Jump to content

I WAS TOLD THAT IT IS ILLEGAL TO SHOOT A CAR THIEF


Recommended Posts

To simplify this as much as possible, force on equal force.

You can only take a life if life is in imminent danger (both morally and legally).

You can't get carjacked and then as that person is driving away in a hypothetical situation that poses no imminent danger you empty a magazine into them.

 

This.

 

I can’t speculate why the linked situation was handled as it was. But if you shoot someone driving away in an empty car and no lives are in immediate danger, expect to be prosecuted.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are other threats that occur when a vehicle is stolen. What about all the people killed by car thieves when they flee from the scene or from the Police? I think it should be legal to shoot a car thief. Not everyone can afford theft insurance not to mention it takes away your ability to work and provide for your family.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are other threats that occur when a vehicle is stolen. What about all the people killed by car thieves when they flee from the scene or from the Police? I think it should be legal to shoot a car thief. Not everyone can afford theft insurance not to mention it takes away your ability to work and provide for your family.

Not a lawyer, but common sense says if you are involved in a SELF DEFENSE related shooting do not say "I shot him because he stole my car".

 

Understand that there is extreme bias in this story due to the dialog being pushed so the facts are stated as if the person shot the other person for stealing the car, not in defense of life.

 

When Macklin began pulling away, the lieutenant drew his gun and fired through the open drivers side window, hitting the teen in the chest.

Armchair generaling this to me says it is possible the shooter could of been in the path of the vehicle and his life was in imminent danger. That is also probably what he told the police and why charges weren't filed.

 

What you post here could easily be used against you in court one day...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are other threats that occur when a vehicle is stolen. What about all the people killed by car thieves when they flee from the scene or from the Police? I think it should be legal to shoot a car thief. Not everyone can afford theft insurance not to mention it takes away your ability to work and provide for your family.

Then please do the following.

 

Set a meeting with your State Representative and one with your State Senator.

 

Plead with them to sponsor a bill that would change the law to allow defense of property as legal for shooting.

 

Tell us how well that works.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm for changing the rules not breaking the rules. I don't agree with the moral standard that property should not be defended with deadly force. In many other countries and cultures its is justifiable.

 

Usually the libs have these paradoxes, but this is a rare right wing paradox/hypocrisy. Financial hardship is a life threatening condition so I should be able to shoot people in defense of property. People in poverty on welfare live the high life so we need to cut welfare benefits to just the essentials.

 

I don't think you'll find many supporters, even on the right. We should all share the same moral high road that the only justifiable taking of a life is in defense of life. Anything less is lowlife tier thinking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Usually the libs have these paradoxes, but this is a rare right wing paradox/hypocrisy. Financial hardship is a life threatening condition so I should be able to shoot people in defense of property. People in poverty on welfare live the high life.

I don't think you'll find many supporters, even on the right."

 

Except in the State of Texas

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Except in the State of Texas

I'm aware that other states have other legal standards, and DA/SA's don't always charge people when the defense of life standard isn't met. For example an offduty FBI agent shot someone from his balcony stealing his car.

https://nypost.com/2013/03/06/fbi-agent-wont-be-charged-in-queens-car-thief-shooting/ This just shows the hypocrisy and unfairness in the justice system.

 

Yes, there are parts of the country so desolate that getting your car stolen (or in the old timey days horse thieves) is/was a life threatening condition (like out in the middle of a desert) . Yes, robberies can be violent, but remember the defense of life standard.

 

Killing for anything less just means you're not a person of good moral standings, and I doubt you could argue that point.

 

Depending on your beliefs ultimately God, the natural order, or society will judge if you take a life when your life was not in danger, whatever the legal outcome.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Go ahead in America and try to prove that you would literally die ('My livelihood") because your car was stolen. See where that gets you in court. Because you are advocating (in a public internet forum, BTW, which would be subpoenaed if you were to be in this situation) to literally attempt to kill someone for stealing your car.

Crime is frustrating. I get that. Criminals get away with stuff (literally and figuratively). I get that. Don't let your frustration land you in jail over a car. Or stuff. Imminent threat of death or great bodily harm to you or people in your care. PERIOD.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

trollin, trollin, trollin

 

Just saying people. Look at the history.

You troll someone to get them to out their own hypocrisy. It's a very effective tool of rhetoric, even if frowned upon by certain people.

 

I genuinely think this person may be misguided. But if trolling it's some weak tier ish.

 

 

 

I think the point has been made by everyone here, and any counterpoint would serve to incriminate anyone making that counterpoint so I see nowhere else this thread could go...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

There are other threats that occur when a vehicle is stolen. What about all the people killed by car thieves when they flee from the scene or from the Police? I think it should be legal to shoot a car thief. Not everyone can afford theft insurance not to mention it takes away your ability to work and provide for your family.

Not a lawyer, but common sense says if you are involved in a SELF DEFENSE related shooting do not say "I shot him because he stole my car".

 

Understand that there is extreme bias in this story due to the dialog being pushed so the facts are stated as if the person shot the other person for stealing the car, not in defense of life.

 

When Macklin began pulling away, the lieutenant drew his gun and fired through the open drivers side window, hitting the teen in the chest.

Armchair generaling this to me says it is possible the shooter could of been in the path of the vehicle and his life was in imminent danger.

