Suspected burglar shot, killed

  • Thread starter Thread starter stanmaxkolbe
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I can see why the investigation is on-going. The car lot owner wasn’t in danger himself, he heard “glass breaking,” and immediately opened fire killing the man according to the news release. The release said nothing about the shooter challenging the man or of apprehending him and holding him for the police.

The perp may not have even been chargable with a felony as breaking and entering is often prosecuted as a misdemeanor. (Throwing a rock through a storefront window and grabbing something of small value is such an example) You may not kill someone committing a misdemeanor.

The dealer may find himself charged with manslaughter depending on the police findings.
 
I doubt from the size of the story that all the details are in, but broken glass at 2:00AM at a car dealership…

I don’t really blame the guy for shooting first and asking questions later. You say that the owner was in no danger, but he couldn’t have known that. The guy could have easily been packing.
 
NotCrazyDan said:
I doubt from the size of the story that all the details are in, but broken glass at 2:00AM at a car dealership…

I don’t really blame the guy for shooting first and asking questions later. You say that the owner was in no danger, but he couldn’t have known that. The guy could have easily been packing.
Click to expand...
Trouble is that the police take a dim view of shooting first and asking questions later.
If that dealer had any meaningful gun training, he would have known how to take a defensive position, challenge the perp, and shoot only if the man went for a weapon. The fellow may have been unarmed, as seems to be the case, and may have surrendered or fled.

In either of those cases, shooting the man dead would still open the dealer to prosecution. At this remove, we can’t be sure what the actual situation was and how the police are going to handle it.
 
Rich_Olszewski said:
Trouble is that the police take a dim view of shooting first and asking questions later.
If that dealer had any meaningful gun training, he would have known how to take a defensive position, challenge the perp, and shoot only if the man went for a weapon. The fellow may have been unarmed, as seems to be the case, and may have surrendered or fled.

In either of those cases, shooting the man dead would still open the dealer to prosecution. At this remove, we can’t be sure what the actual situation was and how the police are going to handle it.
Click to expand...
They may or may not according to local laws. In Texas, shooting someone attempting to steal your vehicle is entirely justified whether your life is at risk or not.

Dang horse thieves.
 
NotCrazyDan said:
They may or may not according to local laws. In Texas, shooting someone attempting to steal your vehicle is entirely justified whether your life is at risk or not.

Dang horse thieves.
Click to expand...
That’s Texas. I would not be surprised at all if, in Texas, shooting someone spitting on your lawn or shooting someone who let his dog urinate on your grass is entirely justified.
 
Way too few details at this point to know for sure what happened, but for now, I am praying for the person who shot the intruder as I am sure that would be devastating. Most people who own a gun hope they would never have to use it except for target practice.
 
I have a question. I just bought a high power hand-held laser (class IV) that could cause instant retina tissue damage even within just milliseconds of exposure (from heat and light). If I was in that situation, can I use it as a non-legal weapon and not be liable for lawsuit or persecution? Or is it just better to shoot to kill. I have an M4 and that big laser and am planning to use them to protect my property. Thanks! Sorry for derailing the discussion.
 
MugenOne said:
I have a question. I just bought a high power hand-held laser (class IV) that could cause instant retina tissue damage even within just milliseconds of exposure (from heat and light). If I was in that situation, can I use it as a non-legal weapon and not be liable for lawsuit or persecution? Or is it just better to shoot to kill. I have an M4 and that big laser and am planning to use them to protect my property. Thanks! Sorry for derailing the discussion.
Click to expand...
You can always be sued, even if not prosecuted, and even by a felon. The trouble with that device is that it could cause permanent eye injury. Even someone wounded by a gunshot will recover, but blindness is permanent, and a good attorney could argue that the offense committed didn’t warrant the use of a weapon of permanent injury. Even if you win the case, you’re out big bucks.
 
Rich_Olszewski said:
That’s Texas. I would not be surprised at all if, in Texas, shooting someone spitting on your lawn or shooting someone who let his dog urinate on your grass is entirely justified.
Click to expand...
Are you saying that if my neighbor does not pick after his dog goes on my lawn I can shoot both of them?

