I watched on WAFF tonight, they stated he was shot in the back twice. So, I guess it depends on who is reporting as to where he was shot.
As I said, if he was shot in the back, how was he charging anyone?
And no, the law does not allow you to shoot someone who is stealing from you. No way, shape, or form. The law allows you to use deadly force if you truely believe you are in danger, in self defense. Not in defense of property.
If you are standing on your porch, watching someone break into your car out in your garage, you are not allowed to break out the rifle, get them in your scope and take them out. No matter how much you really want to.
And, BTW, I believe the law is written in a way that you can only use the force necessary. In other words, if someone threatens to kill you with a knife, you pull out a gun, then they drop the knife and run away, you are not allowed to shoot them as they run away just because they had threatened your life previously.
But, if you want to be trigger happy, make sure you have a good story and a great lawyer. You'll probably need them both someday.....
quote:Originally posted by Jennifer:
There are to many conflicting reports. One report said he was shot in the foot, then twice more in the torso. Torso is not the back. It sounds like he shot him in the foot to stop him, and that didn't work. Who knows yet what happened. One thing is for sure, had he not been on the man's property to rob him, there'd be no debate on where he was shot.
You're mistaken, Jennifer. Torso is the entire body sans head and limbs. He could have been shot in back and it would still be torso.
Im really not sure what story to believe on this one, WAFF 10PM news said he was shot in the back, their website states it was in the Torso. But that was updated at 4pm, so I wonder if that is from the initial report.
IF he was shot in the chest, that would back up the original story that he charged the owner, and I would agree that it was justified.
IF it turns out he was shot in the back, I stick by everything Ive said.
Jeepin'
IF he was shot in the chest, that would back up the original story that he charged the owner, and I would agree that it was justified.
IF it turns out he was shot in the back, I stick by everything Ive said.
Jeepin'
Trunk or torso is an anatomical term for the central part of the many animal bodies (including that of the human) from which extend the neck and limbs.[1] The trunk includes the thorax and abdomen. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trunk_(anatomy) Photo shows FRONT veiw from Gray's anatomy as the torso.
OK, but if you don't shoot them , I know for a fact the DA dosen't like to prosecute mere thefts . No money in it for the county, they like to take on the druggies who will forfeit their cars and houses to the police dept.
That's why I posted there are just to many conflicting stories to know what to believe. But I still have zero sympathy for a petty thief. No way I think he intended to murder the man.quote:Originally posted by Lets Go Jeepin':
Im really not sure what story to believe on this one, WAFF 10PM news said he was shot in the back, their website states it was in the Torso. But that was updated at 4pm, so I wonder if that is from the initial report.
IF he was shot in the chest, that would back up the original story that he charged the owner, and I would agree that it was justified.
IF it turns out he was shot in the back, I stick by everything Ive said.
Jeepin'
quote:Originally posted by Jennifer:
Trunk or torso is an anatomical term for the central part of the many animal bodies (including that of the human) from which extend the neck and limbs.[1] The trunk includes the thorax and abdomen. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trunk_(anatomy) Photo shows FRONT veiw from Gray's anatomy as the torso.
It's been a while since I was in nursing school, but I seriously doubt the definition has changed.
Here's one from online:
tor·so (tôrs)
n. pl. tor·sos or tor·si (-s)
The human body excluding the head and limbs; trunk.
Ergo, he could have been shot in the front of the torso or in the back of the torso or either side.
quote:Originally posted by seeweed:
OK, but if you don't shoot them , I know for a fact the DA dosen't like to prosecute mere thefts . No money in it for the county, they like to take on the druggies who will forfeit their cars and houses to the police dept.
You are right about that, petty theft seems to be a low priority crime at times. In the scheme of things, it probably is pretty low on an investigators list. I would rather them find the local rapist than the person who stole the cds out of my car, if I have to choose.
