Gun Control & RKBA

Reasonable_Argument

(881 posts)

15. Look

Tue Aug 14, 2012, 04:11 PM

Aug 2012

I'll be honest, this shooting seems a little "loose" to me. I don't exactly have a lot of sympathy for the burgler either to be honest. I'm just pointing out the law. Now is it ever justified to use deadly force to to protect propery? That could be an interesting discussion.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

71 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Burglar shot and killed while escaping ruled justifiable. [View all] GreenStormCloud Aug 2012 OP

I agree with you completely. Shooting someone at 120+ feet over belts and buckles is offensive to Hoyt Aug 2012 #1

Please document Reasonable_Argument Aug 2012 #3

Comments and posts made here by so-called law-abiding gun owners. Do you have something to Hoyt Aug 2012 #8

I've taken Reasonable_Argument Aug 2012 #17

Your esteemed instructors don't spend a lot of time going over SYG and other laws to help you decide Hoyt Aug 2012 #20

So then... Reasonable_Argument Aug 2012 #23

He's an ex-robber. Of course he doesn't feel it's ever right. X_Digger Aug 2012 #40

Having taken a class from Ayoob, ManiacJoe Aug 2012 #30

As an instructor, I can tell you know not of what you speak. SYG AND Castle Doctrine rDigital Aug 2012 #31

You're showing your usual ignorance and Lurks Often Aug 2012 #61

More unsubstantiated BS from you ProgressiveProfessor Aug 2012 #9

Sure they do, and the attendees eat it up. Look at the course descriptions and tell me they do Hoyt Aug 2012 #21

You don't know wtf you're talking about nt Reasonable_Argument Aug 2012 #22

Post removed Post removed Aug 2012 #25

Have you ever attented a class on concealed carry? spin Aug 2012 #33

My give a shit meter seems to be broken Travis_0004 Aug 2012 #29

+ abunch HALO141 Aug 2012 #53

If there was even the slightest Jenoch Aug 2012 #41

Wow, for once i agree with Hoyt... TPaine7 Aug 2012 #43

Don't you have a conflict of interest here? 4th law of robotics Aug 2012 #46

Armed robber is what he posted. Not quite the same. GreenStormCloud Aug 2012 #49

I have used the terms interchangeably 4th law of robotics Aug 2012 #67

"My guess" rl6214 Aug 2012 #65

In cases of self defense, I can be skeptical. However Gman Aug 2012 #2

Shooting them in back fleeing at 30+ yards is OK with you? I guess greedy corporation, polluters, Hoyt Aug 2012 #11

how is this different than gejohnston Aug 2012 #16

Post removed Post removed Aug 2012 #18

It's my policy not to alert HALO141 Aug 2012 #24

Holy cow. Hoyt had a post hidden. I thought he was covered in more teflon than Gotti n/t shadowrider Aug 2012 #68

Huh! HALO141 Aug 2012 #69

Don't know, but the fact 2 people voted to leave it is very telling n/t shadowrider Aug 2012 #70

If you think it's OK to shoot people in the back over stuff, you've passed any liberal limits Starboard Tack Aug 2012 #26

Maybe the person couldn't "chase him down" or Missycim Aug 2012 #37

Thanks for making it clear the value you place on human life. Starboard Tack Aug 2012 #44

When you steal my stuff you are stealing more then things Missycim Aug 2012 #47

I'll take a thief over a killer, any day. Starboard Tack Aug 2012 #52

I do, thanks very much :) Missycim Aug 2012 #54

It isn't about "stuff." Kezzy604 Aug 2012 #56

I agree. Still doesn't excuse killing. Starboard Tack Aug 2012 #59

But if you kill him rrneck Aug 2012 #60

Well he was the one to gamble that Missycim Aug 2012 #62

Do you kill people who cut you off in traffic? rrneck Aug 2012 #63

+1 Sick of the GOP Aug 2012 #66

shooting someone in the back who is no threat to you gejohnston Aug 2012 #42

Right on! Starboard Tack Aug 2012 #45

Doing what you need to do to keep someone from stealing your stuff Gman Aug 2012 #48

Shooting someone in the back who is running away and presents no threat Starboard Tack Aug 2012 #50

Shoot to wound Politicalboi Aug 2012 #51

I've in Texas Gman Aug 2012 #55

exercising his 2A rights. He IS in the militia, correct? nt msongs Aug 2012 #4

The jury was wrong. No threat-No shoot. nt rrneck Aug 2012 #5

We can discuss Reasonable_Argument Aug 2012 #7

NRA backed -- and paid for -- law. Hoyt Aug 2012 #12

Look Reasonable_Argument Aug 2012 #15

Yes, it was legal. But it wasn't right. rrneck Aug 2012 #14

While it may be legal, it certainly is questionable in my opinion. ProgressiveProfessor Aug 2012 #6

Breaking that sentence down to its core, it says "Burglar ruled justifiable." slackmaster Aug 2012 #10

They said that about lynching back in the 40s/50s where I live too. Hoyt Aug 2012 #13

In the 1940s and 50s no newspaper editor would allow such garbage to be printed slackmaster Aug 2012 #19

Yeah, my grammar was rather poor with that sentence. N/T GreenStormCloud Aug 2012 #35

Good post GSC. 5 in the back is murder in anyone's book Starboard Tack Aug 2012 #27

I think the DA may have been bound by the jury's decision. N/T GreenStormCloud Aug 2012 #36

Nagle and Walla Walla should be embarrassed to COLGATE4 Aug 2012 #28

The moral of the story rDigital Aug 2012 #32

+1000 (n/t) spin Aug 2012 #34

I'm all for the use of deadly force to defend property. Atypical Liberal Aug 2012 #38

I would not try to read that much into this decision. ManiacJoe Aug 2012 #39

legally justifiable is not necessarily the morally right thing to do. Tuesday Afternoon Aug 2012 #57

Congratulations: You just won the thread! : ) +3 Points nt rDigital Aug 2012 #58

I agree with you here, should have just called the cops and dealt with it that way rl6214 Aug 2012 #64

The moral of the story? Don't be a criminal, it's hazardous to your health. nt rDigital Aug 2012 #71