Re: California robber kills clerk, but it's not murder

26
So weird that you can defend your life, and the life of others, but you cannot defend property.
And even weirder is, if you "disarm" your attacker, namely relieve him of his gun or knife and then use it on him, you're a murderer, even though you have ZERO knowledge if he is STILL capable of attacking you, has another weapon on his person, is loaded up on Meth and impervious to the situation ... how do you, a Solid Citizen under the most extreme stress, KNOW you're now safe? I just don't get it.

Finally, if you don't stop a criminal fleeing a crime, how do you know he's not going to attack someone else, since he was successful this time? As criminals succeed they get bolder and bolder, and more violent.
"Even if the bee could explain to the fly why pollen is better than shit, the fly could never understand."

Re: California robber kills clerk, but it's not murder

28
Bisbee wrote: Sun Jan 29, 2023 12:39 pm The moment that you can use deadly force to defend property is he moment you take a step back to the Middle Ages.
Jefferson's draft promised us "life, liberty, and property" which he changed to "... and the pursuit of happiness," perhaps for that reason as well as he did not want to guarantee everyone "property" as the responsibility of the government. But your point is well taken, Bisbee. In Michael Perelman's book "The Invention of Capitalism," he makes the point that "primitive taking" at sword point of public resources like grazing land and forests for hunting for use by a small group was the beginning of modern Capitalism.

I believe that is also the reason why the only secure document in Wash, DC is Epstein's client list.

CDFingers
Crazy cat peekin' through a lace bandana
like a one-eyed Cheshire, like a diamond-eyed Jack

Re: California robber kills clerk, but it's not murder

30
I recall a case in Portland, Oregon in the 1990's, during the dot-com area. There were some teens who were repeatedly vandalizing and breaking into vehicles. Well, one ol' fellow got tired of it and used some "old school" discipline on these kids, next time they showed up. He had his 12-gauge loaded with rock salt and, when the kids arrived and started breaking car windows and vandalizing again (it was the old man's own vehicle), he let 'em have it with the rock salt. The "little darlings" ran off.

The kids' families attempted to have the old man charged criminally. The DA said nope, A.) you were wrong in the commission of your crime, and B.) he had the right to defend his property from your vandalism, so shut up, learn to behave, and be glad he didn't have buckshot in there. The so-called "parents" of the "little darlings" were trying to cry to the media about it, and the Portland media basically said the same thing that the DA said, raise your kids right so they don't do that bullcrap, what's wrong with you people? No civil lawsuit either.

I wonder if that's still the law in Oregon, or if things have changed since the dot-com days...?
"SF Liberal With A Gun + Free Software Advocate"
http://www.sanfranciscoliberalwithagun.com/
http://www.liberalsguncorner.com/
Image

Re: California robber kills clerk, but it's not murder

31
YankeeTarheel wrote: Sun Jan 29, 2023 10:30 am So weird that you can defend your life, and the life of others, but you cannot defend property.
And even weirder is, if you "disarm" your attacker, namely relieve him of his gun or knife and then use it on him, you're a murderer, even though you have ZERO knowledge if he is STILL capable of attacking you, has another weapon on his person, is loaded up on Meth and impervious to the situation ... how do you, a Solid Citizen under the most extreme stress, KNOW you're now safe? I just don't get it.

Finally, if you don't stop a criminal fleeing a crime, how do you know he's not going to attack someone else, since he was successful this time? As criminals succeed they get bolder and bolder, and more violent.
But, if you are not threatened, and even tho you may not have an obligation to retreat, you don't have the right to kill him. You can't predict the future, only evaluate the present. Plus not your job, as a citizen, to prevent the guy from attacking somebody else.
It's NEVER going to be simple. It's ALWAYS going to be stressful and create more questions than it's going to answer.
I watched some guy on YT..home break-in-'stay in your home', be armed and the fact that they broke in=your life and limb is threatened...so defend yourself. DON'T go outside to pursue. BUT, you have the right to shoot them.
If you come home and meet a guy in your living room carrying your TV, you can not shoot him. BUT, if he throws the TV at you, you do...

Re: California robber kills clerk, but it's not murder

32
F4FEver wrote: Mon Jan 30, 2023 8:41 am
YankeeTarheel wrote: Sun Jan 29, 2023 10:30 am So weird that you can defend your life, and the life of others, but you cannot defend property.
And even weirder is, if you "disarm" your attacker, namely relieve him of his gun or knife and then use it on him, you're a murderer, even though you have ZERO knowledge if he is STILL capable of attacking you, has another weapon on his person, is loaded up on Meth and impervious to the situation ... how do you, a Solid Citizen under the most extreme stress, KNOW you're now safe? I just don't get it.

