Tree thieves shot

This is a discussion on Tree thieves shot within the In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly forums, part of the The Back Porch category; Originally Posted by Janq Bingo! ^^ Dude shot two people and killed a man over some trees, that are valued at what another person stated ...

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 59

Thread: Tree thieves shot

  1. #16
    Senior Member Array Duisburg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Duisburg, Germany
    Posts
    754
    Quote Originally Posted by Janq View Post
    Bingo! ^^

    Dude shot two people and killed a man over some trees, that are valued at what another person stated have a $100 street value.
    We're talking human life here. A human life even that of a thief is worth far more than a tree or a C note.

    People really do need to think things through before they act.

    - Janq
    I have to politely disagree. It is not what they are stealing it is the principle that they are stealing someone's property.
    In florida they have the Castle Law and the same goes here in Vermont. Don't steal, don't die. Pretty simple for me and I have already thought it through and honestly I would make sure all three suspects would not survive unlike this homeowner.

    I am sworn to protect the Constitution of the U.S.A. from all threats both foreign and domestic.

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #17
    VIP Member Array HKinNY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Nassau, NY(Long Island)
    Posts
    2,855
    To early to call. But the guy has to be a half way decent shot to hit 3 BG's.

  4. #18
    VIP Member Array Janq's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    6,781
    Duisburg,

    Taking life over property, especially so valued at $100, is in principal immoral.
    Property is very easily repaired or replaced, and is for a business insured as well.

    Property theft is not a death penalty applicable action.
    Nobody likes thieves, except for other thieves and thieves mothers, and nobody likes to have their stuff stolen. But property is property and human life is precious.
    If killing a person over a small tree (!) or $100 is okay then at what point is it not okay? When the item is has $50 value or $5 or $0.05 value? Would a store owner be justified to shoot at and kill a person for stealing a pack of gum or candy from his store? Gum costs half a buck in my zone.

    These people were not stealing the Constitution or Bill of Rights documents. They were not stealing a life supporting device from an infirmed person. No human life was in jeopardy directly nor even indirectly. It's just a tree, and trees are all over God's green earth plentiful and easily replaced.

    This man had other options than resorting to shooting, every one.
    Document the theft. Dial 911. Even follow the thieves at distance while on the phone with 911, so as to bring them to justice...and recover the tree.

    Guns and gun fire is not an acceptable resolution for every and any wrong a man might do to another.
    As humans we must have some humanity and practice it. Not even dumb animals will kill each other without very good reason outside of having no other options available toward survival in the immediate, even as they too steal from each other.

    Human life > *.Property

    - Janq
    Last edited by Janq; February 5th, 2009 at 02:51 PM.
    "Killers who are not deterred by laws against murder are not going to be deterred by laws against guns. " - Robert A. Levy

    "A license to carry a concealed weapon does not make you a free-lance policeman." - Florida Div. of Licensing

  5. #19
    VIP Member Array dukalmighty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    texas
    Posts
    15,179
    Even the castle doctrine has limits,you cannot shoot somebody on public property that you think may be in the process of stealing from you,I believe with the information at hand and the cops didn't arrest him until after they interviewed him and did a crime scene investigation,that he is going to be found guilty.I POSTED THIS TO SHOW THAT EVEN WITH A CASTLE DOCTRINE,MISINFORMATION OR MISINTERPRETATION OF YOUR STATES LAWS CAN GET YOU IN TROUBLE.That is why DC is such a great site to post this type of event so we can disect it and learn from it so that no members end up being on the wrong side of the law.I doubt if the guy had a CHL license since he was armed with a shotgun,but this site is like an online classroom for those that wish to be more responsible and better prepared license holders.
    "Outside of the killings, Washington has one of the lowest crime rates in the country,"
    --Mayor Marion Barry, Washington , DC .

  6. #20
    Senior Moderator
    Array pgrass101's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    13,486
    I have to agree with Janq,

    Killing someone for $100 is killing someone for $100. If they were threating someone our stealing something that they needed to surivive then I can see it.

    But shooting someone for fleeing after attempting to steal something worth $100 is immoral IMO.

    Yes Duisburg it is about principal, my principal. That all life has worth and that you can keep yours as long as you do not threaten mine or those that I Love.
    “You can sway a thousand men by appealing to their prejudices quicker than you can convince one man by logic.”

    ― Robert A. Heinlein,

  7. #21
    Member Array nasal's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    96
    Well said Janq. Shooting is to stop the threat.

