So what's wrong with using a gun to protect property

[Neanderthal]

I saw that story awhile ago. From my understanding, the perpetrator robbed $600 worth of fireworks, and hopped in his truck to make an exit. The owner of the firework stand's son took off after him, hopped in back of the truck and shot him (killing him). I'm not real up on my "law", but that shooter may have a helluva time with his defense since he took off after him. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

 

[Frederick]

I saw that story awhile ago. From my understanding, the perpetrator robbed $600 worth of fireworks, and hopped in his truck to make an exit. The owner of the firework stand's son took off after him, hopped in back of the truck and shot him (killing him). I'm not real up on my "law", but that shooter may have a helluva time with his defense since he took off after him. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

I'd have acquitted him.

The only good scumbag is a dead scumbag.

 

[Pokinfun]

I'd have acquitted him.

The only good scumbag is a dead scumbag.

how can you make this statement, but say the death penalty is wrong in the other thread?

 

[Pokinfun]

I would never shoot anyone for stealing my property. However, I would get scared for my life if someone was stealing from me.

 

[dennishoddy]

IMHO, the fireworks owner guy may have an issue. The threat was going away. It would be like shooting a thief in the back when running from you. Some criminal prosecutors may see this as ok as the thief guy shot first, but others will press charges .Tough call.
Personally, I'd have let the guy drive off. One thing I didn't see is if the shot the thief did was directed at somebody, or in the air to cause distraction.

 

[Glocktogo]

News says the stand owner claims the thieves shot first, but I don't know if they can prove it. It happened in Tulsa County, so he's probably screwed.

 

[dennishoddy]

Sketchy at best if he avoids some sort of prosecution.

 

[Frederick]

how can you make this statement, but say the death penalty is wrong in the other
thread?

one was caught in the act red handed, and has a right to defend his property.

Killing a thief in the act is different in my view from state sanctioned punishment after the fact.

 

[deerwhacker444]

It would be like shooting a thief in the back when running from you.

What's the problem? An ax murderer is still an ax murderer, regardless of which direction he's walking.

One would think, if a cop surrounded by 2 other officers, can be scared for her life and is allowed to kill an unarmed man, strictly out of fear for what might happen, a business man can be in fear for his life whilst in the back of a speeding away vehicle driven by an armed thief that has just robbed him, no?

 

[BReeves]

I'm just trying to figure out how the law came about. Way back when if you shot someone that was steeling your horse you were good regardless if he was armed or not. I see absolutely nothing wrong with killing a scumbag that is caught steeling something I worked hard to get. I can sorta understand the idea that a life is worth more than things but it would really piss me off if I saw someone on my property driving off with one of my tractors and I had to stop short of killing the bstrd because I'm afraid of going to jail.