Finally, if you don't stop a criminal fleeing a crime, how do you know he's not going to attack someone else, since he was successful this time? As criminals succeed they get bolder and bolder, and more violent.
But, if you are not threatened, and even tho you may not have an obligation to retreat, you don't have the right to kill him. You can't predict the future, only evaluate the present. Plus not your job, as a citizen, to prevent the guy from attacking somebody else.
You miss my first point completely. How can you be certain you are not threatened? You have his gun, but--can he take it back, can he have another weapon, is he crazed enough to attack anyway? HOW DO YOU KNOW? (OK, if the perp is running away you're not threatened).

I think your last statement has a fine line between what you can or should do. I'm not sure it's just that binary. We KNOW cops cannot be relied on to catch then or stop them, and success by criminals DOES cause many to escalate.
"Even if the bee could explain to the fly why pollen is better than shit, the fly could never understand."

Re: California robber kills clerk, but it's not murder

33
YankeeTarheel wrote: Mon Jan 30, 2023 8:49 am
F4FEver wrote: Mon Jan 30, 2023 8:41 am
YankeeTarheel wrote: Sun Jan 29, 2023 10:30 am So weird that you can defend your life, and the life of others, but you cannot defend property.
And even weirder is, if you "disarm" your attacker, namely relieve him of his gun or knife and then use it on him, you're a murderer, even though you have ZERO knowledge if he is STILL capable of attacking you, has another weapon on his person, is loaded up on Meth and impervious to the situation ... how do you, a Solid Citizen under the most extreme stress, KNOW you're now safe? I just don't get it.

Finally, if you don't stop a criminal fleeing a crime, how do you know he's not going to attack someone else, since he was successful this time? As criminals succeed they get bolder and bolder, and more violent.
But, if you are not threatened, and even tho you may not have an obligation to retreat, you don't have the right to kill him. You can't predict the future, only evaluate the present. Plus not your job, as a citizen, to prevent the guy from attacking somebody else.
You miss my first point completely. How can you be certain you are not threatened? You have his gun, but--can he take it back, can he have another weapon, is he crazed enough to attack anyway? HOW DO YOU KNOW? (OK, if the perp is running away you're not threatened).

I think your last statement has a fine line between what you can or should do. I'm not sure it's just that binary. We KNOW cops cannot be relied on to catch then or stop them, and success by criminals DOES cause many to escalate.
You don't know, after you have his gun..Is it a fine line! Of COURSE. BUT, can't predict the future, what he 'may' do. You can't assume he's gonna have something to do harm to you, so you shoot him...Pretty simple if he's attacking, not simple if he's just standing there yelling at you...

PLUS future crimes doesn't make you judge and jury...even if the scum bag 'deserves' it in your eyes.

If it happens to you or me...for ME, if I hear somebody breaking into my house, I will be armed...I will confront and I hope I make the right decisions. BUT, not like TV or the movies. Gonna be loud, confusing, dangerous, scary.

BUT, not, 'he's a bad, scary guy....no tellin' what he's gonna do next, but just standing there so I'll shoot him'. IF he makes any move toward you, the choice then is EASY, IMHO.

Re: California robber kills clerk, but it's not murder

34
Line in the sand laws are very common these days but some still say duty to retreat. If I disarm a person they better follow commands and get their ass on the ground, hands behind the back. Just remember the mantra > Stop of I'll shoot and Face down on the ground hands behind the back. It's their choice.
Numerous burglars, thieves in the night in yards get shot round these parts even if they are not armed. It's hard to tell many times if someone is armed in the dark. Ask a cop. Could be a phone or could be a tire iron. Not my problem if they are in the midst of a crime on my property. That's a poor decision they made.
I'm especially jumpy these days cus my dog was murdered with poison. So if some idiot is sneaking around my property it may not end well. And there have been recent reports of masked people in yards out here in the burbs.
“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing,”

Re: California robber kills clerk, but it's not murder

35
tonguengroover wrote: Mon Jan 30, 2023 1:33 pm Line in the sand laws are very common these days but some still say duty to retreat. If I disarm a person they better follow commands and get their ass on the ground, hands behind the back. Just remember the mantra > Stop of I'll shoot and Face down on the ground hands behind the back. It's their choice.
Numerous burglars, thieves in the night in yards get shot round these parts even if they are not armed. It's hard to tell many times if someone is armed in the dark. Ask a cop. Could be a phone or could be a tire iron. Not my problem if they are in the midst of a crime on my property. That's a poor decision they made.
I'm especially jumpy these days cus my dog was murdered with poison. So if some idiot is sneaking around my property it may not end well. And there have been recent reports of masked people in yards out here in the burbs.
And if he just stands there, doesn't move to the floor?
If the guy is in your driveway, under your car, stealing your catalytic convertor...I wouldn't suggest you shoot him..BUT, I'm no expert, and what I say should not mean you do or don't do anything.
I know what I would do, at least as far as confronting a guy who has broken into my house when I was home..... If he's breaking into my car in the driveway...I'll still going to confront, armed but not sure what would come next...Big difference in Colorado, in the home vs on the property.
If you need to defend your dwelling or another person's dwelling, you should use a lesser degree of force. The one exception to this is that you can use deadly force legally to defend your property, or dwelling, if you are trying to prevent a person from committing arson.
BUT, YMMV and all that. Gonna be a tough day all around when anybody is faced with this in their home.