    Thieves get shot when they present a threat. If someone is actively fleeing from you, they are no longer a threat. There are other ways to handle the situation at that point.

  8. #22
    VIP Member Array Kerbouchard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    2,894
    Quote Originally Posted by HITCH KING View Post
    To early to call. But the guy has to be a half way decent shot to hit 3 BG's.
    +1, That's some good shooting. I just hope he got the right guys.

    Either way, its going to be a tough go for him. The fact that they were on a public street and didn't have any of his property in their posession is probably going to spell jail time for the guy.

    I wish I could be on the jury.
    There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil.

    http://miscmusings.townhall.com/

    Who is John Galt?

  9. #23
    VIP Member Array dukalmighty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    texas
    Posts
    15,179
    He wasn't there to hang out ,there was property being stolen on a regular basis .To the people who wouldn't shoot I gotta ask somebody runs up and grabs your SO's purse you gonna shoot to stop the theft or let them outrun you,It's only property
    "Outside of the killings, Washington has one of the lowest crime rates in the country,"
    --Mayor Marion Barry, Washington , DC .

  10. #24
    VIP Member Array Janq's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    6,781
    Duk,

    It's only property.

    In her wallet are cards made of plastic along with bits of paper and some not at all precious metals. As to the purse itself it's not made out of her own flesh. A new one can be sourced at the mall.
    I feel same for the most monetary expensive/valuable single thing I own aside from my SUV, which happens to be irreplaceable as it's long out of production. My rare and obscure decade old but still not obsolete road bike.
    It never leaves my sight when outside and I keep it stored in my office at home, never in the garage and such. I don't even own a bike lock for it because I never let it be greater than a few feet from my hands. I am serious.

    Even with that I'd let the human being acting wrongly go.

    Now if he thrusts a knife or gun at my wife or my children or me being a real threat in the immediate (see A.O.J.), then well it's on and poppin' and he/she/they/it gets the horns.

    - Janq
    "Killers who are not deterred by laws against murder are not going to be deterred by laws against guns. " - Robert A. Levy

    "A license to carry a concealed weapon does not make you a free-lance policeman." - Florida Div. of Licensing

  11. #25
    VIP Member Array stormbringerr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Republic of Texas
    Posts
    2,207
    i hope he gets off,i believe i would have used a video cam and my cell phone to deal w/this problem also binoculars to get lic. plate number.

    looks like hes going to bond out anyways.....

    .http://www.kveo.com/news/garfield-murder-bond-reduced
    Last edited by stormbringerr; February 5th, 2009 at 09:54 PM.
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.”
    ― Thomas Paine

  12. #26
    VIP Member Array packinnova's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    4,271
    Quote Originally Posted by pgrass101 View Post
    I have to agree with Janq,

    Killing someone for $100 is killing someone for $100. If they were threating someone our stealing something that they needed to surivive then I can see it.

    But shooting someone for fleeing after attempting to steal something worth $100 is immoral IMO.

    Yes Duisburg it is about principal, my principal. That all life has worth and that you can keep yours as long as you do not threaten mine or those that I Love.
    And this would be where I disagree. Would I shoot someone over trees or "petty property"...? Given our current political and more importantly legal climate, No. Do I feel it's immoral in any way...? No. The only limits I have on active theft and/or robbery of my person or physically on my property is legality.

    As to the killing someone for $100 comment, your statement couldn't be more twisted. Defending from the unlawful taking of what is rightfully yours against your will is not killing for $100. As to stealing for survival...who's to say that that $100 wasn't an elderly person's only source of food for the next 3 months? Still want to talk survival?
    Example:
    1. BG#1 Walks up to me, puts a gun to my head, and tells me to give him $100 dollars. He proceeds to aerate my melon when I fail to comply.
      That would be killing someone for $100.
    2. BG# 2 is caught in the act of removing personal items valued at approximately $100 from my home and is subsequently relieved of the burden of life.
      That is not an example of killing for $100. That is merely protecting what I have worked hard for, what I have earned, and what no one else deserves. If I am to allow someone to steal or rob me, I am no better than a slave. My property is the result of my production or earning. The act of stealing is also a violent one. Just because they stole surreptitiously doesn't mean that your rights to life have not been violated. What do you use to pay for your food and shelter in our society? It sure ain't the dust bunnies left over in your wallet when that $100 is stolen. There's no difference between stealing and taking food from your mouth...or your children's mouths.


    In this particular case though I don't see even how I would have shot without knowing all the facts. Supposedly he shot them while they were not on his own land and without any property in possession.

