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

That is just stupid as heck, I thought Canada's justice system was bad, but holy crap.

A few weeks ago a guy was camping out in his trailer with his kids in his driveway when he heard his van being opened, it was a bunch of Native-Americans (or Canadians I suppose.) breaking in to his van, he went out to try and stop them, and the one kid, who was only 13, stabbed the man 8 times with a 10 inch blade, just barely missing vital organs, and from what I hear, the kid got off with only a bit of community service, how is that for bad justice system?

Originally posted by ThaLoccster
reply to post by Conclusion

 

And he is just as much a criminal for shooting them.

Disagree all you want, the law says you can not kill someone for stealing your trailer. You can't. It's a crime to kill someone for stealing.

So, in the end this man is just as much a criminal as the thieves. And he should be held accountable.

EDIT:

I like how you nitpick your interpretation of law, and say one crime is ok, while another isn't. And that stealing is more of a despised action, than murder.

[edit on 7/8/2010 by ThaLoccster]

If the state you live in supports castle doctrine then you have every right to shoot a thief. Imo this guy had every right to shoot these guys and walk away from it with no charges. Also the police should have charged these guys for theft.

[edit on 9-7-2010 by rival]

reply to post by ThaLoccster


I would of shot the scumbag to if he was stealing my trailer and if some one breaks in ur home u have every right to drop that intruder on the spot period
here in Louisiana we have what is known as the castle law it includes Ur car as its a part of Ur home if some one try's to break into Ur home are Ur car u have the right to shot that intruder period.


I applaud this Gentlemen doing what was right and more homeowners need to start standing up for there rights.

Originally posted by SquirrelNutz

Originally posted by rival

Originally posted by ahmonrarh

Originally posted by woogleuk
reply to post by SquirrelNutz

 

anybody can be rehabilitated, what chance does the dead guy have now?

REALLY?!

That's odd, the guy who robbed me at gunpoint who's now on trial thanks to me, spent time in prison for drug trafficking just prior, hmm....me thinks "prison rehab" fails. oh well, he gets to try again this time.

and to answer the question: reincarnation perhaps.

edit: their status' made them law breakers from the door. them choosing to complicate their situations by doing more illegal activities made them DARWIN nominees.....one already won his award.

the surviving thief needs to be charged with murder instead, evident that he was the driver of the vehicle in commission of a crime at the time his partner was killed, since he dropped off his friend at the hopsital.

i'm sure the dead one didnt drive himself to the hospital.


[edit on 9-7-2010 by ahmonrarh]

Okay, where are YOU going to draw the line??

Is it okay to kill an employee for stealing a pencil?
Is it okay to kill a child for stealing candy?
Is it okay to kill a man for stealing your trash can"
Is it okay to kill a man for stealing food?
Is it okay to kill a man for robbing a bank?
Is it okay to kill a white collar criminal for stealing a pension fund?

Just trying to get you to THINK. Your reaction is emotional...
like the old man's...now he is up for murder.

Honest question though...where is YOUR line?

One last bit...if you believe it is okay to kill a thief in the act, then I say
(and I'm not religious) LET HE WHO HAS NEVER STOLEN CAST THE
FIRST BULLET.....cue the cricket chirping!!




[edit on 9-7-2010 by rival]

How about drawing the line at a felony, Isaac Newton. Or, at the very least, staying off of MY property when you perpetrate a crime.

Don't be obtuse. Stealing a vehicle, and almost running a man over on his own damn property, is not a pencil, or candy, or food or a trash can - use your damn head.

[Yes, robbing a bank is an 'active' crime - shoot the #er to stop him - damn right.
No, stealing a pension fund is a 'passive' crime - probably over by the time you find out about it so even though as bad as a bank robbery, reactionary/protection shooting turns into pre-meditated]

Do you actually think about your diatribes before you type them, or just spout any bullsh|t that sounds like it supports your side of the argument, and try to beat people into submission with syntax?

Goodbye, now.

[edit on 7/9/2010 by SquirrelNutz]

To read between the personal attacks I believe you are drawing your line
at "Active crime of felony theft from domiciled property" before lethal
force is to be used.

Laws vary from state to state in description of what constitutes felony
theft, but generally this is considered theft above $1,500.00.
Your line is not an unreasonable one considering that Texas has a law in place quite similar to those parameters.

My line is this: Lethal force is authorized in protection of person or property
where the reasonable threat of violence or harm can be assumed.
So actually we are quite similar in that regard.

In this instance attention to detail is the main cause of controversy.
It has been established (so far) from the arrest affidavit that the old man
was not in harm's way as the truck was leaving his property.

If it comes to light that he was indeed in harm's way, then I believe
use of lethal force is justified...even if he purposefully PLACED himself
in harm's way between the truck and the truck's point of exit.

But if he stood on the back porch, with no reasonable expectation of the
threat of harm, and fired, then this is murder, IMO.

My unthoughtful, obtuse, bull***t, diatribe above was actually was actually
an invitation for YOU to think. To pause, take a deep breath, and not
allow your emotions to cloud your judgment.

Because what this argument boils down to is what amount of theft of
property, and under what circumstances, shall the use of lethal force
be lawfully justified.

Consider these two extreme examples:

1. Bernard Madoff stole in excess of $30,000,000,000.00 from investors.
This theft could reasonably be shown to have caused great harm to some
investors, especially those in retirement who lost all their assets. In some
instances it could be reasonably assumed that some investors as a
result of this theft have suffered the loss of their primary domiciles, and/or
the ability to pay for health care or food. These investors have no recourse
for compensation...no insurance to cover their loss.

2. The "Gentleman Bank-Robber' enters a bank, un-armed, and utilizing
a note steals less than $100,000.00 from the property. In this instance
insurance covers the loss to the banking entity, lessening the harm
to this institution considerably.

