Skip to main content

http://www.timesdaily.com/arti...g-into-chicken-house

Maybe the man was hungry? Sorry, but I think the shooter may have overreacted just a bit. I understand the right to protect your property, but some people are just plain trigger happy. Maybe I'll be proven wrong when more details come out.
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

You yhink the shooter over reacted?? What if you came home to find that a burglar had broken into your house and ripped the wiring out of the wall and was still there? You would probably feel the same way. This guy was just defending himself and his property and took the law into his own hands, if he hadnt the guy would have been long gone by the time the sherriffs dept. arrived. Why should you let someone get away with stealing because the court systems are not going to do anything to them besides slap them on the hand and turn them back loose. Do you think that he might learn a lesson this way a little better than a slap on the wrist??
quote:
Originally posted by 1002:
You yhink the shooter over reacted?? What if you came home to find that a burglar had broken into your house and ripped the wiring out of the wall and was still there? You would probably feel the same way. This guy was just defending himself and his property and took the law into his own hands, if he hadnt the guy would have been long gone by the time the sherriffs dept. arrived. Why should you let someone get away with stealing because the court systems are not going to do anything to them besides slap them on the hand and turn them back loose. Do you think that he might learn a lesson this way a little better than a slap on the wrist??


I totally agree. Let someone come sneaking around my home and they will get shot too, no mater what they are trying to steal. Wink
quote:
Originally posted by AtticFeline:
http://www.timesdaily.com/arti...g-into-chicken-house

Maybe the man was hungry? Sorry, but I think the shooter may have overreacted just a bit. I understand the right to protect your property, but some people are just plain trigger happy. Maybe I'll be proven wrong when more details come out.



Thanks for realizing you don't shoot anyone running AWAY from you.
quote:
Originally posted by Matted Down Weirdo:
quote:
Originally posted by AtticFeline:
http://www.timesdaily.com/arti...g-into-chicken-house

Maybe the man was hungry? Sorry, but I think the shooter may have overreacted just a bit. I understand the right to protect your property, but some people are just plain trigger happy. Maybe I'll be proven wrong when more details come out.



Thanks for realizing you don't shoot anyone running AWAY from you.


I read the article as saying the thief ran after being shot and was caught in a field. I agree the TD never writes where you're sure what happened.
quote:
Originally posted by 1002:
You yhink the shooter over reacted?? What if you came home to find that a burglar had broken into your house and ripped the wiring out of the wall and was still there? You would probably feel the same way. This guy was just defending himself and his property and took the law into his own hands, if he hadnt the guy would have been long gone by the time the sherriffs dept. arrived. Why should you let someone get away with stealing because the court systems are not going to do anything to them besides slap them on the hand and turn them back loose. Do you think that he might learn a lesson this way a little better than a slap on the wrist??


Exactly. I've never shot anyone, but I would in a minute on my own property if I felt threatened. Oh, and if I had a gun.
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.


Who's to say that he didn't charge the man and when he seen he had a gun then turned and ran?
quote:
Originally posted by HadEnough:
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.


Who's to say that he didn't charge the man and when he seen he had a gun then turned and ran?


You not not shoot a person running away from you. We have police who can make these decisions
quote:
Originally posted by 1002:
You yhink the shooter over reacted?? What if you came home to find that a burglar had broken into your house and ripped the wiring out of the wall and was still there? You would probably feel the same way. This guy was just defending himself and his property and took the law into his own hands, if he hadnt the guy would have been long gone by the time the sherriffs dept. arrived. Why should you let someone get away with stealing because the court systems are not going to do anything to them besides slap them on the hand and turn them back loose. Do you think that he might learn a lesson this way a little better than a slap on the wrist??


So just take matters into your own hands without waiting for the cops to show up, eh? I like it.

I'm for going back to the Old West style of doing things. Total anarchy.
quote:
Originally posted by HadEnough:
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.


Who's to say that he didn't charge the man and when he seen he had a gun then turned and ran?


Then he was no longer a danger to the owner. And if such is true, there was no justification for use of deadly force.
Just shoot, I know where I live for every thing reported stolen it is at least 20 more. I know I live in a isolated area, but things left out by your barn or some other safe place are no longer safe.

