LogFAQs > #959373661

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, DB2, DB3, DB4, DB5, DB6, DB7, DB8, Database 9 ( 09.28.2021-02-17-2022 ), DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	Man shoots two teens who tried to steal his game console
streamofthesky 10/25/21 1:15:40 PM #8:	Revelation34 posted... It is if it isn't a federal court case. State courts never cite legal cases outside of that state for precedence? And again, it's not even about legal precedence, it's a "here's what happened a parallel universe where my client pursued them without drawing his gun". ParanoidObsessive posted... The main sticking point from that story is that the perp "tried to run". That's usually the key factor in self-defense shootings. The shooter will probably be held liable if he shot at them as they were fleeing, because you're usually told just to let people flee, and only shoot if you're in direct danger (ie, they're coming at you or shooting as well). That being said, I personally think thieves should be fair game (especially in your own home, ie castle doctrine), because I'm a firm believer that your civil rights cease to be valid when you're going out of your way to violate the rights of others. The possibility of getting shot/injured/killed is a choice you consciously make when you choose to break-in/steal/assault/etc, and if you don't care about what you're doing to them then no one else should care about what they might do to you. I think people should have a right to pursue thieves that steal their shit. You could say it's not wise, sure. But expecting some sort of legal obligation for them to just let the thief go is ridiculous. From there, the fact that these thieves brought a gun to a peaceful mercantile exchange that they planned to commit theft at demonstrates they at least had plans for turning it violent if they couldn't escape with the stolen goods nonviolently. Whether the seller saw they had a gun or not I don't know, and if they didn't then maybe he deserves to have charges against him. But the fact they planned a theft and brought a gun to it justifies his actions whether he was aware of it or not, IMO. "Well, he brought a gun, too!" Yeah, to protect himself. He wasn't the one going there intending to commit a crime and thus escalate things. There's a difference. <cite>streamofthesky posted [p:959373661] in Man shoots... [t:79727559]...</cite> <quote>Revelation34 posted... </cite> <quote>It is if it isn't a federal court case.</quote>State courts never cite legal cases outside of that state for precedence? And again, it's not even about legal precedence, it's a "here's what happened a parallel universe where my client pursued them without drawing his gun". ParanoidObsessive posted... </cite> <quote>The main sticking point from that story is that the perp "tried to run". That's usually the key factor in self-defense shootings. The shooter will probably be held liable if he shot at them as they were fleeing, because you're usually told just to let people flee, and only shoot if you're in direct danger (ie, they're coming at you or shooting as well). That being said, I personally think thieves should be fair game (especially in your own home, ie castle doctrine), because I'm a firm believer that your civil rights cease to be valid when you're going out of your way to violate the rights of others. The possibility of getting shot/injured/killed is a choice you consciously make when you choose to break-in/steal/assault/etc, and if you don't care about what you're doing to them then no one else should care about what they might do to you.</quote>I think people should have a right to pursue thieves that steal their shit. You could say it's not wise, sure. But expecting some sort of legal obligation for them to just let the thief go is ridiculous. From there, the fact that these thieves brought a gun to a peaceful mercantile exchange that they planned to commit theft at demonstrates they at least had plans for turning it violent if they couldn't escape with the stolen goods nonviolently. Whether the seller saw they had a gun or not I don't know, and if they didn't then maybe he deserves to have charges against him. But the fact they planned a theft and brought a gun to it justifies his actions whether he was aware of it or not, IMO. "Well, he brought a gun, too!" Yeah, to protect himself. He wasn't the one going there intending to commit a crime and thus escalate things. There's a difference. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1