However, I doubt a DA would pass on a case where someone shot and killed someone else and was not legally justified to do so. Thats the downfall of the 'just shoot 'em' line of thinking ;o(
Jeepin'
Our business was burglarized twice in a three month period. I know how it feels to pull up to the fence of your business and know you've been robbed. I can't imagine the emotions that would have taken over if we'd walked in on the thieves, especially the second time. We paid two high deductibles in three months time, and the police told us outright we'd never see our property again. I told them I knew that and wouldn't even have bothered calling them if we didn't need the police report for the insurance company. The insurance company didn't pay for the damage done to the fence where they broke in, so we had that cost on top of the deductibles. So I can understand this man's frustration at being preyed on.quote:Originally posted by seeweed:
OK, but if you don't shoot them , I know for a fact the DA dosen't like to prosecute mere thefts . No money in it for the county, they like to take on the druggies who will forfeit their cars and houses to the police dept.
quote:Originally posted by Jennifer:
That's why I posted there are just to many conflicting stories to know what to believe. But I still have zero sympathy for a petty thief. No way I think he intended to murder the man.
I can agree with you on the zero sympathy. Unfortunately, if you carry a weapon, you have to carry it with the intent to use it to take someones life. That being said, I hope his intention was to kill the man when he shot him and I hope he was justified to do it.
I dont carry my weapon away from home often, but if I pull it on someone at home, I promise you my intent will be to kill them. Whether or not I do will depend on how they react. If you are fearful enough to pull the trigger, always shoot to kill. Never give them the opportunity to get a second chance at you if you miss or just injure them.
Just my two cents
Take it up with Gray's anatomy.quote:Originally posted by FirenzeVeritas:quote:Originally posted by Jennifer:
Trunk or torso is an anatomical term for the central part of the many animal bodies (including that of the human) from which extend the neck and limbs.[1] The trunk includes the thorax and abdomen. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trunk_(anatomy) Photo shows FRONT veiw from Gray's anatomy as the torso.
It's been a while since I was in nursing school, but I seriously doubt the definition has changed.
Here's one from online:
tor·so (tôrs)
n. pl. tor·sos or tor·si (-s)
The human body excluding the head and limbs; trunk.
Ergo, he could have been shot in the front of the torso or in the back of the torso or either side.
Maybe these 2 can share a cell
Jennifer, the page you link from Wiki mentions the anus being located in the torso. Has it been moved also?
quote:Originally posted by FirenzeVeritas:
Jennifer, the page you link from Wiki mentions the anus being located in the torso. Has it been moved also?
Now I needed that chuckle before bed.
Ditto the watermelon patch!
quote:Originally posted by Sassy Kims:
Latest update says he was shot twice in the back and once in the foot.
Kinda knocks the wind out of the "charged the shooter" claim. Backing up is not the preferred method of "charging at" someone.
What if the perp charged the property owner, aka, law abiding citizen, who then drew his weapon, invoking the flight or fight response, resulting in shots striking him in the back? I don't think this property owner went on a human hunting safari...I'll venture perp would not have been injured if he had submitted when confronted with superior force.
quote:Originally posted by Sassy Kims:quote:He was shot twice in the back and once in the foot with a .38-caliber gun, according to authorities.
Last line in the article from the front page update...
Owner shoots man accused of breaking into chicken house
Notice that the headline doesn't say anything about attacking the owner, or even theft...only breaking into a chicken house.
For the TD, shooting trumps attacking. Old news axiom, "If it bleeds, it leads" (as in lead story).
quote:Originally posted by Jennifer:There are other news sources other than the TD. When Is It Legally Acceptable To Use Deadly Force?quote:Originally posted by AtticFeline:
There's nothing mentioned in the article here about torso OR $10,000. Please provide your sources.
Posted: Sep 14, 2010 08:57 PM CDT
http://www.waaytv.com/Global/story.asp?S=13155077
A Colbert County homeowner shot a trespasser 3 times Tuesday. Officers continue their investigation. Such shootings often raise the question of when it's legally acceptable to use deadly force. WAAY 31 spoke with a criminal defense attorney to find out.
The shooter says over the weekend someone stole $10,000 worth of copper from inside his chicken house. So he was checking his property Tuesday when he found a trespasser.
