Who Gets Arrested?

[geauxtohell]

okay as shocking as this is...

the old man should have stayed in his home and called the cops..simple as that..that will be what the crooks lawyers will say...

that will be the agruement...was he truly in danger...no, he could have simply used the phone...he went into the street with a gun and fired it twice...can you use deadly force over a property ?

IMHO

He had every right to cap those fuckers.

If someone came on to my property and was stealing one of my cars, I'd be unloading on the asshole.

No he didn't. The law doesn't allow citizens to use lethal force in order to stop a theft of property. Especially outside the house (Castle Doctrine) and on public land (the street).

You're wrong.

 

[chanel]

Let him get a letter from his doctor saying jail time might kill him. People get away with that all the time.

 

[geauxtohell]

Let him get a letter from his doctor saying jail time might kill him. People get away with that all the time.

I can't imagine he'd get worse than probation. He's lucky he didn't kill anyone.

 

[Skull Pilot]

okay as shocking as this is...

the old man should have stayed in his home and called the cops..simple as that..that will be what the crooks lawyers will say...

that will be the agruement...was he truly in danger...no, he could have simply used the phone...he went into the street with a gun and fired it twice...can you use deadly force over a property ?

IMHO

He had every right to cap those fuckers.

If someone came on to my property and was stealing one of my cars, I'd be unloading on the asshole.

No he didn't. The law doesn't allow citizens to use lethal force in order to stop a theft of property. Especially outside the house (Castle Doctrine) and on public land (the street).

You're wrong.

They tried to run him down. he was protecting his life.

You're wrong

 

[Skull Pilot]

Let him get a letter from his doctor saying jail time might kill him. People get away with that all the time.

I can't imagine he'd get worse than probation. He's lucky he didn't kill anyone.

No the motherfuckers who tried to run him over are lucky they're not dead.

 

[geauxtohell]

IMHO

He had every right to cap those fuckers.

If someone came on to my property and was stealing one of my cars, I'd be unloading on the asshole.

No he didn't. The law doesn't allow citizens to use lethal force in order to stop a theft of property. Especially outside the house (Castle Doctrine) and on public land (the street).

You're wrong.

They tried to run him down. he was protecting his life.

You're wrong

I guess we'll see how that flies in court.

 

[Skull Pilot]

No he didn't. The law doesn't allow citizens to use lethal force in order to stop a theft of property. Especially outside the house (Castle Doctrine) and on public land (the street).

You're wrong.

They tried to run him down. he was protecting his life.

You're wrong

I guess we'll see how that flies in court.

The fucking courts will rule in favor of the criminals with little regard to the person they tried to kill as usual.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

As much as I would like to see the pricks who stole the trailer prosecuted, convicted, spending a few years behind bars and then deported, I do think death by firing squad is a little excessive for the crime they committed.

I am skeptical about the "almost ran me over" statement.

I don't believe we can allow citizens, even 82 year old citizens, to take the law into their own hands. It sounds to me like he shot at them after they had passed him, which means the danger was passed. I'm not surprised that they are prosecuting him.

I am, however, surprised they are not prosecuting the two thieves.

Immie

The law generally disagrees with you. Legal precedent has long held that a man has the right to use deadly force to protect his property. Laws have been working to take that right away, and have largely succeeded, but history is on the side of that 82 year old man. It is a bit like ConHogs defense of police, if you don't want to get shot, don't steal. Or do you think a senior citizen should confront two young people who are stealing from him barehanded? Or just watch as they steal his livelihood and hope the police will be able to find it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

but laws dont say that....

luckily he didnt kill the crook....but i think you can only use deadly force when you are threatened....and you cant put yourself in a dangerous postion then declare self defense

now i will admit in a rural area..i think the police might have charged this differently....

i am a woman, at home, alone....i have to tell you one time to leave my property....after that....i can call 911 and protect myself....

Excuse me, but that is an incorrect interpretation of the law. If I am on your property and we get into a fight, all you have to prove is that we were in a fight, and I am in the wrong, even if you started it. Unless I can produce witnesses that testify that I was innocent of wrongdoing, was on your property at your invitation, and was doing my best to leave rather than fight, I am fucked.

A man's, or a woman's, home is his, or her, castle. You have the right to defend it. The fact that this happened in Colorado makes it all the more flabergasting, because their laws are not as "civilized" as other states.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

And you would be tried for attempted murder or maybe murder as well.

As much as we'd like to cap the pricks, when we do, we suffer the consequences and rightly so.

Immie

Really? Even if said asshole was trying to run me down? I would have every right to shoot.

Yes, even if.

From the article, I believe it was stated that he fired at them after they had left his premises. Meaning that said danger was passed. You do not have the right to execute someone for stealing a car and in his case, it was execution for stealing a trailer.

I think the only prayer this guy has is his age. Hopefully, the prosecutors will lessen the charges due to the fact that he is so old, but the fact that he actually hit the guy may be his undoing.

Facts are not known for us, but if he did shoot them after they had passed by then I think he is in trouble. I do realize that one of the perps went to the hospital for a gunshot wound to the face. I'm guessing he was looking back when he got hit. We'll have to wait to see when more of the facts are known, but I think this guy is in trouble.

Too bad, the prosecutor doesn't have the courage to also go after these suspected illegal aliens. He must be up for re-election soon.

Immie

In Texas you can chase the people down and shoot them in the back. I worked with the grandmother of a kid who got shot stealing hubcaps and breaking car windows, the guy that shot him got reprimanded because he went out and drug that kid back to the front of his house, not for killing him.