    Clearly something has gone horribly wrong and twisted with our country over the last 150 years or so, which is why we're in the pickle we're in now. Why we live in fear and let criminals rule because all life has value? How often would we see articles like this if the criminals knew folks were allowed to protect was was legally and morally theirs to any end?

    At any rate, in principal...I can't disagree with the rest of you any more than I already have. So I'll just agree to disagree for the rest of the night.

    Property is surely a right of mankind as real as liberty. The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence.
    - President John Adams
    "My God David, We're a Civilized society."

    "Sure, As long as the machines are workin' and you can call 911. But you take those things away, you throw people in the dark, and you scare the crap out of them; no more rules...You'll see how primitive they can get."
    -The Mist (2007)

  13. #27
    Ex Member Array JOHNSMITH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    somewhere
    Posts
    1,726
    I'd also like to pop in here for a second; there seems to be a slightly concerning notion I'm seeing here that castle doctrine = legal permission to use deadly force to defend property. This is not always true.

    PLEASE look at the laws in your state to see whether defense of property is specifically allowed. The intent of the castle doctrine inspired laws is that anyone who is criminal enough to force entry into your home can be reasonably believed to want to harm or kill you, and as such, you can use deadly force with no obligation to retreat.

    The only reason I say this is because I don't want people shooting tree thieves because they think they are covered under their state's castle doctrine law.

  14. #28
    VIP Member Array dukalmighty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    texas
    Posts
    15,179
    One reason I brought up the purse Jang is it may only be pieces of paper etc.but in all reality the thief may now have enough info to steal her identity and now knows where she lives and probably has keys to her home and vehicles,so he didn't steal a purse he possibly stole her life and her piece of mind because he may now come by the residence to steal the vehicle or break in to the house and steal more stuff.Would I personally kill over somebody stealing a bike out of my yard I would say no,but as far as a business owner whether it's somebody stealing from a salvage yard or a tree nursery you are stealing their livelihood and down here by the border It happens so much people are fed up with it.I actually saw 4 people walking out of a corn field each carrying 2 large bags of corn and under tx law they could of got shot over it,we have fruit tree orchards all over the valley with no fences around them you can literally stop walk up to a tree and pick all the oranges you want,but you may get shot if you do
    "Outside of the killings, Washington has one of the lowest crime rates in the country,"
    --Mayor Marion Barry, Washington , DC .

  15. #29
    VIP Member Array dukalmighty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    texas
    Posts
    15,179
    Quote Originally Posted by paul34 View Post
    I'd also like to pop in here for a second; there seems to be a slightly concerning notion I'm seeing here that castle doctrine = legal permission to use deadly force to defend property. This is not always true.

    PLEASE look at the laws in your state to see whether defense of property is specifically allowed. The intent of the castle doctrine inspired laws is that anyone who is criminal enough to force entry into your home can be reasonably believed to want to harm or kill you, and as such, you can use deadly force with no obligation to retreat.

    The only reason I say this is because I don't want people shooting tree thieves because they think they are covered under their state's castle doctrine law.
    You are absolutely right Tx allows deadly force to defend property under certain conditions, but other states only allow you to use deadly force to defend against an immediate threat of severe bodily harm or death.Some states have stand your ground laws and some states require you try to flee and only use deadly force as a last resort.
    "Outside of the killings, Washington has one of the lowest crime rates in the country,"
    --Mayor Marion Barry, Washington , DC .

  16. #30
    Member Array Double Naught Spy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    453
    Assuming this had been a good shoot, legally speaking, I would have no problem with it morally. The ones willing to give up their lives for such little value are those committing the crime of stealing. It is't that the shooter defending his property is taking a life or lives over so little, but that the burglars are so willing to risk their lives for so little.

    It is all a matter of perspective.
    Considering yourself to be defenseless is the first administrative step to becoming a victim.

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Thieves could go free while victim faces jail time (He shot one of them)
    By WhoWeBePart1 in forum In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: July 9th, 2010, 01:58 AM
  2. Mossy under the tree!
    By Flippinstk in forum Defensive Rifles & Shotgun Discussion
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: December 26th, 2008, 05:22 PM
  3. Bad: Father Shot While Confronting Thieves
    By rhyfl in forum In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: September 3rd, 2008, 03:41 AM
  4. Family Tree
    By WarHorse1961 in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: January 25th, 2008, 04:37 AM
  5. Tree Hugger
    By MJZZZ in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: June 25th, 2007, 11:37 PM

Search tags for this page

thieves shot by victims

Click on a term to search for related topics.