Investigators comb the area around Ricks Lane in Spring Valley. Colbert County Sheriff Ronnie May says the owner of the property called 9-1-1 after finding 43-year old Timothy White in his chicken house Tuesday around 10 in the morning.
The owner says he held him at gun point waiting for authorities, until White charged at him. That's when the owner says he fired 3 shots hitting White twice in the torso and once in the foot. White was able to run away.
"We had officers come to the scene to search for him. When I arrived here, I came out on Ricks Cemetery Road and as I approached this gravel road drive, he stepped out in the road in front of me and I took him into custody and laid him down," said Sheriff Ronnie May.
Huntsville attorney Bruce Gardner could not speak specifically about this shooting, but explained Alabama's law of self defense and defense of your homestead.
"If someone is merely trespassing on your property, that would probably not allow a person to use deadly physical force," said criminal defense attorney, Bruce Gardner.
Gardner adds you don't have to retreat if someone is at your residence or on your property and you have reason to believe that person could potentially use deadly physical force against you. He says you are justified in using a weapon to defend yourself.
"If somebody is prowling around your house at midnight and scratching at your window and you have reason to believe someone is trying to break into your house, you have absolute right to defend that with the use of deadly physical force," said Gardner.
Sheriff May says the information about Tuesday's shooting will be presented to the DA, who will decide if this case should go to the grand jury.
The shooting victim was flown to Huntsville hospital. He's listed in good condition.
Reporter: Stephanie Beecken – sbeecken@waaytv.com
Good condition..?? He needs a larger caliber weapon.
quote:Originally posted by LELA:
Why did it suddenly get so quiet around here?
One minute between post and you say it got quiet? You are so easy to read. How many names you posting under now?
Whatever happened to shooting someone that was on your property, and dragging them into the house?
The man that got shot was a thief! If this case goes to trial, sherriff May and the district attorny should be impeached. It is time for Alabamians to be able to protect themselves and their propery from THUGS!
quote:Originally posted by LELA:
Whatever happened to shooting someone that was on your property, and dragging them into the house?
You cant do that with a bad back.
quote:Originally posted by SHELDIVR:quote:Originally posted by Sassy Kims:
Latest update says he was shot twice in the back and once in the foot.
Kinda knocks the wind out of the "charged the shooter" claim. Backing up is not the preferred method of "charging at" someone.
What if the perp charged the property owner, aka, law abiding citizen, who then drew his weapon, invoking the flight or fight response, resulting in shots striking him in the back? I don't think this property owner went on a human hunting safari...I'll venture perp would not have been injured if he had submitted when confronted with superior force.
Once the instinct went from 'fight' to 'flight' and the suspect ran, then the property owner was no longer in immidiate danger and deadly force was no longer justified. The police dont even shoot people in the back as they run away from them, they chase them down on foot.
Can you imagine the time folks would have with an officer that decided to shoot someone in the back as they ran away because they didnt 'freeze' when they were ordered to? Now there would be a story for old WH!
Jeepin'
quote:Originally posted by mad American:
The man that got shot was a thief! If this case goes to trial, sherriff May and the district attorny should be impeached. It is time for Alabamians to be able to protect themselves and their propery from THUGS!
If I were you, I would start with getting the law changed. Right now you do not have the right to protect your property with deadly force. So, if you decided to shoot someone that is breaking into your car to protect your car, you are no better than the thief in the eyes of the law.......
The PHOTO on the site is from Gray's Anatomy. It shows the FRONT as being the torso/trunk. That's why I said take it up with Gray's Anatomy. When I read "torso" I did what anyone wanting to know did, I searched to see what area they considered the torso. As far as his anus, I'll let you dwell on that. I really don't care where he shot him, and I don't think for one second the victim set out to murder the thief. I guess one lesson here is to keep your thieving butt off other's property. It appears he isn't going to die after all. I'd suggest the ones that uphold him in his criminal activities send him flowers, but I think since we taxpayers have to pay his medical bills they can skip that part. I would contribute money to buy the victim a bigger gun as someone suggested.quote:Originally posted by FirenzeVeritas:
Jennifer, the page you link from Wiki mentions the anus being located in the torso. Has it been moved also?
quote:Originally posted by FirenzeVeritas:
Jennifer, the page you link from Wiki mentions the anus being located in the torso. Has it been moved also?
