It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: luthier
originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Discotech
So if it's ok to shoot the thief which would likely kill him, why isn't it ok to ram the thief with an SUV when the results and intents are both the same ?
Besides the whole law thing, you mean?
Because chasing after running the thief down after the fact makes it a separate incident. Your proposal he could have shot the guy during the robbery or to prevent the robbery. According to how the law sees it.
Imagine how many people get run over tomorrow for various "crimes" if they don't come out against this?
Theres a drug dealer, wham, a prostitute, my ex, a banker… wham, wham, wham.
(just kidding about my ex, I don't have one of those)
It's actually a state by state law. Some states like stand your ground states you do not have to back down. Ever. This incident certainly pushes that limit though.
originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: EightTF3
Is it acting out of instinct to drive away and then turn around?
It isn't flight and fight, he made a decision to get away, but then changed his mind.
I see it quite differently and find the victim heroic by diffusing the gun toting brazen thief and insuring the safety of the public at large.
I say the thief was a clear, present and imminent danger to the citizenry, in consideration that by the criminal's act of armed robbery and purported attempted murder clearly jeopardizes any citizen that may cross paths with this criminal. Knowledge of the randomness of the perp's criminal acts (plural) and that brandishing and attempted discharging a firearm without provocation by the victim, point blank at his face; a mortal encounter and narrow escape from death, is justifiably more than enough probable cause to warrant lethal force to stop the criminal, lest another or more unsuspecting citizen(s) face potential death at this perp's now one remaining hand.
Jury Trial, if the district attorney actually tries the victim.
originally posted by: SprocketUK
originally posted by: Danowski
originally posted by: SprocketUK
So If I get robbed and someone takes my wallet with 100$ in it, I should be allowed to chase the criminal down and use any force possible?
Is there any humanity left in you people?
The 17 year old committed a crime, should receive a fair trial and face justice.
The SUV driver committed a crime, should receive a fair trial and face justice.
originally posted by: Raxoxane
I'm about to take an afternoon nap+one's mind drifts a bit before falling asleep,so i was thinking of this disarming episode+ then i remembered Nick's granny..just had to share before i forgot.
Nick is a family friend who has an Extremely feisty 94yo granny.
Now in my country;South Africa,by the traffic lights there are always informal vendors trying to sell anything from superglue+belts,to cellphone covers+plush toys,occasionally also stolen goods like jewellery.I mention this for background reference.
So one day,few years ago,this old lady is by a traffic light when a tsotsi approaches to hijack her car,shoving a gun into her car.She,being fairly deaf,assumes he's trying to Sell her a gun.She irritatedly tells him no thank you.But obviously he keeps standing there with the gun practically in her face.
So she gets so annoyed that with her left hand she reaches into her handbag on the passenger seat,pulls out her own gun and just about shoves it into the hijacker's face,while screaming:" See i Told you No Thank You, i HAVE one already,now will you bugger off!?!
Well he turned and hastily left South Africa can be a weird+ wacky place
originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: centarix
This is only wrong, because the world is a stupid place to live.
Try stealing my boots. I am a nice guy, but I would pull a mans arms off and beat him to death with them, if he stuck a gun in my face and stole my boots. It would be nothing to do with the boots though. Fact, if you let a person who is prepared to pull a gun in order to gain footwear, walk away from an incident like this, then you are basically allowing that individual to do something like it, or worse to someone else.
I would rather live with that perpetrators blood on my hands, than feel the weight of the person he kills because I let him live.
originally posted by: centarix
the 17-year-old pulled a gun on the man, took the sneakers and walked off.
Rather than calling the police, Phil took things into his own hands. He did a quick u-turn and ran over the teenager attempting to walk away with the sneakers. The thief's arm was severed in the collision
Is it without our rights to use any force we deem necessary to recover stolen property? It it reasonable to think that in the cited story, that the robber may have gotten away cleanly had he not be DISARMED.