Man who shot at car thief is sentenced for death of neighbor he hit instead

[Citizen T]

You're really struggling to find some edge cases where you can be incompetent to manage your own affairs but competent to own a gun there.

They are not really edge cases as I know of two personally. But even if they were, even those that may be mentally incompetent must be adjudicated mentally incompetent by the legal system - not some bureaucrat.

[Mormolyce]

They are not really edge cases as I know of two personally. But even if they were, even those that may be mentally incompetent must be adjudicated mentally incompetent by the legal system - not some bureaucrat.

I'm not endorsing that argument, but I will say that this kind of nonsense is a direct result of having a law that makes owning a gun a right. It's a terrible legal outcome.

I mean, its not unreasonable for someone who lives with a spouse or adult children to have a named beneficiary who handles all the bills in the house, particularly if the recipient has a disability that prevents them from, say, driving to the bank.

I don't know why anyone needs to drive to a bank to manage their affairs in 2017.

[Citizen T]

I'm not endorsing that argument, but I will say that this kind of nonsense is a direct result of having a law that makes owning a gun a right. It's a terrible legal outcome.



I don't know why anyone needs to drive to a bank to manage their affairs in 2017.

See this is where the problem lies. There is no "law" that makes owning a gun a right. Our Founders only iterated a small number of extremely important Rights that "are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness". The Second Amendment is an extension of that Right to LIFE and LIBERTY. They believed that the rights enumerated in the Constitution are not granted by government, but are natural rights of all people.

[Afrospinach]

The Second Amendment is an extension of that Right to LIFE and LIBERTY.

Worst gun crime statistics in the developed world make this hilariously ironic. It is like a stop sign that makes everyone drive faster.

[Daedius]

At a cursory glance of the title I thought the person shooting was sentenced to death.

[Annu]

Not in this situation...there is no direct causation between a perpetrator breaking into a car and the owner of the car choosing to fire his gun at the fleeing perpetrator. That's an entirely separate crime.

Maybe in the US, but he is correct that in some jurisdictions it would be the case.

In Austria for example, it is covered as self defense and you are allowed to use "appropriate" force. In Austrian law, the self defense situation is not over until the thief/burglar successfully escaped. This allows people to chase the thief and stop them on their own.

While death penalty does not exist even for murder, there are court decisions that deadly force in self defense is appropriate above 50.000€, which is why a couple of jewelry burglars in Vienna already died from bullets in their back and the shooter were not prosecuted. Obviously, being still in shooting range is not a successful escape.

It's a bit crazy, but in Austria the law is very focusing on protecting value and this is just the tip of the iceberg.

[Egomaniac]

Maybe in the US, but he is correct that in some jurisdictions it would be the case.

In Austria for example, it is covered as self defense and you are allowed to use "appropriate" force. In Austrian law, the self defense situation is not over until the thief/burglar successfully escaped. This allows people to chase the thief and stop them on their own.

While death penalty does not exist even for murder, there are court decisions that deadly force in self defense is appropriate above 50.000€, which is why a couple of jewelry burglars in Vienna already died from bullets in their back and the shooter were not prosecuted. Obviously, being still in shooting range is not a successful escape.

It's a bit crazy, but in Austria the law is very focusing on protecting value and this is just the tip of the iceberg.

Except the perpetrator is not the one dead in this situation...it's a neighbour.

[satimy]

How did he premeditate to have his car stolen and have a stray bullet hit a neighbor. The justice system is so stupid in this country

[Citizen T]

Worst gun crime statistics in the developed world make this hilariously ironic. It is like a stop sign that makes everyone drive faster.

The keyword there is CRIME. Criminals don't care about violating the Rights of others, but at least I am able to exercise my Right to LIFE and LIBERTY by protecting myself and family with a firearm.

[shimerra]

The keyword there is CRIME. Criminals don't care about violating the Rights of others, but at least I am able to exercise my Right to LIFE and LIBERTY by protecting myself and family with a firearm.

If you have no criminal record then you murder someone because a fight gets to heated you're a criminal...... Stop idiotically emphasis words while you miss the point.

Most available gun data, and there's a large monied interest that likes to make this data hard to come by, indicates you're vastly more likely to use that gun on a friend/family member or have it used by one of them on you or use it to harm yourself than you'll ever be likely to use it to "protect" some one.


