82 year old man faces 1st degree murder charges for defending his life and property.

Originally posted by rival

Originally posted by Conclusion
reply to post by mryanbrown

 

So what do you think the founding fathers, or anyone with a gun living back then, would have done if they caught a thief trying to flee their land with something that they stole?

As a member of the Chickasaw Nation, I think I could offer an opposing
viewpoint as to what the Founding Fathers would have done...

I still wish someone would attempt to answer my question...

How much value of stolen property justifies the use of deadly force?
And by that I mean a thief grabbing a thing of value and running off?
At what point of value is it okay to shoot the thief...?

It is an arbitrary number, if you believe (at all) that deadly force is
justified for theft.

That is a very good question.

I would say it would be up to the person whom they stole from.

reply to post by Conclusion


Because the person being stolen from is allowed to be judge jury and executioner. We don't have a legal system in America.

YEE HAH REDNECK QUOTES AND STUFF!

reply to post by DerekJR321


If it was part of his livlihood, then you get insurance on it. If it is that important, you can shell out a couple of bucks to get the insurance. Watch them drive away, call the police, call your insurance agent, get a better trailer.

Costs a whole heck of a lot less then he is going to have to shell out to a lawyer now.

Trailer still isn't worth it.

And thank heavens innocent bystanders didn't get hurt.

reply to post by mryanbrown


You have that right not to shoot someone for stealing your property. Now imagine if someone said,
" Your under arrest for not preventing this thief from stealing by shooting him." Would it be right for someone to infer their beliefs on you like that? I say let the individual decide for themselves.

Originally posted by Conclusion
reply to post by mryanbrown

 

You have that right not to shoot someone for stealing your property. Now imagine if someone said,
" Your under arrest for not preventing this thief from stealing by shooting him." Would it be right for someone to infer their beliefs on you like that? I say let the individual decide for themselves.

You don't have the right to shoot someone for stealing your property either.

And WHAT!? Honestly, WHAT!?

I'm not inferring beliefs upon anyone. I'm inferring LAW upon you. NATURAL LAW, COMMON LAW, LAW OF GOD, LAW OF MAN.

All of which says murder is a crime. Regardless of the situation.

If you're lucky you can convince a jury of 12 peers you acted in SELF DEFENSE and had no other choice.

But obviously he didn't. Soooo sucks to be him.

Originally posted by nixie_nox
reply to post by DerekJR321

 

If it was part of his livlihood, then you get insurance on it. If it is that important, you can shell out a couple of bucks to get the insurance. Watch them drive away, call the police, call your insurance agent, get a better trailer.

Costs a whole heck of a lot less then he is going to have to shell out to a lawyer now.

Trailer still isn't worth it.

And thank heavens innocent bystanders didn't get hurt.

That depends on how much he was paying for insurance, and if he has to sue the insurance company just to be able to collect ( and he would need a lawyer). So he spent all that money and still lost his trailer.

Originally posted by Conclusion
That depends on how much he was paying for insurance, and if he has to sue the insurance company just to be able to collect ( and he would need a lawyer). So he spent all that money and still lost his trailer.

Uhhh, you don't have to sue insurance companies. You make a claim, with a police report as evidence of theft. And they must pay your claim in accordance to the accepted value of the object.

That's what insurance is.

reply to post by mryanbrown


So your saying that in self defense it is okay to kill someone?

2nd line.

Originally posted by Conclusion
reply to post by mryanbrown

 

So your saying that in self defense it is okay to kill someone?

2nd line.

I didn't say that at all.

Murder is murder. I said if you're lucky a jury of your peers will have compassion for you and decide not to convict you.

Originally posted by mryanbrown

Originally posted by Conclusion
That depends on how much he was paying for insurance, and if he has to sue the insurance company just to be able to collect ( and he would need a lawyer). So he spent all that money and still lost his trailer.

Uhhh, you don't have to sue insurance companies. You make a claim, with a police report as evidence of theft. And they must pay your claim in accordance to the accepted value of the object.

That's what insurance is.

You can sue your insurance company on grounds of: * Bad faith and * Breach of contract If your insurer tries to trick you by not paying up a legitimate claim you can put up a civil suit against the company for having acted in bad faith. A company shows bad faith when it unreasonably denies a legitimate claim. This may mean that: * The company has failed to carry out proper investigations * Undue delay in processing a claim * Disregarding the rights of the policyholder * Inadequate compensation provided against claim filed You can sue your insurance company for the full amount of benefits that has been denied to you as well as for any economic loss or emotional distress that you may have had to suffer as a result of the refusal. If your insurance company has been dishonest you may also get punitive damages. This is a means to make the insurance company behave more responsibly in future correspondences. It is good to keep all paper works organized so that you can find them as soon as you need them. You may think of an old receipt as unimportant but it might hold great importance when you have a case standing against your insurer for bad faith or breach of contract.

www.ampminsure.org...


Then why do people sue their insurance companies if you don't have to. lol

Originally posted by mryanbrown

Originally posted by Conclusion
reply to post by mryanbrown

 

So your saying that in self defense it is okay to kill someone?

