SUV owner shoots couple trying to steal SUV, survivor charged with murder

[xcellerate]

exactly, while it's technically the same, let's compare:

What happens to the item of theft?
Downloading music - it gets duplicated and both parties have a copy
Stealing a car - It gets moved from one party to the other

Any damages?
Downloading music - Nope...maybe wear on the hard drive?
Stealing a car - Probably had to break into the garage, then into the car

Cost?
Downloading music - A few cents for electricity and internet, the band probably lost $3.
Stealing a car - The rightful owner just lost the price he paid for the vehicle, probably tens of thousands of dollars

Aftermath?
Downloading music - I'm sure the band cries themselves to sleep over their lost $3
Stealing a car - The owner has to deal with police, the insurance company, he can't drive anywhere until he buys a new vehicle

 

[No Limit]

Considering I have about 4,000 songs let's say the record company loses 50 cents for each song. That's $2,000. A felony theft starts at anything that is over $250. Not to mention that because most of these songs I downloaded using bittorrent so I also distributed thousands of copies of this music to others. If the FBI found out that's up to a $250,000 fine.

So not only am I breaking the law as a group people like me are bringing the recording industry to its knees. It sure as hell costs them a lot more than $3.

If I steal a car as long as the owner had insurance they have very little to worry about.

 

[Absinthe]

life worth less than inanimate objects? only in america ...no really, canadian law strictly fobids killing someone over property

It says that he fired the shots because he feared for his life, not because his vehicle was being jacked.

Emotions run high during robberies and civilians aren't going to be thinking "OH I'LL JUST INCAPACITATE HIS FOOT" when they happen. Thieves should be aware of this, and if they get shot or killed in the process, I don't see where the foul is. I'm not saying he deserved to die, but we are a society that highly values and defends our home property. When you tread on that you should know better.

Having him charged with murder is nevertheless retarded.

 

[xcellerate]

So not only am I breaking the law as a group people like me are bringing the recording industry to its knees. It sure as hell costs them a lot more than $3.

One guy stole one car, so a fair comparison is one person stealing one album.

If I steal a car as long as the owner had insurance they have very little to worry about.

...except cars depreciate in value. I didn't see any year on his land cruiser or if he bought it new or used, but whatever he paid/is paying for it is MORE than what insurance is going to give him. And then since he actually made the claim, his rates will go up. So yea, he still has stuff to worry about because he just lost a few thousand dollars.

 

[CptStern]

It says that he fired the shots because he feared for his life, not because his vehicle was being jacked.

his car wasnt jacked. that implies something altogether different. his car was being stolen from his barn. he walked out of his house to confront the burglars with his gun. he put himself in that postion. he could have easily watched it drive away and then dialed his insurance comapny and await the delivery of a spanking new car.

Emotions run high during robberies and civilians aren't going to be thinking "OH I'LL JUST INCAPACITATE HIS FOOT" when they happen. Thieves should be aware of this, and if they get shot or killed in the process, I don't see where the foul is. I'm not saying he deserved to die, but we are a society that highly values and defends our property, and the thief should have known better.

who didnt deserved to die? the guy driving wasnt hit. his female passanger was. she could have easily been coerced into this, she could have had no part in this whatsoever besides unwilling bystander and even if she did she didnt deserve to die over a stupid hunk of metal that will be exactly that in a few years when it no longer serves it's purpose; it's net value will be zero. Yet again access to firearms faciliated her death. if he were unarmed he probably wouldnt have confronted the thieves. once he produced the handgun he sealed their fates ..in any other situation where the victem was unarmed the outcome would have been remarkably different

Having him charged with murder is nevertheless retarded.

agreed, this was the point of the thread

 

[Absinthe]

his car wasnt jacked. that implies something altogether different. his car was being stolen from his barn. he walked out of his house to confront the burglars with his gun. he put himself in that postion. he could have easily watched it drive away and then dialed his insurance comapny and await the delivery of a spanking new car.

Jacked, stolen, whatever. It really doesn't matter. The thieves came onto another man's property to steal his shit. He could have stayed inside and phoned in the robbery, but he was within every right to go out and confront them. Regardless of whether or not he put himself in the position, they were the trespassers and they're subject to whatever consequences arise from what he does on his own land.

who didnt deserved to die?