Why... YES! Apparently to the cranial region. (Or maybe the other way 'round....) Anyway, the thief should now be referred to as "butthead."
quote:Originally posted by LELA:
Whatever happened to shooting someone that was on your property, and dragging them into the house?
The last three that tried that got convicted for Obstruction of Governmental Operations, Tampering with Evidence and Abuse of Corpse. Two were also convicted with Manslaughter and one with Murder.
Since then, nobody's been stupid enough to try that.
quote:Originally posted by mad American:
The man that got shot was a thief! If this case goes to trial, sherriff May and the district attorny should be impeached. It is time for Alabamians to be able to protect themselves and their propery from THUGS!
Nowhere in any article I've read does it indicate that the shot man had stolen anything. They do mention the shooter had been a victim of theft previously.
From what I've read, he was a trespasser, if he had been warned previously, or there was signage present. At worst the reports indicate he was a third degree burglar...entering and remaining unlawfully in a building.
The story leaves out a lot. I guess we should just assume he was out for a nice bike ride, saw the chicken houses, decided to have a look around, encountered the owner, and was in the middle of telling the owner how much he admired his setup and was about to offer his opinions on ways the owner could improve his production when the owner went nuts, drew his gun and tried to murder the well meaning trespasser. (After all, the owner left his house that morning hankering to kill somebody) Yep, that sounds about right. All that's missing is the baby the "innocent trespasser" was breast feeding when the evil owner accosted and shot him.quote:Originally posted by Sassy Kims:quote:Originally posted by mad American:
The man that got shot was a thief! If this case goes to trial, sherriff May and the district attorny should be impeached. It is time for Alabamians to be able to protect themselves and their propery from THUGS!
Nowhere in any article I've read does it indicate that the shot man had stolen anything. They do mention the shooter had been a victim of theft previously.
From what I've read, he was a trespasser, if he had been warned previously, or there was signage present. At worst the reports indicate he was a third degree burglar...entering and remaining unlawfully in a building.
quote:Originally posted by Jennifer:The story leaves out a lot. I guess we should just assume he was out for a nice bike ride, saw the chicken houses, decided to have a look around, encountered the owner, and was in the middle of telling the owner how much he admired his setup and was about to offer his opinions on ways the owner could improve his production when the owner went nuts, drew his gun and tried to murder the well meaning trespasser. (After all, the owner left his house that morning hankering to kill somebody) Yep, that sounds about right. All that's missing is the baby the "innocent trespasser" was breast feeding when the evil owner accosted and shot him.quote:Originally posted by Sassy Kims:quote:Originally posted by mad American:
The man that got shot was a thief! If this case goes to trial, sherriff May and the district attorny should be impeached. It is time for Alabamians to be able to protect themselves and their propery from THUGS!
Nowhere in any article I've read does it indicate that the shot man had stolen anything. They do mention the shooter had been a victim of theft previously.
From what I've read, he was a trespasser, if he had been warned previously, or there was signage present. At worst the reports indicate he was a third degree burglar...entering and remaining unlawfully in a building.
Well, my statements are based on what's been reported. Yours, sarcastic as it is, like most of the scenarios proposed here, are made up to justify an unlawful use of deadly force.
quote:Originally posted by Jennifer:
The PHOTO on the site is from Gray's Anatomy. It shows the FRONT as being the torso/trunk. That's why I said take it up with Gray's Anatomy. When I read "torso" I did what anyone wanting to know did, I searched to see what area they considered the torso.
I guess if you look up hand and the picture shows the palm of the hand, the other side of your hand really wouldnt be considered your hand because its not in the picture? right?
Nobody here is defending a thief. I'd like to see where you see that in any of the post. What most of us sane, law abiding citizens are saying is that just because someone is stealing from you does not give you the right to take the law into your own hands and shoot them in the back.