If I find someone on my property stealing, I would assume, they would be as well armed as me. It seems nothing is safe nowadays. I would have done just what the man did to the perp.
If more people protected their property as such, it might cut down on these thieves.
First of, my post was made when this was "breaking" news, at 11:08 am, to be exact. The TD edited the story and added more to it later. All the story said when I read it is that a man had been shot for breaking into a chicken house. Not a word about copper wiring or any previous break-ins. For all I knew the man was stealing chickens because his family was hungry. Second of all, you don't shoot a man in the back who is running away from you. Ever. Unless you're a yellow belly. Or some backward thinking redneck like many of you seem to be who think it's fine to shoot anybody for any reason if they're on your property.
quote:
Originally posted by AtticFeline:
Bwahahahahahaha. Like the paper wouldn't have said something if that were true. Keep reaching. If his back were turned, how would the shooter know what he was /wasn't "reaching" for? I think he was running away. I mean, the old coot even shot him in the foot, for Pete's sake.



Wow, a man has been robbed of $10,000 and you call him an old coot while taking up for the thief. You keep reaching, maybe you can find a life somewhere.
OK, lets all be real now. In this country, there are things that are acceptable and things that are not. One thing that is not is shooting someone in the back for being on your property. Or even for stealing. Deadly force is acceptable in self defense, but that does not seem to be the case here.

There are places in this world that have some unusual punishments for thieves (and rapists, murderers, etc). Maybe thats where those of you that think its ok to shoot someone in the back for stealing should consider moving. Heck, the Taliban don't even shoot theives in the back, they just cut off their hand. How many of you ever thought that the Taliban would be considered more humane than you are?
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.
quote:
Originally posted by AtticFeline:
There's nothing mentioned in the article here about torso OR $10,000. Please provide your sources.
There are other news sources other than the TD. When Is It Legally Acceptable To Use Deadly Force?

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
quote:
Originally posted by LELA:
quote:
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.


Would you not have shot at this man? He was NOT a Jehovah's Witness.
Based on this report, yes I'd have shot him. It just sounds to me like he shot him in the foot to stop him and it didn't. You know the adrenaline was pumping, and imo all the victim was thinking was to stop the guy from harming him. Maybe we'll get updates and find out all the facts. Again, if he had not taken his a** out to steal from this guy, he'd have never been shot. I have zero sympathy for him.
quote:
Originally posted by Jennifer:
quote:
Originally posted by LELA:
quote:
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.


Would you not have shot at this man? He was NOT a Jehovah's Witness.
Based on this report, yes I'd have shot him. It just sounds to me like he shot him in the foot to stop him and it didn't. You know the adrenaline was pumping, and imo all the victim was thinking was to stop the guy from harming him. Maybe we'll get updates and find out all the facts. Again, if he had not taken his a** out to steal from this guy, he'd have never been shot. I have zero sympathy for him.


Ditto. Wink
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.


Don't know why that should be relevant, if someone is on your property stealing from you , I say just shoot the sob and have it over. Don't we have a new law now that says we can do that ?
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'
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'
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 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'
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.
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 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 Big Grin
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.
Take it up with Gray's anatomy.
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. Roll Eyes


For the TD, shooting trumps attacking. Old news axiom, "If it bleeds, it leads" (as in lead story).
quote:
Originally posted by Jennifer:
quote:
Originally posted by AtticFeline:
There's nothing mentioned in the article here about torso OR $10,000. Please provide your sources.
There are other news sources other than the TD. When Is It Legally Acceptable To Use Deadly Force?

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 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.......
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?
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 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. Wink
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 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.
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 Jennifer:
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.
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.


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'
quote:
Originally posted by Sassy Kims:
quote:
Originally posted by Jennifer:
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.
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.


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.
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 Jennifer:
quote:
Originally posted by Sassy Kims:
quote:
Originally posted by Jennifer:
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.
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.


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.
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.


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 Sassy Kims:
quote:
Originally posted by Jennifer:
quote:
Originally posted by Sassy Kims:
quote:
Originally posted by Jennifer:
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.
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.


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.
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.


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 Jennifer:
quote:
Originally posted by Sassy Kims:
quote:
Originally posted by Jennifer:
quote:
Originally posted by Sassy Kims:
quote:
Originally posted by Jennifer:
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.
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.


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.
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.


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.


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:
Originally posted by Sassy Kims:
quote:
Originally posted by Jennifer:
quote:
Originally posted by Sassy Kims:
quote:
Originally posted by Jennifer:
quote:
Originally posted by Sassy Kims:
quote:
Originally posted by Jennifer:
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.
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.


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.
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.


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.


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:
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:
quote:
Originally posted by Sassy Kims:
quote:
Originally posted by Jennifer:
quote:
Originally posted by Sassy Kims:
quote:
Originally posted by Jennifer:
quote:
Originally posted by Sassy Kims:
quote:
Originally posted by Jennifer:
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.
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.