2nd line.

I didn't say that at all.

Murder is murder. I said if you're lucky a jury of your peers will have compassion for you and decide not to convict you.

Okay then. Would you kill someone if they where trying to kill you?

Originally posted by Conclusion

Originally posted by mryanbrown

Originally posted by Conclusion
That depends on how much he was paying for insurance, and if he has to sue the insurance company just to be able to collect ( and he would need a lawyer). So he spent all that money and still lost his trailer.

Uhhh, you don't have to sue insurance companies. You make a claim, with a police report as evidence of theft. And they must pay your claim in accordance to the accepted value of the object.

That's what insurance is.

You can sue your insurance company on grounds of: * Bad faith and * Breach of contract If your insurer tries to trick you by not paying up a legitimate claim you can put up a civil suit against the company for having acted in bad faith. A company shows bad faith when it unreasonably denies a legitimate claim. This may mean that: * The company has failed to carry out proper investigations * Undue delay in processing a claim * Disregarding the rights of the policyholder * Inadequate compensation provided against claim filed You can sue your insurance company for the full amount of benefits that has been denied to you as well as for any economic loss or emotional distress that you may have had to suffer as a result of the refusal. If your insurance company has been dishonest you may also get punitive damages. This is a means to make the insurance company behave more responsibly in future correspondences. It is good to keep all paper works organized so that you can find them as soon as you need them. You may think of an old receipt as unimportant but it might hold great importance when you have a case standing against your insurer for bad faith or breach of contract.

www.ampminsure.org...


Then why do people sue their insurance companies if you don't have to. lol

Because of circumstantial conditions that are outside the scope of the normal contractual obligations. And they need to argue through law that it is indeed covered.

Does that mean he's going to have to sue? No but it helped your "poor old guy" crusader rhetoric scenario.

reply to post by mryanbrown


Now answer my other question.


Okay then. Would you kill someone if they where trying to kill you?

Originally posted by Conclusion
reply to post by mryanbrown

 

Now answer my other question.


Okay then. Would you kill someone if they where trying to kill you?

What other question?

EDIT: nm

Personally I wouldn't. But that's a choice that's left to every individual to value their life over another's.

And just to point out, your question has no bearing on the topic at hand, as the man was not in any danger whatsoever.

[edit on 10-7-2010 by mryanbrown]

reply to post by mryanbrown


Would you kill someone who was about to kill another individual?

Whether they be adult or child.

reply to post by mryanbrown

And just to point out, your question has no bearing on the topic at hand, as the man was not in any danger whatsoever.

Sure it has bearing. I will get to that later.

reply to post by Conclusion


I wouldn't kill anyone under any circumstance or cause deliberate harm.

Originally posted by mryanbrown
reply to post by Conclusion

 

I wouldn't kill anyone under any circumstance or cause deliberate harm.

Now to the part where this line of questioning has bearing on this thread.

You do not believe in killing anyone for any reason...I am assuming that part.
First off let me just say that I respect you greatly for that.

So now that I think you would not kill anyone for any reason I understand why you are so greatly against this. However, this world as a whole has not evolved to that point.

It would be great for the whole world to be that way. Then we would not need guns. But unfortunately there are a lot of really bad individuals out there who steal, kill, and will harm other people any way they can for any reason they want.

That 82 year old man did nothing to the thieves that stole his trailer, before they stole it. Given his age I am sure he has lived and seen the evils that are in this world. He decided he was not going to put up with those evils. I am sure he felt what he did had to be done, if nothing else just to warn the other criminals that he is not one to take it laying down. If he worked for his life then no one should be able to take any part of his life. I for one am glad that somewhere out there are people like that. People that send a message. People that will try to stop the atrocities happening everywhere. The man doesn't deserve prison. The man deserves a medal.

Originally posted by Conclusion
That 82 year old man did nothing to the thieves that stole his trailer, before they stole it. Given his age I am sure he has lived and seen the evils that are in this world. He decided he was not going to put up with those evils. I am sure he felt what he did had to be done, if nothing else just to warn the other criminals that he is not one to take it laying down. If he worked for his life then no one should be able to take any part of his life. I for one am glad that somewhere out there are people like that. People that send a message. People that will try to stop the atrocities happening everywhere. The man doesn't deserve prison. The man deserves a medal.

I'm sure he felt he did what HE thought had to be done also. This doesn't make it excusable. Especially since his life was not in danger. All it does is make him guilty of a worse crime than theft, with theft as an excuse for his atrocity.

As someone asked, where do you draw the line on what a human life is worth? It's not for you to decide period. The only circumstance in which it is legally acceptable is under threat of life.

reply to post by mryanbrown

I'm sure he felt he did what HE thought had to be done also. This doesn't make it excusable. Especially since his life was not in danger. All it does is make him guilty of a worse crime than theft, with theft as an excuse for his atrocity.

There is where we disagree. If the thieves where not there none of this would have happened. So they are to blame for every circumstance that resulted from their criminal actions. The old man did not ask to be put in the circumstance. The thief got shot because of his actions.