Most criminals don't want to murder the shit out of you. As made evidence that the overwhelming majority, we're talking 85-90% here, of home break ins are made when no one is home. They don't want to fight you that complicates things. They want your stuff. Of the remaining where the person was at home less than half ended with some type of fight, usually the robber booked it as soon as he found out someone was there. The people who do tend to break in for the express purpose of hurting you are generally people you know like an ex, a co-worker, family member which kinda goes back to my first point.

If you really cared more about protecting your family you'd have a dog but no gun. Dogs make people less likely to break in because they make noise, size/breed doesn't matter much if at all, and unlike a gun the robber knows you have a dog when he's making the choice of where to break in unless you put a gigantic sign in your yard. Own your guns all you like but statistically speaking your gun is more dangerous to you then it is to any theoretical intruder.

How did he premeditate to have his car stolen and have a stray bullet hit a neighbor. The justice system is so stupid in this country

No the issue is with your lack of intelligence here. See had he shot the thief as the thief was charging him or had him cornered in a hallway there'd be no issue. But if you go out of your way to shoot a fleeing person with your life not in any danger he had to think to get the gun, think to follow the guy, and think to discharge his weapon. Lot of stages of planning where he demonstrated intent to shoot a person who wasn't a direct threat and was actively fleeing the area. He didn't just panic and shoot the guy because he opened the closet he was hiding in or startled him in his garage. All of that required planned deliberate action on the part of the shooter.

You do not get to shoot someone who isn't a direct danger to you. Period. It's quite simple. Children typically understand it.

[satimy]

If you have no criminal record then you murder someone because a fight gets to heated you're a criminal...... Stop idiotically emphasis words while you miss the point.

Most available gun data, and there's a large monied interest that likes to make this data hard to come by, indicates you're vastly more likely to use that gun on a friend/family member or have it used by one of them on you or use it to harm yourself than you'll ever be likely to use it to "protect" some one.


Most criminals don't want to murder the shit out of you. As made evidence that the overwhelming majority, we're talking 85-90% here, of home break ins are made when no one is home. They don't want to fight you that complicates things. They want your stuff. Of the remaining where the person was at home less than half ended with some type of fight, usually the robber booked it as soon as he found out someone was there. The people who do tend to break in for the express purpose of hurting you are generally people you know like an ex, a co-worker, family member which kinda goes back to my first point.

If you really cared more about protecting your family you'd have a dog but no gun. Dogs make people less likely to break in because they make noise, size/breed doesn't matter much if at all, and unlike a gun the robber knows you have a dog when he's making the choice of where to break in unless you put a gigantic sign in your yard. Own your guns all you like but statistically speaking your gun is more dangerous to you then it is to any theoretical intruder.



No the issue is with your lack of intelligence here. See had he shot the thief as the thief was charging him or had him cornered in a hallway there'd be no issue. But if you go out of your way to shoot a fleeing person with your life not in any danger he had to think to get the gun, think to follow the guy, and think to discharge his weapon. Lot of stages of planning where he demonstrated intent to shoot a person who wasn't a direct threat and was actively fleeing the area. He didn't just panic and shoot the guy because he opened the closet he was hiding in or startled him in his garage. All of that required planned deliberate action on the part of the shooter.

You do not get to shoot someone who isn't a direct danger to you. Period. It's quite simple. Children typically understand it.

You won't ever take my guns, and you're clearly angry about that. I also love how you were at the scene and know exactly what happened. Were you a surviving neighbor? Lol

[Citizen T]

If you have no criminal record then you murder someone because a fight gets to heated you're a criminal...... Stop idiotically emphasis words while you miss the point.

Most available gun data, and there's a large monied interest that likes to make this data hard to come by, indicates you're vastly more likely to use that gun on a friend/family member or have it used by one of them on you or use it to harm yourself than you'll ever be likely to use it to "protect" some one.


Most criminals don't want to murder the shit out of you. As made evidence that the overwhelming majority, we're talking 85-90% here, of home break ins are made when no one is home. They don't want to fight you that complicates things. They want your stuff. Of the remaining where the person was at home less than half ended with some type of fight, usually the robber booked it as soon as he found out someone was there. The people who do tend to break in for the express purpose of hurting you are generally people you know like an ex, a co-worker, family member which kinda goes back to my first point.

If you really cared more about protecting your family you'd have a dog but no gun. Dogs make people less likely to break in because they make noise, size/breed doesn't matter much if at all, and unlike a gun the robber knows you have a dog when he's making the choice of where to break in unless you put a gigantic sign in your yard. Own your guns all you like but statistically speaking your gun is more dangerous to you then it is to any theoretical intruder.