 

 

Unless the vehicle was sliding sideways toward the shooter I don't see how the shooter could have been in the path of the fleeing vehicle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This got me thinking. I know if my daughter was in the car i would be i fear of her life and would do what is needed.

 

But what if you had an extra gun in the vehicle. What if your coming back from a range trip and get carjacked. The criminal in possession of your firearms would qualify as a danger to the public, but might not be a danger to yourself at the time. Hmmm interesting (imaginary) situation. Definitely wouldn't know what i would do in that case or how the cops would handle it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This got me thinking. I know if my daughter was in the car i would be i fear of her life and would do what is needed.

 

But what if you had an extra gun in the vehicle. What if your coming back from a range trip and get carjacked. The criminal in possession of your firearms would qualify as a danger to the public, but might not be a danger to yourself at the time. Hmmm interesting (imaginary) situation. Definitely wouldn't know what i would do in that case or how the cops would handle it.

Guns are inanimate objects that do not kill people. Now, if that gun was in the hands of the carjacker, or the carjackers attempting to access those guns, or pulling into your driveway with the stolen car and guns that's a credible threat.

 

Is everyone overlooking the justified use of force statue in defense of property that CCL instructors are required to teach. It includes use of force to stop a forcible felony.

Hashed out here with the same poster, unironicically.

http://illinoiscarry.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=55371

 

And summed up best by SirFlyGuy's post on page 2.

 

Nobody's arguing you can't shoot a carjackers or that we should just hand over whatever to a criminal. But the deadly response is to a forcible felony. The word forcible implies by committing that crime against a victim the threat of bodily harm or threat of life is present.

 

You can't argue "I shot him because he was taking or doing xxxx", but you can argue "I shot him because in the process of taking or doing xxxx I was in great risk of injury or bodily harm".

 

Unless the vehicle was sliding sideways toward the shooter I don't see how the shooter could have been in the path of the fleeing vehicle.

I think we should probably give an armed citizen the benefit of the doubt for the good of us all. You weren't there and you're judging based on the reports of a highly biased article that is pushing the false dialog that concealed carriers murder people in cold blood. Let's defend our own unless the facts state otherwise.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is there any actual video of this incident at all ? Or is this whole conversation just relying on eye witness testimony from the hood ? Because we all know how accurate that has turned out to be when a seemingly "good boy" goes bad.....

 

Looking at actual evidence like the pictures of the scene that I could find however, the CCL holders car was parallel parked at the time.

Its very possible that the carjacker was trying to pull out street side as the CCL holder was standing on the drivers side trying to stop him. And yes its very possible he could have been knocked over by the side of the car and gone under the back wheels as the perp took off.

That certainly meets any legal or moral burden for someone to think that they are in danger of great bodily harm or death. And also as Molly noted you can in fact choose to stop a forcible felony from occurring by using lethal force. Robbery is a forcible felony.

 

To warp it up and respond to the OP directly, personally I think you're an idiot if you think that shooting someone over stealing property is valid response. However this case really has nothing to do with that at all. Seems you're either purposely trolling here or really naive to think what you read in the Tribune is real news. Glaring omissions of major details that paint stories in an entirely different light in order to fit political and social agendas is their SOP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My 2 cents worth. It is not just a car that person is stealing. It is the hours of sweat and toil it took to raise the money to purchase said vehicle. Yes, they are literally stealing your life, or part of it. That being said, just because you can shoot someone, doesn't mean you have to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My 2 cents worth. It is not just a car that person is stealing. It is the hours of sweat and toil it took to raise the money to purchase said vehicle. Yes, they are literally stealing your life, or part of it. That being said, just because you can shoot someone, doesn't mean you have to.

This is true but perhaps if more of these up and coming scholars saw more of their kind getting shot car jacks no people maybe we would see a decline in car jackings. An article in the Trib this week had interviewed a teen car jacket and they stated they chose to stop after a few were stopped by CCL holders. He said the risk wasn’t worth it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

My 2 cents worth. It is not just a car that person is stealing. It is the hours of sweat and toil it took to raise the money to purchase said vehicle. Yes, they are literally stealing your life, or part of it. That being said, just because you can shoot someone, doesn't mean you have to.

This is true but perhaps if more of these up and coming scholars saw more of their kind getting shot car jacks no people maybe we would see a decline in car jackings. An article in the Trib this week had interviewed a teen car jacket and they stated they chose to stop after a few were stopped by CCL holders. He said the risk wasn’t worth it.

 

 

The teen said he has come to realize, though, that the risks outweigh the benefits, citing how in April a retired Chicago cop fatally shot a man trying to carjack him with a pellet gun in the Bridgeport neighborhood.

“That made me think that, what if that was me?” he said.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-met-chicago-violence-carjackings-juveniles-20180611-story.html

That pretty much validates the justification for concealed carry effecting criminals to change or even stop their predatory behavior, I would think. This should be shown to every idiot who blathers, "But criminals will take your gun away and use it on you! People carrying concealed guns won't stop them from doing anything! Only the police can stop criminals! The police are racist thugs who violate civil rights and murder innocent minorities!"

 

Wait, what was that last thing?

 

Oh, that's right, idiotic hypocrisy!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...