Couple of other things...if you DO shoot somebody.
Make sure you have a good lawyer
And don't use that $7000 trophy gun....

Re: California robber kills clerk, but it's not murder

36
In Texas, we have the castle defense law. That if someone is on you property and is stealing something or threatening you or your property you have the right to shoot them. I remember from my CHL Class the instructor gave this example.You hear something in your garage and you grab you gun to go look and there is an adult person riding off on you riding mower with the intent of stealing it. Now here is the question, do you shoot them for attempting to steal your property or just call the police? Do you want to kill a person over something that your homeowners insurance will replace and have to remember that weighing on your conscience for now on.

Every situation is different and I hope I am never in a situation to have to decide to take a life or not.
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.-Huxley
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis Brandeis,

Re: California robber kills clerk, but it's not murder

37
TrueTexan wrote: Tue Jan 31, 2023 12:07 pm In Texas, we have the castle defense law. That if someone is on you property and is stealing something or threatening you or your property you have the right to shoot them. I remember from my CHL Class the instructor gave this example.You hear something in your garage and you grab you gun to go look and there is an adult person riding off on you riding mower with the intent of stealing it. Now here is the question, do you shoot them for attempting to steal your property or just call the police? Do you want to kill a person over something that your homeowners insurance will replace and have to remember that weighing on your conscience for now on.

Every situation is different and I hope I am never in a situation to have to decide to take a life or not.
What was the instructor's answer or suggestion?
Here
Texas Penal Code Section 9.421 states a person can use deadly force to protect tangible, movable property from another’s imminent commission of theft during the nighttime or to prevent another who is fleeing immediately after committing theft during the nighttime and is escaping with property if the person reasonably believes the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or that a use of force other than deadly force to recover the property would expose them to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.
Lots to decide as the guy trundles off on your riding mower. If ya shoot the guy, better have a good lawyer..and don't use that $7000 Taran Tactical John Wick pistol.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dIs5T_Y-SZQ

Cuz the cops will probably take it and ya may never see it again. Some evidence locker cop will take it home...

Re: California robber kills clerk, but it's not murder

38
So in Michigan, the robber would be charged/convicted under first-degree felony murder (+ an extra 2 years for felony-firearm. ) Robbery here counts the perp running away. (It’s a transactional offense). And if anyone dies, including one of the other robbers- he’s toast. And we have a citizen’s arrest law. So even if the people in the store are safe, because the robber could pose a danger to others, you can have at it - the same rule as for a police officer. In the “good old days” you didn’t even have to have that much justification. Somewhat barbaric. But at least we don’t have to make sure the criminal falls in the house. 50 different laws. Go figure.

Re: California robber kills clerk, but it's not murder

39
When I was living in the Seattle area, the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) gave people the right to use lethal force against a fleeing felon. That included theft up to (at that time) $250. So, if someone's stealing your riding lawn mower, that's more than $250, and yes, you could shoot them. Same goes for someone committing a rape. Same goes for someone trying to steal your car. Yes, you could shoot them. And breaking into your house? Definitely.

I don't know if that's changed in recent years. But that's the way it was in the 1980's and 1990's. Washington State did not look kindly on people committing felonies, and personally, I thought that was a good thing. So did my Dad. In Kirkland, "major theft" was jacking a car stereo. Yes, that was considered "major". I hope it's still that way...just look at what passed for "minor" in Los Angeles or San Francisco, even back then....

As for California, their laws for defending yourself and your property are beyond stupid now. This "duty to retreat" that apparently exists in CA is about as dumb as it gets. Are we to claim that Paul Pelosi (yep, Nancy's hubby) would've had to run away from the attacker before shooting him? And if that's what had happened--had Paul Pelosi had time to "Stand His Ground" and shoot his attacker--would he be prosecuted for doing that?

Yes, serious questions.
"SF Liberal With A Gun + Free Software Advocate"
http://www.sanfranciscoliberalwithagun.com/
http://www.liberalsguncorner.com/
Image

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 3 guests