Keep twisting it to fit your own beliefs. Then go out and shoot someone to protect your property and see where you land. I promise you you'll get more than just your name in the paper....
Jeepin'
So you know now for sure it was an unlawful use of deadly force? When did they release the details? My response was the same reason as yours, people accusing the man of wanting to kill someone without knowing any of the details.quote:Originally posted by Sassy Kims:quote:Originally posted by Jennifer:The story leaves out a lot. I guess we should just assume he was out for a nice bike ride, saw the chicken houses, decided to have a look around, encountered the owner, and was in the middle of telling the owner how much he admired his setup and was about to offer his opinions on ways the owner could improve his production when the owner went nuts, drew his gun and tried to murder the well meaning trespasser. (After all, the owner left his house that morning hankering to kill somebody) Yep, that sounds about right. All that's missing is the baby the "innocent trespasser" was breast feeding when the evil owner accosted and shot him.quote:Originally posted by Sassy Kims:quote:Originally posted by mad American:
The man that got shot was a thief! If this case goes to trial, sherriff May and the district attorny should be impeached. It is time for Alabamians to be able to protect themselves and their propery from THUGS!
Nowhere in any article I've read does it indicate that the shot man had stolen anything. They do mention the shooter had been a victim of theft previously.
From what I've read, he was a trespasser, if he had been warned previously, or there was signage present. At worst the reports indicate he was a third degree burglar...entering and remaining unlawfully in a building.
Well, my statements are based on what's been reported. Yours, sarcastic as it is, like most of the scenarios proposed here, are made up to justify an unlawful use of deadly force.
quote:Originally posted by Jennifer:So you know now for sure it was an unlawful use of deadly force? When did they release the details? My response was the same reason as yours, people accusing the man of wanting to kill someone without knowing any of the details.quote:Originally posted by Sassy Kims:quote:Originally posted by Jennifer:The story leaves out a lot. I guess we should just assume he was out for a nice bike ride, saw the chicken houses, decided to have a look around, encountered the owner, and was in the middle of telling the owner how much he admired his setup and was about to offer his opinions on ways the owner could improve his production when the owner went nuts, drew his gun and tried to murder the well meaning trespasser. (After all, the owner left his house that morning hankering to kill somebody) Yep, that sounds about right. All that's missing is the baby the "innocent trespasser" was breast feeding when the evil owner accosted and shot him.quote:Originally posted by Sassy Kims:quote:Originally posted by mad American:
The man that got shot was a thief! If this case goes to trial, sherriff May and the district attorny should be impeached. It is time for Alabamians to be able to protect themselves and their propery from THUGS!
Nowhere in any article I've read does it indicate that the shot man had stolen anything. They do mention the shooter had been a victim of theft previously.
From what I've read, he was a trespasser, if he had been warned previously, or there was signage present. At worst the reports indicate he was a third degree burglar...entering and remaining unlawfully in a building.
Well, my statements are based on what's been reported. Yours, sarcastic as it is, like most of the scenarios proposed here, are made up to justify an unlawful use of deadly force.
I'm going on what has been reported, rather than making it up as I go along. From what has been reported, shooting wasn't justified.
Latest report on T/D says the man was shot twice in the back, and once in the foot as he ran away.
Funny, Tennessee V. Garner keeps cops from being able to do that. Why should the average citizen be able to do it?
Oh I get it now. YOU can form an opinion based on what's reported, but unless my opinion agrees with yours from jump I can't. I'm not supposed to wonder about the details because YOU and others figured it all out. Ok, got it now.quote:Originally posted by Sassy Kims:quote:Originally posted by Jennifer:So you know now for sure it was an unlawful use of deadly force? When did they release the details? My response was the same reason as yours, people accusing the man of wanting to kill someone without knowing any of the details.quote:Originally posted by Sassy Kims:quote:Originally posted by Jennifer:The story leaves out a lot. I guess we should just assume he was out for a nice bike ride, saw the chicken houses, decided to have a look around, encountered the owner, and was in the middle of telling the owner how much he admired his setup and was about to offer his opinions on ways the owner could improve his production when the owner went nuts, drew his gun and tried to murder the well meaning trespasser. (After all, the owner left his house that morning hankering to kill somebody) Yep, that sounds about right. All that's missing is the baby the "innocent trespasser" was breast feeding when the evil owner accosted and shot him.quote:Originally posted by Sassy Kims:quote:Originally posted by mad American:
The man that got shot was a thief! If this case goes to trial, sherriff May and the district attorny should be impeached. It is time for Alabamians to be able to protect themselves and their propery from THUGS!