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.
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.


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.


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.


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.
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.
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.
Last edited by Jennifer
quote:
Originally posted by Jennifer:
quote:
Originally posted by Sassy Kims:
quote:
Originally posted by Jennifer:
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.
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.


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.
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.


MAYBE it's because Sassy is a law enforcement officer and it's his BUSINESS to know what does and does not constitute the legitimate use of deadly force.
quote:
Originally posted by AtticFeline:
quote:
Originally posted by Jennifer:
quote:
Originally posted by Sassy Kims:
quote:
Originally posted by Jennifer:
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.
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.


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.
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.


MAYBE it's because Sassy is a law enforcement officer and it's his BUSINESS to know what does and does not constitute the legitimate use of deadly force.
Anyone can know the law, my point is WITHOUT all the details we don't know if the man used deadly force.
quote:
Originally posted by Jennifer:

Anyone can know the law, my point is WITHOUT all the details we don't know if the man used deadly force.


Im confused, what part of 'using a gun to shoot someone constitutes deadly force' do you NOT understand. If you shoot someone, you used deadly force. It does not have to result in the death of the person shot. It only has to do with the fact that you actually shot the person.

What other details do you want?!?!? The only question is was he legally justified to use said deadly force.

You cannot shoot someone, or even shoot at them, unless you truely believe your life is in danger. That is the only legally justified reason for you to shoot someone. Even if you shoot them in the foot, you still used deadly force to shoot them. Period. Cry about it all you want, that is the law as it is written right now.
quote:
Originally posted by Lets Go Jeepin':
quote:
Originally posted by Jennifer:

Anyone can know the law, my point is WITHOUT all the details we don't know if the man used deadly force.


Im confused, what part of 'using a gun to shoot someone constitutes deadly force' do you NOT understand. If you shoot someone, you used deadly force. It does not have to result in the death of the person shot. It only has to do with the fact that you actually shot the person.

What other details do you want?!?!? The only question is was he legally justified to use said deadly force.

You cannot shoot someone, or even shoot at them, unless you truely believe your life is in danger. That is the only legally justified reason for you to shoot someone. Even if you shoot them in the foot, you still used deadly force to shoot them. Period. Cry about it all you want, that is the law as it is written right now.



I guess you never heard of the armed forces.
quote:
Colbert County sheriff's investigators say White was shot once in the foot and once in the shoulder. The bullet went through White's shoulder and exited through his back. Investigators originally thought White was shot three times.


Looks like he was shot from the front, which would more than likely justify the use of deadly force.

But dont confuse that with the issue being discussed here. The issue here has become all you yahoos who think its legal to shoot someone just because he is stealing from you and your lack of understanding of what deadly force is. The true question was if the shooting was justified or not.

And BTW, the DA presenting to the grand jury is part of the process. But I wouldnt expect many of you here to understand that, especially if you cant get the basics about deadly force.
quote:
Originally posted by Lets Go Jeepin':
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 Big Grin


I hope you never use your weapon, because you do not carry one with the intent to kill. You carry one to stop the threat with center of mass shots and you never say you were trying to kill.
quote:
Originally posted by Lets Go Jeepin':
quote:
Originally posted by Jennifer:

Anyone can know the law, my point is WITHOUT all the details we don't know if the man used deadly force.


Im confused, what part of 'using a gun to shoot someone constitutes deadly force' do you NOT understand. If you shoot someone, you used deadly force. It does not have to result in the death of the person shot. It only has to do with the fact that you actually shot the person.

What other details do you want?!?!? The only question is was he legally justified to use said deadly force.

You cannot shoot someone, or even shoot at them, unless you truely believe your life is in danger. That is the only legally justified reason for you to shoot someone. Even if you shoot them in the foot, you still used deadly force to shoot them. Period. Cry about it all you want, that is the law as it is written right now.


Actually it is legal to use deadly force to protect your life or the life of someone else.
quote:
Originally posted by Lets Go Jeepin':
quote:
Originally posted by Tool:

I guess you never heard of the armed forces.


Yep, Im a veteran myself, and the rules of engagement during Wartime for the armed forces are not comparable to any arguement that you have here.

Good reach though.


Who is talking about rules of engagement during wartime? Uh, besides you.
quote:
Originally posted by HIFLYER:
quote:
Originally posted by Lets Go Jeepin':
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 Big Grin


I hope you never use your weapon, because you do not carry one with the intent to kill. You carry one to stop the threat with center of mass shots and you never say you were trying to kill.