Slip of of the text. whups

the guy driving wasnt hit. his female passanger was. she could have easily been coerced into this, she could have had no part in this whatsoever besides unwilling bystander and even if she did she didnt deserve to die over a stupid hunk of metal that will be exactly that in a few years when it no longer serves it's purpose; it's net value will be zero. Yet again access to firearms faciliated her death. if he were unarmed he probably wouldnt have confronted the thieves. once he produced the handgun he sealed their fates ..in any other situation where the victem was unarmed the outcome would have been remarkably different

I'm not sure where exactly I stand on the issue of gun control these days, but if she was indeed an innocent bystander who got coerced into the vehicle, then surely your outrage would be more wisely directed at the perpetrator who exposed her to that entire situation in the first place.

You say there would have been no deaths if there wasn't a gun present.
I say there would have been no deaths if the vehicle wasn't being stolen to begin with.

 

[xcellerate]

Jacked, stolen, whatever. It really doesn't matter. The thieves came onto another man's property to steal his shit. He could have stayed inside and phoned in the robbery, but he was within every right to go out and confront them. Regardless of whether or not he put himself in the position, they were the trespassers and they're subject to whatever consequences arise from what he does on his own land.

Actually you're only allowed to defend yourself like he did if you're life is in danger. If somebody breaks into your house you can shoot them dead, but if they sneak in and then you see them running across front lawn with your TV, because you aren't in any danger, you can't legally shoot them. At least that's how Alabama law is...

I asked a local cop that TV question, and (half jokingly) he said he'd shoot them, drag them back into his house, then clean up the blood trail.

 

[Absinthe]

He is protected by this "no retreat" law. Now maybe that law overall is stupid, but the report states the vehicle was coming towards him and he felt he was in danger.

 

[xcellerate]

I guess the problem is that he made the situation dangerous, because it wasn't until he decided to run out in front of the vehicle. Where as when somebody breaks down your front door the situation has been made dangerous by no fault of your own.

 

[Farrowlesparrow]

You say there would have been no deaths if there wasn't a gun present.
I say there would have been no deaths if the vehicle wasn't being stolen to begin with.

I think that this is a good point.

Personally I think that shooting people for stealing your car is excessive, but it was the thieves who created this particular situation. They put that man into that position. For right or wrong, they faced the consequences of their actions. (This is unrelated to the murder charge. Of course we all agree on that part being nonsense)

As for the shooter making the situation more dangerous. I don't know about you lot, but if I saw someone stealing my car, my first reaction would probably be the run outside and see what the hell was going on. I've not trained myself to run to the phone when Bad Things happen. When I lived in England, my first reaction when Bad Men were around was always to grab one of the bats or bars lying around in my room.

It's probably wrong to do that, but it's just my nature. And I don't think that individuals should, essentially, stand by and let a crime happen when they have the power to stop it.

 

[gFrohman]

Yes, shooting the thieves may have been excessive, but then again, you should be able to defend yourself; the thieves shouldn't have been greedy in the first place.

 

[CptStern]

He is protected by this "no retreat" law. Now maybe that law overall is stupid, but the report states the vehicle was coming towards him and he felt he was in danger.

no, he said that he thought she was reaching for a gun

Jacked, stolen, whatever. It really doesn't matter.

but it does. jacked implies the victem was physically confronted by the thieves, threatened and probably assualted while stealing his vehicle. this wasnt the case. in fact the circumstances warrented the law to be specific that he was in the right (specific to that state's "no retreat"" law. in another state or perhaps even in canada he might have been charged with murder for shooting the unarmed passager of the car ..this was my point)

The thieves came onto another man's property to steal his shit. He could have stayed inside and phoned in the robbery, but he was within every right to go out and confront them.

only because the law doesnt have a provision for instigating. which is what he was doing when he walked out with his gun.