Nowhere in any article I've read does it indicate that the shot man had stolen anything. They do mention the shooter had been a victim of theft previously.
From what I've read, he was a trespasser, if he had been warned previously, or there was signage present. At worst the reports indicate he was a third degree burglar...entering and remaining unlawfully in a building.
Well, my statements are based on what's been reported. Yours, sarcastic as it is, like most of the scenarios proposed here, are made up to justify an unlawful use of deadly force.
I'm going on what has been reported, rather than making it up as I go along. From what has been reported, shooting wasn't justified.
Latest report on T/D says the man was shot twice in the back, and once in the foot as he ran away.
Funny, Tennessee V. Garner keeps cops from being able to do that. Why should the average citizen be able to do it?
quote:Originally posted by Jennifer:Oh I get it now. YOU can form an opinion based on what's reported, but unless my opinion agrees with yours from jump I can't. I'm not supposed to wonder about the details because YOU and others figured it all out. Ok, got it now.quote:Originally posted by Sassy Kims:quote:Originally posted by Jennifer:So you know now for sure it was an unlawful use of deadly force? When did they release the details? My response was the same reason as yours, people accusing the man of wanting to kill someone without knowing any of the details.quote:Originally posted by Sassy Kims:quote:Originally posted by Jennifer:The story leaves out a lot. I guess we should just assume he was out for a nice bike ride, saw the chicken houses, decided to have a look around, encountered the owner, and was in the middle of telling the owner how much he admired his setup and was about to offer his opinions on ways the owner could improve his production when the owner went nuts, drew his gun and tried to murder the well meaning trespasser. (After all, the owner left his house that morning hankering to kill somebody) Yep, that sounds about right. All that's missing is the baby the "innocent trespasser" was breast feeding when the evil owner accosted and shot him.quote:Originally posted by Sassy Kims:quote:Originally posted by mad American:
The man that got shot was a thief! If this case goes to trial, sherriff May and the district attorny should be impeached. It is time for Alabamians to be able to protect themselves and their propery from THUGS!
Nowhere in any article I've read does it indicate that the shot man had stolen anything. They do mention the shooter had been a victim of theft previously.
From what I've read, he was a trespasser, if he had been warned previously, or there was signage present. At worst the reports indicate he was a third degree burglar...entering and remaining unlawfully in a building.
Well, my statements are based on what's been reported. Yours, sarcastic as it is, like most of the scenarios proposed here, are made up to justify an unlawful use of deadly force.
I'm going on what has been reported, rather than making it up as I go along. From what has been reported, shooting wasn't justified.
Latest report on T/D says the man was shot twice in the back, and once in the foot as he ran away.
Funny, Tennessee V. Garner keeps cops from being able to do that. Why should the average citizen be able to do it?
Knock yourself out with all the opinions you want. But once you post them here, they're open to critique. If you're not big enough to accept that, perhaps you should let mommy have the computer back and you should go watch Dora the Explorer for a while.