No the issue is with your lack of intelligence here. See had he shot the thief as the thief was charging him or had him cornered in a hallway there'd be no issue. But if you go out of your way to shoot a fleeing person with your life not in any danger he had to think to get the gun, think to follow the guy, and think to discharge his weapon. Lot of stages of planning where he demonstrated intent to shoot a person who wasn't a direct threat and was actively fleeing the area. He didn't just panic and shoot the guy because he opened the closet he was hiding in or startled him in his garage. All of that required planned deliberate action on the part of the shooter.

You do not get to shoot someone who isn't a direct danger to you. Period. It's quite simple. Children typically understand it.

CDC studies have shown that firearm wielding people are injured less than those that are unarmed when attacked. I've gone in depth on the statistics of defensive use of firearms many times. Unlike what you state, most studies how defensive gun uses far outnumber firearm deaths every year.
I don't have the time or inclination to go into at this moment.

[Mormolyce]

See this is where the problem lies. There is no "law" that makes owning a gun a right. Our Founders only iterated a small number of extremely important Rights that "are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness". The Second Amendment is an extension of that Right to LIFE and LIBERTY. They believed that the rights enumerated in the Constitution are not granted by government, but are natural rights of all people.

Then why did they need to amend them?

[Findlyn]

letting the police do their job the car can be wrecked, scrapped, and the tools never seen again, but hey, maybe they might recover what is left of his truck...

Yes, lets instead of letting police do their job, commmit or attempt murder for theft of a object that could just as easily be totaled in an accident with you behind the wheel an hour later.

It is totally worth killing someone or multiple people over an object.

Lets also ignore that in doing so you will be violating numerous other crimes because you went outside the bounds of the law.

- - - Updated - - -

CDC studies have shown that firearm wielding people are injured less than those that are unarmed when attacked. I've gone in depth on the statistics of defensive use of firearms many times. Unlike what you state, most studies how defensive gun uses far outnumber firearm deaths every year.
I don't have the time or inclination to go into at this moment.

I think basically what that stat they are talking about, is a large number of suicides are committed via firearms. I think this is an example of where a statistic is 'accurate' without looking at the context of the situation. To think taking guns away will suddenly stop suicides, thus lowering the rate of gun owners more likely have it used on themselves or loved ones, is laughable in my opinion.

[Egomaniac]

How did he premeditate to have his car stolen and have a stray bullet hit a neighbor. The justice system is so stupid in this country

Who said anything about premeditation? He was charged with First Degree Manslaughter...not Murder.

[Deleted]

Yes, lets instead of letting police do their job, commmit or attempt murder for theft of a object that could just as easily be totaled in an accident with you behind the wheel an hour later.

It is totally worth killing someone or multiple people over an object.

Lets also ignore that in doing so you will be violating numerous other crimes because you went outside the bounds of the law.

- - - Updated - - -



I think basically what that stat they are talking about, is a large number of suicides are committed via firearms. I think this is an example of where a statistic is 'accurate' without looking at the context of the situation. To think taking guns away will suddenly stop suicides, thus lowering the rate of gun owners more likely have it used on themselves or loved ones, is laughable in my opinion.

From what I have seen suicide by gun has a hugely high success rate compared to any other method, as someone who has attempted suicide on a number of occasions I am absolutely sure had I had easy access to a gun I would no longer be alive.

[Antiganon]

Then why did they need to amend them?

The framers determined that these generally agreed upon natural rights needed to be codified, lest a future Congress attempt to become too authoritarian over the people.

[satimy]

Who said anything about premeditation? He was charged with First Degree Manslaughter...not Murder.

That's my mistake then, I've never heard it be referred as first degree manslaughter. Just voluntary or involuntary

[Citizen T]

Then why did they need to amend them?

Which of the Bill of Rights has been amended?

[Poopymonster]

CDC studies have shown that firearm wielding people are injured less than those that are unarmed when attacked. I've gone in depth on the statistics of defensive use of firearms many times. Unlike what you state, most studies how defensive gun uses far outnumber firearm deaths every year.
I don't have the time or inclination to go into at this moment.

The CDC also has limits on what it can study regarding firearms. If they were unfettered there would most likely be a different story.

And if they do probe too far into territory that is not Verboten but involves firearms, their funding will get raped across the board by Congress.