer I kind of think its a shame, but I still think people have the right to protect their property from aggression.

it's a shame that this is becoming a radical idea these days.

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

I don't think JUST having a warrant makes it OK, but I think there could be situations where such a warrant could be justified. Like, if there's a bunch of evidence that the guy is a serial killer and would very likely kill anyone (or especially any cops) who knocked on the door normally. I wouldn't blame the cops for doing a no-knock raid with a warrant in that situation (of course, even then, killing family members would still be murder.) Now, I understand that this is almost never the reality and that most of the time its a drug raid or its the wrong house or its some minor crime or whatever, but I won't outright say that a no knock raid is NEVER justified. Just almost never.

As for civilians shooting robbers, if the person is just a thief and not a killer I kind of think its a shame, but I still think people have the right to protect their property from aggression. And there are a lot of weird aspects to this considering how police are in this country, in theory I'd say you'd just call the police if the person runs away, but in practice the police can't be trusted. But then, if you kill them you probably have to call the police anyway. Its a lose/lose.

well yeah it's different if they're going into a warehouse full of armed gangsters or something, but like you said, it hasn't been the case

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

As for civilians shooting robbers, if the person is just a thief and not a killer I kind of think its a shame, but I still think people have the right to protect their property from aggression. And there are a lot of weird aspects to this considering how police are in this country, in theory I'd say you'd just call the police if the person runs away, but in practice the police can't be trusted. But then, if you kill them you probably have to call the police anyway. Its a lose/lose.

To me, home invasion is like rape. Home is a place for someone to be safe. Home invaders violate that. And I think the people that are like "heerr deeer u shuldnt be able 2 kill ppls whn thy brkn into ur hm" change REALLY fast when it's them being invaded.

[Christian Liberty]

Basically you're saying, you have a right to shoot somebody even if he/she is not a threat to you, just because you want to punish him/her.

No, I'm saying you have a right to shoot somebody who is a threat to your property so that he doesn't run off with your property.

Again, I'm not saying its necessarily a good idea, but to deny the right is essentially to say you would use violence to defend the criminal's right not to be harmed as he engages in the act of theft. That doesn't seem right to me.

well yeah it's different if they're going into a warehouse full of armed gangsters or something, but like you said, it hasn't been the case

Exactly and totally. I understand that no-knock warrants are given for all kinds of stupid crap, and none of them would certainly be better than what it is now. I just wouldn't make an absolute statement that it is ALWAYS wrong to break down a door. Of course, I think if you are a cop in the US as it currently stands, you're already doing something wrong, simply because of a number of things you have to do for your job. But if you are already in that role, and we're looking at individual actions to see whether they are justified or not, I would say no-knock raids are USUALLY unjustified but not always, like in the case you mention above.

To me, home invasion is like rape. Home is a place for someone to be safe. Home invaders violate that. And I think the people that are like "heerr deeer u shuldnt be able 2 kill ppls whn thy brkn into ur hm" change REALLY fast when it's them being invaded.

True. I still think in theory that if they're running away it would be best not to shoot them. I understand the difficulties of that in reality, doubly so when you can't trust the police.

[GunnyFreedom]

For the record, it was the other robber, NOT the old man/shooter, who was arrested and charged with manslaughter.

OK good, I was not the only one in the thread who noticed that.

[GunnyFreedom]

Now that it's been proven she wasn't actually pregnant, the jury will lose the last sympathy vote they had for her, so yeah, hopefully the jury sides with the old man who has gotten tired of being burglarized.

The old man has not been charged.

[56ktarget]

Next on Libertarian TV:

Shoot children because they egged your house, shoot them after they beg for mercy, and shoot them when they try to run away.

[phill4paul]

I believe that in many places it's standard that if your accomplices are killed in the commission of a crime, you are held responsible for their deaths.

That's what I was thinking. Pretty much like the police shooting innocent bystanders then charging suspect.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/05/ny...uare.html?_r=0

[William Tell]

Shooting women is not something I approve of. If this old guy was a cop, everyone would be all over him.