Oh no, by all means go ahead. YOU figured it out by the confusing details reported. YOU know it was deadly force. No one should question that no matter how conflicting the stories are. mmmmm, sounds like it's YOU that can't handle someone that doesn't fall right into line with your reasoning. I will repeat, I don't think for one second the man set out to kill anybody. What happened we might not ever know. I do feel the situation was explosive, no pun intended. And if you're going to be a sneaking petty thief you better think about what will happen if someone catches you in the act. They might just start firing and not stop until you're out of sight, if you're lucky enough to make it out of their sight.quote:Originally posted by Sassy Kims:quote:Originally posted by Jennifer:Oh I get it now. YOU can form an opinion based on what's reported, but unless my opinion agrees with yours from jump I can't. I'm not supposed to wonder about the details because YOU and others figured it all out. Ok, got it now.quote:Originally posted by Sassy Kims:quote:Originally posted by Jennifer:So you know now for sure it was an unlawful use of deadly force? When did they release the details? My response was the same reason as yours, people accusing the man of wanting to kill someone without knowing any of the details.quote:Originally posted by Sassy Kims:quote:Originally posted by Jennifer:The story leaves out a lot. I guess we should just assume he was out for a nice bike ride, saw the chicken houses, decided to have a look around, encountered the owner, and was in the middle of telling the owner how much he admired his setup and was about to offer his opinions on ways the owner could improve his production when the owner went nuts, drew his gun and tried to murder the well meaning trespasser. (After all, the owner left his house that morning hankering to kill somebody) Yep, that sounds about right. All that's missing is the baby the "innocent trespasser" was breast feeding when the evil owner accosted and shot him.quote:Originally posted by Sassy Kims:quote:Originally posted by mad American:
The man that got shot was a thief! If this case goes to trial, sherriff May and the district attorny should be impeached. It is time for Alabamians to be able to protect themselves and their propery from THUGS!
Nowhere in any article I've read does it indicate that the shot man had stolen anything. They do mention the shooter had been a victim of theft previously.
From what I've read, he was a trespasser, if he had been warned previously, or there was signage present. At worst the reports indicate he was a third degree burglar...entering and remaining unlawfully in a building.
Well, my statements are based on what's been reported. Yours, sarcastic as it is, like most of the scenarios proposed here, are made up to justify an unlawful use of deadly force.
I'm going on what has been reported, rather than making it up as I go along. From what has been reported, shooting wasn't justified.
Latest report on T/D says the man was shot twice in the back, and once in the foot as he ran away.
Funny, Tennessee V. Garner keeps cops from being able to do that. Why should the average citizen be able to do it?
Knock yourself out with all the opinions you want. But once you post them here, they're open to critique. If you're not big enough to accept that, perhaps you should let mommy have the computer back and you should go watch Dora the Explorer for a while.
quote:Our business was burglarized twice in a three month period. I know how it feels to pull up to the fence of your business and know you've been robbed. I can't imagine the emotions that would have taken over if we'd walked in on the thieves, especially the second time. We paid two high deductibles in three months time, and the police told us outright we'd never see our property again. I told them I knew that and wouldn't even have bothered calling them if we didn't need the police report for the insurance company. The insurance company didn't pay for the damage done to the fence where they broke in, so we had that cost on top of the deductibles. So I can understand this man's frustration at being preyed on.
Yea, imagine being told by the investigator that they are not going to dust for fingerprints because they don't have a dusting kit with them and even if they did they don't know what they would do with the fingerprints.
quote:Originally posted by Jennifer:Oh no, by all means go ahead. YOU figured it out by the confusing details reported. YOU know it was deadly force. No one should question that no matter how conflicting the stories are. mmmmm, sounds like it's YOU that can't handle someone that doesn't fall right into line with your reasoning. I will repeat, I don't think for one second the man set out to kill anybody. What happened we might not ever know. I do feel the situation was explosive, no pun intended. And if you're going to be a sneaking petty thief you better think about what will happen if someone catches you in the act. They might just start firing and not stop until you're out of sight, if you're lucky enough to make it out of their sight.quote:Originally posted by Sassy Kims:quote:Originally posted by Jennifer:Oh I get it now. YOU can form an opinion based on what's reported, but unless my opinion agrees with yours from jump I can't. I'm not supposed to wonder about the details because YOU and others figured it all out. Ok, got it now.quote:Originally posted by Sassy Kims:quote:Originally posted by Jennifer:So you know now for sure it was an unlawful use of deadly force? When did they release the details? My response was the same reason as yours, people accusing the man of wanting to kill someone without knowing any of the details.quote:Originally posted by Sassy Kims:quote:Originally posted by Jennifer:The story leaves out a lot. I guess we should just assume he was out for a nice bike ride, saw the chicken houses, decided to have a look around, encountered the owner, and was in the middle of telling the owner how much he admired his setup and was about to offer his opinions on ways the owner could improve his production when the owner went nuts, drew his gun and tried to murder the well meaning trespasser. (After all, the owner left his house that morning hankering to kill somebody) Yep, that sounds about right. All that's missing is the baby the "innocent trespasser" was breast feeding when the evil owner accosted and shot him.quote:Originally posted by Sassy Kims:quote:Originally posted by mad American:
The man that got shot was a thief! If this case goes to trial, sherriff May and the district attorny should be impeached. It is time for Alabamians to be able to protect themselves and their propery from THUGS!