 

[syrenn]

Bottom line is we need more laws like TX in terms of protecting our selves and our property.

 

[Charles_Main]

the old man put himself in the street....that is the problem....he didnt have to leave his house...i dont think anything will come of this....i really dont see putting this old man in jail for any time.

now why havent they charged the crooks?

So now you liberal asshole are saying when someone is robbing us we are required to cower in our homes, and not run out, and maybe get a better look at them, or see which way they go, or hell I don't know maybe stop them from robbing us.

man you people are fucking STUPID.

 

[Immanuel]

As much as I would like to see the pricks who stole the trailer prosecuted, convicted, spending a few years behind bars and then deported, I do think death by firing squad is a little excessive for the crime they committed.

I am skeptical about the "almost ran me over" statement.

I don't believe we can allow citizens, even 82 year old citizens, to take the law into their own hands. It sounds to me like he shot at them after they had passed him, which means the danger was passed. I'm not surprised that they are prosecuting him.

I am, however, surprised they are not prosecuting the two thieves.

Immie

The law generally disagrees with you. Legal precedent has long held that a man has the right to use deadly force to protect his property. Laws have been working to take that right away, and have largely succeeded, but history is on the side of that 82 year old man. It is a bit like ConHogs defense of police, if you don't want to get shot, don't steal. Or do you think a senior citizen should confront two young people who are stealing from him barehanded? Or just watch as they steal his livelihood and hope the police will be able to find it.

I would like to see some evidence to support that contention, because I have heard otherwise.

Unfortunately, I have a headache and I am not going to spend anytime hunting for something to prove you wrong.

Immie

 

[jeffrockit]

Is this Obama's fault?

I am sure it's Bushs' fault

 

[Quantum Windbag]

As much as I would like to see the pricks who stole the trailer prosecuted, convicted, spending a few years behind bars and then deported, I do think death by firing squad is a little excessive for the crime they committed.

I am skeptical about the "almost ran me over" statement.

I don't believe we can allow citizens, even 82 year old citizens, to take the law into their own hands. It sounds to me like he shot at them after they had passed him, which means the danger was passed. I'm not surprised that they are prosecuting him.

I am, however, surprised they are not prosecuting the two thieves.

Immie

The law generally disagrees with you. Legal precedent has long held that a man has the right to use deadly force to protect his property. Laws have been working to take that right away, and have largely succeeded, but history is on the side of that 82 year old man. It is a bit like ConHogs defense of police, if you don't want to get shot, don't steal. Or do you think a senior citizen should confront two young people who are stealing from him barehanded? Or just watch as they steal his livelihood and hope the police will be able to find it.

I would like to see some evidence to support that contention, because I have heard otherwise.

Unfortunately, I have a headache and I am not going to spend anytime hunting for something to prove you wrong.

Immie

I said that laws, as well as prosecutors and police, are working to change precedent. That does not make it less valid, it just means that it is harder to do it and not get charged, and even convicted. Fortunately some people are fighting back.

CASTLE DOCTRINE AND SELF-DEFENSE

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

An 82 year old American citizen fires his weapon at two illegal crimigrants as they steal his trailer and try to run him down.

Who do you think gets arrested and faces life in prison?

Why the 82 year old American that's who.

Watch the news clip here

Crimmigrants Steal, Citizen Defends Property—Who Is Facing Life In Prison? : The Natural Truth

Michael Graham's web site?

WHEAT RIDGE, Colorado D.A.?

I'll wait for the whole story and for the truth to come out -- like will the old guy actually be charged and if so, will the charges be dismissed.

the hysteria all over the right wing internet feeds is hysterically funny.

 

[Immanuel]

The law generally disagrees with you. Legal precedent has long held that a man has the right to use deadly force to protect his property. Laws have been working to take that right away, and have largely succeeded, but history is on the side of that 82 year old man. It is a bit like ConHogs defense of police, if you don't want to get shot, don't steal. Or do you think a senior citizen should confront two young people who are stealing from him barehanded? Or just watch as they steal his livelihood and hope the police will be able to find it.

I would like to see some evidence to support that contention, because I have heard otherwise.

Unfortunately, I have a headache and I am not going to spend anytime hunting for something to prove you wrong.

Immie

I said that laws, as well as prosecutors and police, are working to change precedent. That does not make it less valid, it just means that it is harder to do it and not get charged, and even convicted. Fortunately some people are fighting back.

CASTLE DOCTRINE AND SELF-DEFENSE

I don't have time to read all of that but I did scan it.

I do not disagree with the fact that the law states that a man can defend him self in his home. That was not how things went down from my reading of this case and the "he almost ran me over" defense is questionable. In fact, if I am not mistaken it is even against policy in many jurisdictions for police (let alone citizens) to fire into a moving vehicle.

Immie

 

[B. Kidd]

Not all states have a castle doctrine.
It's best to check on a state-by-state basis before assuming any law concerning guns is true.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

An 82 year old American citizen fires his weapon at two illegal crimigrants as they steal his trailer and try to run him down.

Who do you think gets arrested and faces life in prison?

Why the 82 year old American that's who.

Watch the news clip here

Crimmigrants Steal, Citizen Defends Property—Who Is Facing Life In Prison? : The Natural Truth

Were they trespassing on his property and stealing from him at the same time? How is this a crime by the property owner?

 

[B. Kidd]

The resouce I use cause I travel alot in my RV, and since most RV'ers carry firearms, is "The Traveler's Guide to the Firearm Laws of the Fifty States".
On a state by state basis, informs you about castle doctrine, how to and where you can store a firearm while traveling, CCW permit state reciprocity, etc.