Please end my FB debate on justified shoot

[Trigger Time]

I don't pull my gun unless I'm ready to use it. I had a criminal running from the cops in my yard that I could have held at gun point but I didn't.instead I called and told the police where to find him. I am a citizen. I'm not a cop and like Kirk Freeman said I am not magically covered by immunity. All it takes is an over eager prosecutor like t.lex once was to prosecute me or you. Don't risk it. Only pull your gun when it is a last resort and must be used. It's not about brovado or being a man. It's about being smart

 

[pack-indy]

^ Bingo.
We had a good discussion in class about asking yourself in different situations "Do I really need to do this?". If the answer is no, it's probably not the best option to use deadly force.

 

[jgressley2003]

I'm a little confused because I only read that he held them at gunpoint, therefore he didn't shoot them. If you disagree with him holding them at gunpoint, then what was he supposed to do? Help them load up the stolen vehicle with more of his stuff? Run them over with his vehicle and claim they were protesters blocking his path of travel? Call the police, wait, and allow these thieves to get more stuff and potentially get away? It's 3 vs 1 and he doesn't know if they have weapons or not so I say he used reasonable force.

 

[Trigger Time]

Call the police. Don't point a gun at anything you aren't willing to destroy. They are criminals, they might have a gun and are certainly willing to kill you to keep from being caught.
So is stuff willing to die for when you aren't even legally allowed to use deadly force to stop it?

 

[hoosierdoc]

I'm a little confused because I only read that he held them at gunpoint, therefore he didn't shoot them. If you disagree with him holding them at gunpoint, then what was he supposed to do? Help them load up the stolen vehicle with more of his stuff? Run them over with his vehicle and claim they were protesters blocking his path of travel? Call the police, wait, and allow these thieves to get more stuff and potentially get away? It's 3 vs 1 and he doesn't know if they have weapons or not so I say he used reasonable force.

The leap is nearly the entire feed is saying " he should have shot them" or "I would have shot them"

i'm trying to stop people from going to prison, they seem like they really want to do something dumb

 

[DeadeyeChrista'sdad]

So, the takeaway is, no. Not a good shoot. In Texas, though? Hail yes!

 

[churchmouse]

Now there are 4 ready to shoot.

 

[GIJEW]

No. If we don't need to shoot beyond a reasonable doubt to save our DNA, then we keep the pistol in the holster.

We don't have badges or salad suits and thus are not dripping with qualified immunity.

Let's not risk projectiles bouncing off metal wheels. Let's not have to have the police check any other box other than victim.

He did mention 'cutting' too--or suppose you walked up to their car while they were going inside to grab more of your stuff, and you have a contact distance shot and can control the bullets trajectory? In any case, IMO using force to disable their vehicle is entirely reasonable. Where's the need for "qualified immunity" to do that?

 

[jbombelli]

I have homeowners insurance. I'll replace my old stuff with new stuff.

 

[The Bubba Effect]

To be honest, I don't much care if it is legal or not. I'm not killing people over my stuff.

I do not want that on my conscience.

That said, if you shoot someone who is stealing your stuff, you want me on your jury.

 

[The Bubba Effect]

Call the police. Don't point a gun at anything you aren't willing to destroy. They are criminals, they might have a gun and are certainly willing to kill you to keep from being caught.
So is stuff willing to die for when you aren't even legally allowed to use deadly force to stop it?

That is a great point, T.

 

[hoosierdoc]

I have homeowners insurance. I'll replace my old stuff with new stuff.

+1

 

[The Bubba Effect]

I have homeowners insurance. I'll replace my old stuff with new stuff.

Agree. If I don't get killed in a shootout over my television, I can be there to see my nieces and nephews grow up.

 

[rugertoter]

I would just sit back a ways, and call the police. Maybe run a video of them in the act.

 

[Libertarian01]

I have homeowners insurance. I'll replace my old stuff with new stuff.

To be honest, I don't much care if it is legal or not. I'm not killing people over my stuff.

I do not want that on my conscience.

That said, if you shoot someone who is stealing your stuff, you want me on your jury.

I agree with this ^^^ almost entirely.

Now, I am not advocating for shooting anyone over "stuff."

However, what if the thief steals something your father gave you right before he died? Dollar wise, it's not worth $20. But for your memories of all the times with your dad? It is priceless.

This idea has always bothered me, as an item can have far more intrinsic value than it does market value.

I have a string of bubble lights for a Christmas tree, original 1920's or 30's. They are one of the few things I got from my grandparents when they died. Dollar wise, they aren't worth much at all, but they are something that can take me back to being a little kid in my grandparents house for Christmas time. Insurance would NEVER be able to replace those and the memories they bring back. Even if I got new bubble lights all they would do is remind me of the pain of the loss of the originals.

This is one of the little oversights I think many of us make when we think of property only in dollar value, that things can be "worth" far more to us than a simple pricetag.

Regards,

Doug

 

[actaeon277]

I would just sit back a ways, and call the police. Maybe run a video of them in the act.

Well, this might make it a self defense.
Bad guys don't usually like that.