Nowhere in any article I've read does it indicate that the shot man had stolen anything. They do mention the shooter had been a victim of theft previously.
From what I've read, he was a trespasser, if he had been warned previously, or there was signage present. At worst the reports indicate he was a third degree burglar...entering and remaining unlawfully in a building.
Well, my statements are based on what's been reported. Yours, sarcastic as it is, like most of the scenarios proposed here, are made up to justify an unlawful use of deadly force.
I'm going on what has been reported, rather than making it up as I go along. From what has been reported, shooting wasn't justified.
Latest report on T/D says the man was shot twice in the back, and once in the foot as he ran away.
Funny, Tennessee V. Garner keeps cops from being able to do that. Why should the average citizen be able to do it?
Knock yourself out with all the opinions you want. But once you post them here, they're open to critique. If you're not big enough to accept that, perhaps you should let mommy have the computer back and you should go watch Dora the Explorer for a while.
For your edification, the definition of deadly physical force, according to Alabama Code, is:
DEADLY PHYSICAL FORCE. Force which, under the circumstances in which it is used, is readily capable of causing death or serious physical injury.
Yes, shooting a human being is using deadly physical force. Intent to kill is not necessary, only that the act produced the injury or death. It's unlawful to use deadly physical force in defense of property against trespass or theft.
They not only wouldn't dust for fingerprints, but they wouldn't look at other "evidence" left behind (white paint left on the fence post where the burglars hit it when they rammed the fence to break it down, tons of tire tracks etc.) They didn't talk to anyone around the business to see if they'd seen anyone around, but ask us if we had. We aren't talking about a few hundred dollars worth of property stolen either. Anyway, they made the report, our insurance paid, we were out the deductibles and fence and other repairs and that was the end of it. There is so much crazy stuff that goes on and sometimes it makes you wonder just what are the police are for. They had a "dust up" at the Chevron near here. No one seems to know exactly what happened but what I was told was some guy went off the deep end, was talking crap to customers in the store, and was pulling his shirt up to show he had a gun. His wife just pulled off and left him there. He called someone to come pick him up, the cops got there before he left, but in the end they let him leave. None of the customers knew what set the man off, the cops said he was "nuts" and that was the end of that. And even though the customers told the cops to be careful because the guy had a gun, they don't think the cops ask him about it or searched him.quote:Originally posted by girlzzz curlzzzz:quote:Our business was burglarized twice in a three month period. I know how it feels to pull up to the fence of your business and know you've been robbed. I can't imagine the emotions that would have taken over if we'd walked in on the thieves, especially the second time. We paid two high deductibles in three months time, and the police told us outright we'd never see our property again. I told them I knew that and wouldn't even have bothered calling them if we didn't need the police report for the insurance company. The insurance company didn't pay for the damage done to the fence where they broke in, so we had that cost on top of the deductibles. So I can understand this man's frustration at being preyed on.
Yea, imagine being told by the investigator that they are not going to dust for fingerprints because they don't have a dusting kit with them and even if they did they don't know what they would do with the fingerprints.
I can't belive that the Colbert county sherrifs dept. is bothering with investigating the shooting of a common low life thief. More should be shot. It should be legal to bait and shoot them like the deer and turkey hunters do.