This happened right here in my hometown; yet another NOT to enact more gun control

[tattedupboy]

Just look at the attached newspaper article.

 

[kelcarry]

"Reached into his coat"--that was good. Another "good boy"--I am sure his auntie will tell us that.

 

[Sir Diealotz]

"Reached into his coat"--that was good. Another "good boy"--I am sure his auntie will tell us that.

"He was a good kid and didn't deserve to get shot!"

Where's Jackson and sharpton?

 

[no sheep]

How dare you shoot him he was entitled to that car. He had no car due to all your greed.

 

[Malk67]

"Reached into his coat"--that was good. Another "good boy"--I am sure his auntie will tell us that.

You almost forgot the token;
"My baby aint done did nuttin wrong. Dat man is a racist."

 

[tattedupboy]

You almost forgot the token;
"My baby aint done did nuttin wrong. Dat man is a racist."

I'm fairly certain the race card won't come into play. Well over 90% of the residents in this city (myself included) are Black.

 

[Sir Diealotz]

You almost forgot the token;
"My baby aint done did nuttin wrong. Dat man is a racist."

I'm fairly certain the race card won't come into play. Well over 90% of the residents in this city (myself included) are Black.

When has that ever stopped libtard media from playing the race card?

 

[tattedupboy]

When has that ever stopped libtard media from playing the race card?

Think about it. You never see stories of Black on Black crime or Black criminal-White victim crime in the national media. You'll only see it in the national media if it's a Black victim and a White alleged criminal.

 

[Kalamity023]

Where do these prosecutors get off, considering charges? He stole a car plain and simple. He got shot because of his actions. All it needs is a friendly jury and it's wrapped up in a nice bow...hope the kid learned something, but probably not.

 

[Deserteagle]

In general it's bad to shoot people for property crimes. Property can be replaced, life cannot. And why risk spending the rest of your life in prison over a car?

Based on what is in the article, I would support prosecution of the shooter. Sounds like a bad shoot to me. Not to mention the idiotic idea of leaving your car running and unattended. If this guy cared about his car enough to shoot somebody for taking it, he would not have left it running, unlocked, and unattended.

The correct action would have been to call 911 and report a stolen car.

 

[tattedupboy]

In general it's bad to shoot people for property crimes. Property can be replaced, life cannot. And why risk spending the rest of your life in prison over a car?

Based on what is in the article, I would support prosecution of the shooter. Sounds like a bad shoot to me. Not to mention the idiotic idea of leaving your car running and unattended. If this guy cared about his car enough to shoot somebody for taking it, he would not have left it running, unlocked, and unattended.

The correct action would have been to call 911 and report a stolen car.

If it were Texas, he'd be justified. There, it's legal to use deadly force in the defense of property. And in my opinion, that's how it should be. Telling people that they can't defend life and property equally sends the message that criminals can help themselves to our things with impunity.

 

[lamerem]

Don't forget the classic, "why did he have to shoot him with that large caliber, why does he need such a big gun?" LMFAO. Then they'll show pictures of him in Choir practice at church when he was 7 years old.

 

[SandHornet]

He was reaching in his coat to get his SKITTLES!

 

[Deserteagle]

If it were Texas, he'd be justified. There, it's legal to use deadly force in the defense of property. And in my opinion, that's how it should be. Telling people that they can't defend life and property equally sends the message that criminals can help themselves to our things with impunity.

While it is true that in some states you can use your gun to defend items of property, it doesn't always make it wise. My state is one of the ones that does not allow us to use weapons to defend property unless we are somehow in danger.

I'm just saying that at least in my state, I would not shoot somebody for taking my car that I left running and unattended. I would just call 911.

My insurance and the police can deal with the car, and I save myself from having to deal with criminal charges and/or civil lawsuits and spending the rest of the day in a police station being interviewed, and spending the money on a lawyer, and having my gun confiscated as evidence.

 

[Gallstones]

How dare you shoot him he was entitled to that car. He had no car due to all your greed.

Hang out with a lot of liberal Brits do ya? :wink:
This is how they talk.

 

[kelcarry]

In general it's bad to shoot people for property crimes. Property can be replaced, life cannot. And why risk spending the rest of your life in prison over a car?

Based on what is in the article, I would support prosecution of the shooter. Sounds like a bad shoot to me. Not to mention the idiotic idea of leaving your car running and unattended. If this guy cared about his car enough to shoot somebody for taking it, he would not have left it running, unlocked, and unattended.

The correct action would have been to call 911 and report a stolen car.

Even though I composed my own sarcastic reply previously, I tend to agree with you. IMHO, presumption of imminent danger of death or great bodily injury is the only, I repeat only, reason for me to want to shoot someone, even though I would be biting my tongue about not taking retribution on the SOB. In SC, there are exceptions to how you can legally justify a shoot when immediate imminent danger is not evident; this includes the Castle Doctrine, which covers forcibly entry into an occupied home or car--by law, forcible entry automatically and legally is considered imminent danger--ie, if this BG had tried to hijack the car with the owner or a passenger in the car, gun or no gun, he can be shot and killed. There is also an old law on the books that covers citizens arrest at night--in the thread case, if it was at night and the owner had been able to stop the thief at gun point and told him he is under arrest waiting for police to arrive and the thief tried to escape, the law specifically gives the owner the right to use deadly force to stop the thief.

 

[Sir Diealotz]

When has that ever stopped libtard media from playing the race card?

Think about it. You never see stories of Black on Black crime or Black criminal-White victim crime in the national media. You'll only see it in the national media if it's a Black victim and a White alleged criminal.

Yes, like "White" George Zimmerman

 

[Sir Diealotz]

In general it's bad to shoot people for property crimes. Property can be replaced, life cannot. And why risk spending the rest of your life in prison over a car?

Based on what is in the article, I would support prosecution of the shooter. Sounds like a bad shoot to me. Not to mention the idiotic idea of leaving your car running and unattended. If this guy cared about his car enough to shoot somebody for taking it, he would not have left it running, unlocked, and unattended.

The correct action would have been to call 911 and report a stolen car.

If it were Texas, he'd be justified. There, it's legal to use deadly force in the defense of property. And in my opinion, that's how it should be. Telling people that they can't defend life and property equally sends the message that criminals can help themselves to our things with impunity.

No doubt! Look how England now defends criminals against property owners who fight back.

 

[UATKP]

I'm sort of like Desert Eagle, in that it would be hard for me to shoot someone just for stealing stuff. And probably would not shoot someone involved in theft of property unless I was protecting my family, others, or myself. But on the other hand, I still believe it should be within our right to do so.
What a quandary!

 

[CCWlady]

I think the shooter may have a problem if the article is accurate. The first paragraph says he was shot in the back trying to drive away. At that point was the car owners life in danger? I am not on the thief's side, I just think in this crazy world the car owner may have a problem.