[William Tell]

Yep, I want to see more burglars shot and killed, it's better for civilians to kill civilians than police to kill them.

No, it is all the same. Depending on if it is really self defense of course.

[William Tell]

No, I'm saying you have a right to shoot somebody who is a threat to your property so that he doesn't run off with your property.

So you value property higher than life? Would picking some grains of corn in your field count as running off with your property?

Again, I'm not saying its necessarily a good idea, but to deny the right is essentially to say you would use violence to defend the criminal's right not to be harmed as he engages in the act of theft. That doesn't seem right to me.

No, that is not what is going on. Self defense is one thing, but when a woman is begging you not to shoot, and claiming she is pregnant, she is no longer a threat. If you think she is, then it is a poor testament to ones manhood.

True. I still think in theory that if they're running away it would be best not to shoot them. I understand the difficulties of that in reality, doubly so when you can't trust the police.

What difficulties? force is justifiable as defense, it is not defense when someones back is turned to you, and she is begging for life. The Old Testament was clear that there is such a thing as to much force in cases of robbery.

[PaulConventionWV]

They ALWAYS come back in the movies. Almost anytime a bad guy in a movie is let go, they come back to haunt the "good" guy.
This guy was probably just acting as he had been trained to by watching the tube for so many years.

And the case could be maybe made, how did this guy know they wouldn't come back, considering he knew what they looked like?

As for shooting in public, I think it depends on WHERE they were in relation to his house and if he knew there weren't any other people nearby.

He didn't know they would come back. If they had come back, then he would be ready, right? You don't shoot people in the back.

I'm actually curious as to how he was able to keep up with her, after being beaten?

Hmm, I don't know. I wonder who would win in a race between a young woman and an injured 80 year old man...

It's a toss-up. Then again, he doesn't have to run as fast as her since he has a gun.

[PaulConventionWV]

Shooting women is not something I approve of. If this old guy was a cop, everyone would be all over him.

It's funny that you mention that because it reminded me of something.

If this old man had caught the woman and beat her to a bloody pulp, I bet most people would be condemning him for "putting his hands on a woman". But he shoots her and suddenly it's okay, even though she was running away at the time.

[William Tell]

It's funny that you mention that because it reminded me of something.

If this old man had caught the woman and beat her to a bloody pulp, I bet most people would be condemning him for "putting his hands on a woman". But he shoots her and suddenly it's okay, even though she was running away at the time.

Not to mention if she was his wife, and had committed adultery....
Something more immoral than stealing, but not even a blip on the radar of those who use NAP as their moral compass. And no, I am not calling for shooting or beating ANY woman. But we really have lost site of moral proportions.

[ChristianAnarchist]

Not if you live in communist backwards America, where squatters have rights, tenants have rights, employees have rights, burglars have rights, immigrants have rights, the law protects violators from property owners.

Actually, EVERYONE has rights... doesn't matter who you are or what you've done...

[RonPaulIsGreat]

Shooting women is not something I approve of. If this old guy was a cop, everyone would be all over him.

So, women have more of a right to live than men in your mind?

[qh4dotcom]

Forget about paying for the funeral. If you shoot and miss and hit an innocent person, then you're guilty of manslaughter.

I definitely don't have a double standard for homeowners. I'm not sure exactly what happened in that alley. Was she yelling back to him as she ran? If she was clearly running away, then it was cruel to shoot her. I honestly wouldn't shoot someone unless I knew they were attacking me.

Yep, you nailed it.

Although something just doesn't sound right in this story....an 80 year old man gets beaten and got his neck broken and somehow he manages to grab a gun and chase the intruders like if he was an energetic and not injured 20 year old.

[loveshiscountry]

You know if someone snatches your purse and runs off... I can see that its not right to shoot them in the back.

You can shoot when defending your property.