Dang! I keep wasting water by turning my sprinklers on! :D:D:D:D

I am still do not understand the concept of killing people to protect property. :confused:
 
Cristiano said:
Are you saying that is my neighbor does not pick after his dog goes on my lawn I can shoot both of them?

Dang! I keep wasting water by turning my sprinklers on! :D:D:D:D

I am still do not understand the concept of killing people to protect property. :confused:
Click to expand...
I agree. Does stealing a TV or a laptop or even stealing the flamingos on someone’s lawn warrant the death penalty? It’s hard for me to make a case for “a life for a bicycle.” Nevertheless, there are a number of states that value property over human life, I’m afraid.
 
Rich_Olszewski said:
I agree. Does stealing a TV or a laptop or even stealing the flamingos on someone’s lawn warrant the death penalty? It’s hard for me to make a case for “a life for a bicycle.” Nevertheless, there are a number of states that value property over human life, I’m afraid.
Click to expand...
Dang! I forgot about the flamingos on my lawn! That is the exception to the rule, anyone that steals pink plastic flamingos should be shot. BTW do not make the effort of bringing up the little Travelocity dwarf standing next to my door. That too is a protected item! 😃

http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:...BKTong&t=1&usg=__Gk_4_5bxwCjuUKX3lyVZlozHOIs=
 
Rich_Olszewski said:
I agree. Does stealing a TV or a laptop or even stealing the flamingos on someone’s lawn warrant the death penalty? It’s hard for me to make a case for “a life for a bicycle.” Nevertheless, there are a number of states that value property over human life, I’m afraid.
Click to expand...
Yes that is the law in Texas I would never use deadly force over a TV or auto [not unless I’m in it] that’s what insurance is for.

However if I see somebody running off with my HP notebook with all my families personal information on it. I’ll yell at the person to stop if don’t stop, if there is no collateral damage; I will aim for center mass and fire not to kill but to stop.
 
"The shotgun involved in the apparently accidental shooting that claimed the life of a 12-year-old boy in his Roseland home was kept for protection, purchased legally and stored away properly, his sister said this morning.

A law enforcement source confirmed a key was needed for one to gain access to the gun.

Yolanda Pierce said one of her brothers had brought the gun into the home for protection as an additional safeguard to burglar bars on outside windows to prevent break-ins at the residence in the 0-99 block of East 103rd Place.

Michael Pierce apparently was accidentally shot by his 14-year-old brother, who was in police custody this morning, according to authorities."

chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/09/boy-12-found-beaten-to-death-in-south-side-home.html
 
Rich_Olszewski said:
I agree. Does stealing a TV or a laptop or even stealing the flamingos on someone’s lawn warrant the death penalty?
Click to expand...
One might ask oneself whether HAVING faux flamingos on one’s lawn deserves the death penalty, but that would be elitist, and besides, I’m partly Italian and wouldn’t want to endanger my ethnic partial brethren by opening the subject too widely. 🙂
 
Cristiano said:
Dang!** I forgot about the flamingos on my lawn! **That is the exception to the rule, anyone that steals pink plastic flamingos should be shot. BTW do not make the effort of bringing up the little Travelocity dwarf standing next to my door. That too is a protected item! 😃

http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:...BKTong&t=1&usg=__Gk_4_5bxwCjuUKX3lyVZlozHOIs=
Click to expand...
Ridgerunner said:
One might ask oneself whether HAVING faux flamingos on one’s lawn deserves the death penalty, but that would be elitist, and besides, I’m partly Italian and wouldn’t want to endanger my ethnic partial brethren by opening the subject too widely. 🙂
Click to expand...
Don’t you like my lawn? :confused:

I think that you should meet with my family and discuss about your comments!:D:D:
 
THINK LIKE A BURGLAR
Professional or amateur burglars will break into your home, if there is an opportunity. Be prepared and fight back.
Getting robbed is an awful feeling and makes you think that you could have done more to prevent it.
By definition, the crime of burglary is a non-confrontational property crime that occurs when we are not at home.
Living in a house takes more places and things to think about when talking security. There are lots of break-in points to consider.
If you have had a bad experience already with a crook — learn from it — don’t just think bad luck won’t strike twice!
if you want to learn more visit site
secure-your-valuables.com/
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top