Regardless of whether or not he put himself in the position, they were the trespassers and they're subject to whatever consequences arise from what he does on his own land.

that's not true. in fact he cant shoot a person unless his life is threatened. that's what No Retreat is

You say there would have been no deaths if there wasn't a gun present.
I say there would have been no deaths if the vehicle wasn't being stolen to begin with

and I would agree with this however that doesnt absolve the fact that the precesence of the gun facilitated her death.

 

[Absinthe]

no, he said that he thought she was reaching for a gun

According to the affidavit, Jones heard his Toyota Land Cruiser, parked in the barn at his orange grove, start up before daylight Tuesday. Jones told police he grabbed his gun, a 9mm that he keeps with him while working at the grove. He said he could see two people in the SUV as it backed out of the barn, according to the affidavit. He said he saw the passenger's arm reach outside the vehicle, and believed that person might be holding a gun.

The Land Cruiser stopped directly in front of him, Jones said in the affidavit. He said he raised his gun and pointed it at the occupants, shouting "Stop," but the vehicle appeared to be moving directly toward him.

And when I said "jacked", I was using the term as a colloquialism for theft in general.

When you go onto somebody else's property and attempt to steal their vehicle, you are the instigator. That is always potentially dangerous. Now it is true that this could have ended without violence if the man simply stayed inside and had the authorities deal with it, but we nonetheless have the right to protect our property, and so he went out. You can argue that this is what escalated the situation and lead to the passenger's death, but I don't think that matters. His land, his car, his choice. It doesn't need to be a brilliant decision for him to be entitled to it.

We can assume that shots were fired in the heat of the moment, ie. when he felt his life was threatened. If the passenger had been pulled out and curbstomped, this would be a different story. All in all, I don't think this a strong example of gun ownership gone awry.

 

[xcellerate]

No retreat:

It is a well-established rule that in order to justify or excuse a homicide on the ground of self defense, the slayer must have employed all means in his power, consistent with his own safety, to avoid danger and avert the necessity of taking another's life in order to protect himself." AmJur Homicide, Section 161.

But florida has passed this law:

The new Florida Shoot First law eliminates the duty to retreat and allows a person not engaged in unlawful activity who is attacked in a public place to "stand his or her ground" and use deadly force if "he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or to another person or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony."

 

[CptStern]

And when I said "jacked", I was using the term as a colloquialism for theft in general.

ok I just wanted to be clear on this point

also from your quote from the article:

He said he saw the passenger's arm reach outside the vehicle, and believed that person might be holding a gun.

that's what's reported in the police report: he feared for his life because he thought she reached for a gun. moving towards him, after being in a complete stop suggests he wasnt in danger of being run over and if he were why would he shoot the passenger 8 times?

he said "I thought she had a gun" .. I "thought" . he speculated as to whether his life was in danger when it wasnt, not at that moment (no gun) ...so again my point still stands: the gun facilitated her death

When you go onto somebody else's property and attempt to steal their vehicle, you are the instigator. That is always potentially dangerous. Now it is true that this could have ended without violence if the man simply stayed inside and had the authorities deal with it, but we nonetheless have the right to protect our property, and so he went out. You can argue that this is what escalated the situation and lead to the passenger's death, but I don't think that matters. His land, his car, his choice. It doesn't need to be a brilliant decision for him to be entitled to it.

agreed, however I made it clear that if it happened outside of the US, he'd be facing criminals charges. YOU have a right to defend your property (to a limit, defined by the law) but that isnt the case for most of the civilised world

We can assume that shots were fired in the heat of the moment, ie. when he felt his life was threatened. If the passenger had been pulled out and curbstomped, this would be a different story. All in all, I don't think this a strong example of gun ownership gone awry.

I never said it was ..gun ownership in itself is wrong because you allow untrained people deciding the fate of other people. all you really have to do to get away with it is say "hey I thought he had a gun" which is usually a get out of jail free card because the people who enforce those laws, the ones who write up the laws are expressely aware of the mountain of litigation and outrage they'd get from those who support the bastardisation of the second amendment to the constitution.

 

[xcellerate]

I never said it was ..gun ownership in itself is wrong because you allow untrained people deciding the fate of other people.

I think what you mean to say is, "people who use guns illegally are wrong..."