[Christian Liberty]

Shooting women is not something I approve of. If this old guy was a cop, everyone would be all over him.

I answered the cop bit but why does it matter that its a woman?

So you value property higher than life?

I believe what I said is that I wouldn't shoot the person in the back. But, I do say that you have the right to do what you need to do to retrieve your property.

Would picking some grains of corn in your field count as running off with your property?

In theory? Sure. Would any decent person shoot someone for doing that in reality? No.

No, that is not what is going on. Self defense is one thing, but when a woman is begging you not to shoot, and claiming she is pregnant, she is no longer a threat. If you think she is, then it is a poor testament to ones manhood.

This doesn't add up to me. If she's begging me not to shoot, is she still running away with my stuff? I don't see how both of those things go together.

What difficulties? force is justifiable as defense, it is not defense when someones back is turned to you, and she is begging for life. The Old Testament was clear that there is such a thing as to much force in cases of robbery.

The difficulty being that avoiding dealings with cops whenever possible is wise as a pragmatic matter. If someone breaks into your house: in this particular country where cops are how they are, and the justice system is how it is, I can understand just wanting to kill the person and end it there and there. I'm not saying its right, I don't think it is, but I do get it. And frankly, if you break into someone's house you are a scumbag and I don't really feel that bad for you whatever happens.

It's funny that you mention that because it reminded me of something.

If this old man had caught the woman and beat her to a bloody pulp, I bet most people would be condemning him for "putting his hands on a woman". But he shoots her and suddenly it's okay, even though she was running away at the time.

I wouldn't have a huge problem with him beating her up. Again, I wouldn't do it but meh. I don't have that much compassion for thieves.

Not to mention if she was his wife, and had committed adultery....
Something more immoral than stealing, but not even a blip on the radar of those who use NAP as their moral compass. And no, I am not calling for shooting or beating ANY woman. But we really have lost site of moral proportions.

I use the NAP as my standard for deciding what actions warrant violent responses and which ones don't.

I don't use that as my entire moral compass.

So, I'd say adultery could be more immoral than stealing, and yet not warrant criminalization, at the same time.

[PaulConventionWV]

Yep, you nailed it.

Although something just doesn't sound right in this story....an 80 year old man gets beaten and got his neck broken and somehow he manages to grab a gun and chase the intruders like if he was an energetic and not injured 20 year old.

Where does it say he broke his neck? If that's the case, then yeah, there most definitely is something wrong with that picture, but I would need to see some sources.

[William Tell]

In theory? Sure. Would any decent person shoot someone for doing that in reality? No.

So it would have been justifiable to shoot Jesus and his disciples when they were picking grain? Interesting.

[PaulConventionWV]

I answered the cop bit but why does it matter that its a woman?



I believe what I said is that I wouldn't shoot the person in the back. But, I do say that you have the right to do what you need to do to retrieve your property.

From my understanding, she didn't have any of his property. There is a bit of a gray area since, obviously, it would be wrong to shoot a petty thief. Even a thief's life is worth more than some little trinket, so I don't think anyone could be justified in doing it for something really small.

In theory? Sure. Would any decent person shoot someone for doing that in reality? No.

When legal theory and legal reality conflict, there can always arise problems. You recognize that, right?

This doesn't add up to me. If she's begging me not to shoot, is she still running away with my stuff? I don't see how both of those things go together.

I agree it's quite odd. I have not read anything that said she had any of his stuff, though. If she had, then anybody with any sense at all would drop the stuff and run.

The difficulty being that avoiding dealings with cops whenever possible is wise as a pragmatic matter. If someone breaks into your house: in this particular country where cops are how they are, and the justice system is how it is, I can understand just wanting to kill the person and end it there and there. I'm not saying its right, I don't think it is, but I do get it. And frankly, if you break into someone's house you are a scumbag and I don't really feel that bad for you whatever happens.