Tell me, where did you get the idea that I dont have the intent to kill?
quote:
Originally posted by Lets Go Jeepin':
quote:
Originally posted by Jennifer:

Anyone can know the law, my point is WITHOUT all the details we don't know if the man used deadly force.


Im confused, what part of 'using a gun to shoot someone constitutes deadly force' do you NOT understand. If you shoot someone, you used deadly force. It does not have to result in the death of the person shot. It only has to do with the fact that you actually shot the person.

What other details do you want?!?!? The only question is was he legally justified to use said deadly force.

You cannot shoot someone, or even shoot at them, unless you truely believe your life is in danger. That is the only legally justified reason for you to shoot someone. Even if you shoot them in the foot, you still used deadly force to shoot them. Period. Cry about it all you want, that is the law as it is written right now.
I don't know what your problem is, I'm not "crying" about anything. Let me rephrase it for you, with the information given so far we don't know if deadly force was right or wrong. Happy now? A man shoots a thief on his property. Now all of a sudden he's a nutcase that went looking to kill somebody that day and lo and behold, lucky him, he found a victim in his henhouse. The property owner may well be a nutcase, but you can be sure the thief knew the man, and IF he still went sneaking around his property to steal something he took his chances. He's not dead, he well could be. So YOU cry about a freaking no good thief getting his butt shot, I sure won't. Even IF they send the man to jail it won't change the fact that the thief got what he deserved. The next time he goes to steal something someone might finish the job.
quote:
Originally posted by Tool:


I guess you never heard of the armed forces.


You did, right here, when you mentioned the armed forces in the use of deadly force arguement. The use of deadly forces by the armed forces is outlined in the rules on engagement for a particular situation.

Had you known more about the armed forces than what you see on tv, you might already know that....
quote:
Originally posted by Lets Go Jeepin':
quote:
Originally posted by HIFLYER:
quote:
Originally posted by Lets Go Jeepin':
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 Big Grin


I hope you never use your weapon, because you do not carry one with the intent to kill. You carry one to stop the threat with center of mass shots and you never say you were trying to kill.


Tell me, where did you get the idea that I dont have the intent to kill?


You might have the intent to kill, I was stating most sane people do not carry a weapon for that reason. I also stand by my statement that it would be a very bad idea to tell a LEO or judge you shot someone with the intent to kill, regardless if you were justified or not.
quote:
Originally posted by Jennifer:

Anyone can know the law, my point is WITHOUT all the details we don't know if the man used deadly force.


quote:


I don't know what your problem is, I'm not "crying" about anything. Let me rephrase it for you, with the information given so far we don't know if deadly force was right or wrong. Happy now? A man shoots a thief on his property. Now all of a sudden he's a nutcase that went looking to kill somebody that day and lo and behold, lucky him, he found a victim in his henhouse. The property owner may well be a nutcase, but you can be sure the thief knew the man, and IF he still went sneaking around his property to steal something he took his chances. He's not dead, he well could be. So YOU cry about a freaking no good thief getting his butt shot, I sure won't. Even IF they send the man to jail it won't change the fact that the thief got what he deserved. The next time he goes to steal something someone might finish the job.


Your 'rephrasing' is exactly what I was talking about. Look back through this thread and count the number of folks that thought it was ok to shoot someone just for stealing. Momma always taught me two wrongs dont make a right, thats what Im talking about here.

All you folks that think shooting someone for stealing or trespassing keep thinking that way. Think about it the next time you are broke down on the side of the road and walking up some strangers driveway for help. Maybe he wont think your trespassing to steal something. Maybe he wont start taking pot shots at you just because you are there and he dont think you should be.
quote:
Originally posted by HIFLYER:

You might have the intent to kill, I was stating most sane people do not carry a weapon for that reason. I also stand by my statement that it would be a very bad idea to tell a LEO or judge you shot someone with the intent to kill, regardless if you were justified or not.


If I pull my weapon on you, my intent will be to kill you. That is what the weapon is for. Its not to scare you, its not to make you 'think.' Thats the problem here, some folks think that their gun is to intimidate folks. I have no reason to intimidate anyone. I am not going to pull my gun unless I fear for my life. If I fear for my life, my intent will be to protect my life by taking theirs.

I would have no problem at all telling a judge that.

But then again, thats why I dont carry my gun in public often, I feel safe in most public situations and dont foresee the need to carry it just to have it.

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×