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

[C0untZer0]

People are free to do what they want, but you should at least be educated about the possible consequences before you use a justified use of force in defense of property situation to "project" your moral values.

 

 

Larry Hickey, in gun friendly Arizona thought it was a "good shoot", was arested, spent 71 days in jail, went through two different trials ending in hung juries, was forced to move from his house, etc., before the DA decided it was a good shoot and dismissed the charges.

https://www.armedcitizensnetwork.org/images/stories/Hickey%20Booklet.pdf

Mark Abshire in Oaklahoma thought it was a good shoot. Nonetheless, despite this happening on his own lawn in a fairly gun-friendly state with a "Stand Your Ground" law, he was arrested, went to jail, lost his job and his house, and spent two and a half years in the legal grinder before finally being acquitted.

http://www.newson6.com/Global/story.asp?S=11744698

Harold Fish, also in gun friendly Arizona, convicted and sent to prison. He won his appeal, his conviction was overturned, and a new trial was ordered. The DA chose to dismiss the charges rather than retry Mr. Fish.

http://www.haroldfishdefense.org/

These cases aren't even about stopping a forcible felony or "justified use of force in defense of property"

[chicagoresident]

People are free to do what they want, but you should at least be educated about the possible consequences before you use a justified use of force in defense of property situation to "project" your moral values.

 

These cases aren't even about stopping a forcible felony or "justified use of force in defense of property"

I'm sorry if it sounds like I'm screaming this from my soapbox but a lot of people are missing the point. Let the above sink in.

 

Even laws that seem to say "you can kill in defense of property" are not specifically saying that.

 

They are saying the act of home, car, or personal invasion is enough burden of proof that the perpetrator/s are out to cause you death or bodily injury.

 

The legal precedent has been set in certain states that by busting down your door, jumping in your car, or demanding you hand over your wallet the person is de jure intending to cause you harm as set by prior legal precedent. THEY ARE NOT GIVING YOU A GET OUT OF JAIL FREE CARD TO SHOOT PEOPLE IN EXCLUSIVE DEFENSE OF PROPERTY.

 

In legal proceedings where a precedent has been set the burden of proof would be on the accused attacker to prove that they did not intend to cause you harm. As C0untZer0 posted above sometimes the accused attacker is able to meet that burden of proof which puts you, the shooter in jail.

 

This is not a liberal thing, quite the opposite. Killing someone who did not pose a threat of bodily harm or death is murder. If your own moral code excuses that then you are no better then the criminals and despot governments that you claim to carry a gun in protection against.

 

So yes, it is still illegal to shoot a car thief if they are in some way stealing a car that 100% causes you no risk of death or bodily harm.

 

You can't hunt down that car thief and shoot them long after they stole your car. If you snipe them from your balcony while they are in the act you are going to have a very uphill legal battle that will probably not end well. Not to say people haven't been aquited, but that's the exception, not the rule. And they sure as heck didn't say "I shot him because he was stealing my car. They would've mounted a legal defense saying that they were in some way in danger. As in you better be mistaken that they had a weapon or hope they had a weapon.

[spanishjames]

 

People are free to do what they want, but you should at least be educated about the possible consequences before you use a justified use of force in defense of property situation to "project" your moral values.

 

These cases aren't even about stopping a forcible felony or "justified use of force in defense of property"

I'm sorry if it sounds like I'm screaming this from my soapbox but a lot of people are missing the point. Let the above sink in.

Even laws that seem to say "you can kill in defense of property" are not specifically saying that.

They are saying the act of home, car, or personal invasion is enough burden of proof that the perpetrator/s are out to cause you death or bodily injury.

The legal precedent has been set in certain states that by busting down your door, jumping in your car, or demanding you hand over your wallet the person is de jure intending to cause you harm as set by prior legal precedent. THEY ARE NOT GIVING YOU A GET OUT OF JAIL FREE CARD TO SHOOT PEOPLE IN EXCLUSIVE DEFENSE OF PROPERTY. In legal proceedings where a precedent has been set the burden of proof would be on the accused attacker to prove that they did not intend to cause you harm. As C0untZer0 posted above sometimes the accused attacker is able to meet that burden of proof which puts you, the shooter in jail.

This is not a liberal thing, quite the opposite. Killing someone who did not pose a threat of bodily harm or death is murder. If your own moral code excuses that then you are no better then the criminals and despot governments that you claim to carry a gun in protection against.

So yes, it is still illegal to shoot a car thief if they are in some way stealing a car that 100% causes you no risk of death or bodily harm.

You can't hunt down that car thief and shoot them long after they stole your car. If you snipe them from your balcony while they are in the act you are going to have a very uphill legal battle that will probably not end well. Not to say people haven't been aquited, but that's the exception, not the rule. And they sure as heck didn't say "I shot him because he was stealing my car. They would've mounted a legal defense saying that they were in some way in danger. As in you better be mistaken that they had a weapon or hope they had a weapon.

Just remember that a weapon could be anything used to cause you bodily harm. If some guy rips your wife out from the driver's seat of the car, knocks her to the ground, and in the process of getting away runs her over,the car then becomes the weapon. He doesn't have to have a gun or knife in his hand, so to say he "better have a weapon" isn't true either.