I don't approve of the culture of violence that leads to people valuing their stuff more than a human life. Frankly, I don't get why an old person wouldn't have mercy on someone so young. I always thought age brought compassion for the younger people who still had most of their lives ahead of them. Instead, it seems like old people are some of the most selfish people I know.

I wouldn't have a huge problem with him beating her up. Again, I wouldn't do it but meh. I don't have that much compassion for thieves.

I was really just pointing out a disconnect between popular sentiments among those who don't believe in beating women and those who defend any and all use of a firearm. I don't think either would have been right. Chasing down a woman and beating her up for revenge is cruel. I might place her under citizen's arrest, but if you're able to catch her and subdue her, the beating part is really unnecessary and wrong.

[William Tell]

So it would have been justifiable to shoot Jesus and his disciples when they were picking grain? Interesting.

Deuteronomy 23:
24"When you enter your neighbor's vineyard, then you may eat grapes until you are fully satisfied, but you shall not put any in your basket. 25"When you enter your neighbor's standing grain, then you may pluck the heads with your hand, but you shall not wield a sickle in your neighbor's standing grain.

[Christian Liberty]

So it would have been justifiable to shoot Jesus and his disciples when they were picking grain? Interesting.

Well, the gleaners law in the Holy Land allowed that to be done.

From my understanding, she didn't have any of his property. There is a bit of a gray area since, obviously, it would be wrong to shoot a petty thief. Even a thief's life is worth more than some little trinket, so I don't think anyone could be justified in doing it for something really small.

Well, I agree that it would be wrong, but I don't agree that it would be an aggressive act that should be a crime.

When legal theory and legal reality conflict, there can always arise problems. You recognize that, right?

Well, to me this is sort of like adultery in a sense, something that a lot of people including me see as morally reprehensible, but nonetheless shouldn't be a crime. I see shooting a runaway thief over something small in a similar light.

I agree it's quite odd. I have not read anything that said she had any of his stuff, though. If she had, then anybody with any sense at all would drop the stuff and run.

I think I said "if... then" when I started commenting.

I don't approve of the culture of violence that leads to people valuing their stuff more than a human life. Frankly, I don't get why an old person wouldn't have mercy on someone so young. I always thought age brought compassion for the younger people who still had most of their lives ahead of them. Instead, it seems like old people are some of the most selfish people I know.

Well, I'm 19, so not really qualified to comment on the older generation

With that said, I think the culture of violence manifests itself in other ways. I don't think saying we aren't going to criminalize somebody who shoots to defend his property is fostering a culture of violence. In fact, I think that to criminalize that would be to foster a culture of violence.

Then again, a statist culture creates a culture of violence, period. We've been indoctrinated in public schools that government violence is always the answer, so what do you expect?

I was really just pointing out a disconnect between popular sentiments among those who don't believe in beating women and those who defend any and all use of a firearm. I don't think either would have been right. Chasing down a woman and beating her up for revenge is cruel. I might place her under citizen's arrest, but if you're able to catch her and subdue her, the beating part is really unnecessary and wrong.

Good point. I could see beating her for revenge being criminalized. But, it might be difficult for an 80 year old man to restrain a 20 year old woman without hurting her. Nonetheless, I agree with your point.

Deuteronomy 23:
24"When you enter your neighbor's vineyard, then you may eat grapes until you are fully satisfied, but you shall not put any in your basket. 25"When you enter your neighbor's standing grain, then you may pluck the heads with your hand, but you shall not wield a sickle in your neighbor's standing grain.

Yes, Old Testament Law. I don't think that gives me the right to walk up to a farmer now and eat his fruit.

[William Tell]

Well, the gleaners law in the Holy Land allowed that to be done.

No, God commanded them to do so. But you feel they would be justified to kill instead.

[William Tell]

Yes, Old Testament Law. I don't think that gives me the right to walk up to a farmer now and eat his fruit.

When and why, did Euro/American legal theory replace Biblical morality? I can understand you not eating his fruit, but you feel he has the right to kill instead.