[Warped]

"And unless your a uninsured motorist in the state of Illinois which is also against the law" WRONG: Liability insurance is mandatory but not full coverage or car theft insurance.

 

Well if you cant afford or dont want to pay for full coverage insurance

 

You really dont want to shoot someone and have to pay for a lawyer to defend you for shooting a thief stealing a car unless its a carjacking

 

in your last thread about this you were talking about a theft of a car

 

not a carjacking big difference between the two

[Warped]

"cause I dont know of any civilized country where its legal" How about starting with the Republic of Texas

Your words not mine

> (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)<

 

 

Last time I checked Texas was a state

Your cherry picking an twisting stuff

[chicagoresident]

Just remember that a weapon could be anything used to cause you bodily harm. If some guy rips your wife out from the driver's seat of the car, knocks her to the ground, and in the process of getting away runs her over,the car then becomes the weapon. He doesn't have to have a gun or knife in his hand, so to say he "better have a weapon" isn't true either.

Agreed. A weapon is a vague term and could very easily be a car or an implement being used to break into a car or house. Which is why I'm not saying you can't shoot a car thief. I'm just saying you can't shoot a car thief to defend your car from getting stolen. You can only shoot a car thief if your life is in danger while the car is being stolen.

 

 

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.

 

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.

 

Yes, it's justifiable in 3rd world *holes and in ghetto culture where you can smoke someone for scuffing your Jordan's you worked real hard slinging dope to pay for.

 

In America we are not allowed to murder over property. If that's not your moral standard maybe you should move to Somalia where they are living the Anarchist's dream. I had a 20 minute cab ride with a Somali cab driver that was telling me stories of all the people he ran over trying to steal his car, and if you know Somalia you know he wasn't lying.

 

This Somalian lad is on the lookout for tank jackers to shoot for fun

[Warped]

Liberal posters who disagree with this concept are projecting their moral values on to others

 

smart posters who disagree with this concept are projecting their moral values on to others

 

^^^^^fixed that for ya ^^^^^

[CHICAGO HANDGUN OWNER]

The liberal policies in Chicago of non resistance to criminal thugs have not worked and crime is at an epidemic. I believe in Ted Nugent's philosophy which is to shoot back at the criminals. I believe it is a justifiable killing to shoot back at someone who just robbed you or took your car. Its spineless to let them get away with it. The news outlets don't even report 10 percent of of all the robberies, shootings, and car jacking that occur in Chicago! They would have to have a 24 hour crime channel to cover it. Just listen to the Chicago Police scanner on a weekend night to hear it live. Every 5 minutes shots are fired, numerous robberies, rapes, and car jackings all night long! Check it for free here:

http://chicagoscanner.com

[Sigma]

My insurance company will take care of my car. I would never shoot a thief for any physical item.

But I would hope no one would car jack me with my kids in the car.

[chicagoresident]

The liberal policies in Chicago of non resistance to criminal thugs have not worked and crime is at an epidemic. I believe in Ted Nugent's philosophy which is to shoot back at the criminals. I believe it is a justifiable killing to shoot back at someone who just robbed you or took your car. Its spineless to let them get away with it. The news outlets don't even report 10 percent of of all the robberies, shootings, and car jacking that occur in Chicago! They would have to have a 24 hour crime channel to cover it. Just listen to the Chicago Police scanner on a weekend night to hear it live. Every 5 minutes shots are fired, numerous robberies, rapes, and car jackings all night long! Check it for free here:

http://chicagoscanner.com

Nobodies saying you can't defend yourself. But if someone pick pockets your wallet and is running away you can't shoot them, nor should you be able to.

 

You do realize a lot of shootings aren't people getting robbed? Most of them are people shooting other people because they robbed them, stole drugs, stole money by not paying them back, etc.

 

It's an epidemic because people of your type of morals think it's OK to shoot people over material things. To which friends and family of those murderered see as cold blooded murder and hunt you down and shoot you back. It's a vicious cycle of the same lawlessness you're preaching.

 

What makes you any different? A shiny piece of laminated paper and your white privelage? Please...

 

Conceal carry is not a license to murder, stop making us look bad by perpetuating stereotypes.

[CHICAGO HANDGUN OWNER]

"It's an epidemic because people of your type of morals think it's OK to shoot people over material things. To which friends and family of those murderered see as cold blooded murder and hunt you down and shoot you back. It's a vicious cycle of the same lawlessness you're preaching" Well I believe in equal justice which is sometimes called an eye for an eye. Speaking of which a young thug just punched a 68 year old lady on the L tracks for no reason and she is now blind in that eye! I believe that the punishment for this guy should be to be blinded in one eye. Equal justice for the injury he inflicted.

[CHICAGO HANDGUN OWNER]

Revenge killings are a vicious cycle in Chicago but that is only a portion of all the other crimes of opportunity that are committed in Chicago because liberals are easy targets that don't fight back

[Molly B.]

See, folks, when you take a debate down the path of personal insults, it ruins it for everyone. Topic locked and posts that violate the IllinoisCarry code of conduct have been removed from view.