In instance 1., even in consideration of the HUGE difference in the actual
amount of theft, Bernie Madoff was never in danger of the use of justifiable
lethal force.

In instance 2., the "Gentleman Bank-Robber" could justifiably be shot on-the-spot, because his crime was active and the potential threat
of harm could be reasonably established.

It is at the immediacy of the potential loss of life where lethal force is
justified. In this instance that has not been established.

...okay flame on...

reply to post by ThaLoccster


Thank you for the level-headed response.

I'm new to ATS, but in the few weeks I've been here I'm surprised by the amount of angry, emotionally-driven responses I've seen. This, like many of the "shocking" news clips I've seen posted recently, is pretty clear cut. It is not okay to shoot people for stealing. Life is more important than your stuff. Even a criminal's life.

I get that times are tough right now (for some) and there is a lot of free-floating anger and anxiety. But let's keep a level head about things. That's the way problems are solved.

As I see it it is either this. The thieves just decided to steal the trailer for fun, which is completely dumb. Anyone with common sense could see that, although if uve ever had that adrenaline rush from bein in trouble u could probobly understand a bit. Or the thieves themselves could have been in a situation themselves. Considering the fact that there illegal, they probobly were bum poor or something. People need shelter, clothes, and food to survive right, just sayin. Although then ud have to wonder why the hell would they steal a trailer instead of gettin a job or not bein illegal and comin here legally in the first place?

reply to post by Blender Ace


A lot of humanity are weak minded and break down easily, just my opinion. The best way to do solve problems is to be temporarily unemotional and indifferent and look at the problem from all sides and angles.

reply to post by mryanbrown

If they hadn't had committed theft, of course they wouldn't be in the situation. That doesn't make the old mans actions correct or noble with the best intentions.

What?! He was just protecting his freedom to be able to own something. You know like our forefathers. The one's you dared me not to speak of. LOL

I would guarantee you our forefathers would have shot them. As far as I am concerned to take the side of the thieves in this matter is thievery in itself. What a dark day in America when the one's who steal from you are better thought of.

Originally posted by Conclusion
reply to post by mryanbrown

 

If they hadn't had committed theft, of course they wouldn't be in the situation. That doesn't make the old mans actions correct or noble with the best intentions.

What?! He was just protecting his freedom to be able to own something. You know like our forefathers. The one's you dared me not to speak of. LOL

The ones I also said didn't fight for materialistic possessions yet you keep trying to link it to that. That one? I'm saying it again.

Stop discrediting the mentality of the revolution with your petty materialistic mindset.

EDIT: To add, no one is taking the side of the thieves. You're putting words in our mouth because we disagree with you, and you think skewing the situation aids your ignorant replies.

We are saying BOTH PARTIES were in the wrong. And if you're too thick to understand that, I'm sorry.

[edit on 9-7-2010 by mryanbrown]

A man works for a living, and buys something with the product of his toil. You take that product he sweat for. You have deprived him of part of his life. You deprive a man of that, you enter into a state of war with him. Prepare yourself for a fight to the death. What's so hard to understand? Hands off what doesn't belong to you.

Originally posted by Conclusion
What?! He was just protecting his freedom to be able to own something.

Well said. No one should question the taking of life to defend a freedom as basic as property ownership. No common sense anymore ..

reply to post by sizzlean


Have you ever stolen anything?

Originally posted by EnkiCarbone
reply to post by Survivorman

 

In this regard, if you come home and someone is assaulting one of your family members, you'd better just call the police and wait patiently for them to arrive and make the best of it. Why not offer the intruder some coffee while you wait?

Because your lame ars should be busy thinking about getting your 'family member' out of harms way and into the safety of your home where you have a more protected and familiar enviornment from which to operate.

Originally posted by Guidance.Is.Internal
A man works for a living, and buys something with the product of his toil. You take that product he sweat for. You have deprived him of part of his life. You deprive a man of that, you enter into a state of war with him. Prepare yourself for a fight to the death. What's so hard to understand? Hands off what doesn't belong to you.

Where do personally draw the line?

If the product of the toil referred to above is is of minimal value what them?
I'm not trying to argue, I am trying to ascertain at what point those
of you who believe it is justifiable to defend property with deadly force.

I tried to create a post with examples earlier and was insulted. But I'll try
again, with better examples, I hope.

In the below set of examples imagine that you possess an object of value.
This object is on your property and a thief is caught in the act stealing
said object and is fleeing the scene....In your opinion att what point of
value do you believe the use of deadly force is justified?


Theft of one cent of value
Theft of one dollar of value
Theft of ten dollars of value
Theft of 50 dollars of value
Theft of 100 dollars of value
Theft of 500 dollars of value
Theft of 1 thousand
Theft of 5 thousand
Theft of 10 thousand
Theft of fifty thousand
above 50 thousand?

This is an honest question?

The reason I ask is because I believe that no one here would condone the
use of deadly force for theft of less than a dollar of value.
(at least I hope not)

But somewhere between a dollar of value and a 1,500.00 trailer the
sentiment changes.

If you were going to create a law where do you draw the line...?

Originally posted by brutalsun

Originally posted by Noromyxo
reply to post by Survivorman

 

Unbelievable !
Where did this happen ?
Here in Texas, he would be no-billed by a Grand Jury in a flash !
Remember Joe Horn ? He's the one who killed two burglars robbing his
neighbor's house in Baytown, TX. GJ No-billed him.
The burglars were illegal aliens (Surprise)
A lot of people wanted Mr. Horn crucified, but justice prevailed.

We have the castle doctrine. It extends to the boundaries of your property. I agree with Joe Horn solely on the fact that someone was stealing from his neighbor... unfortunately it wasn't his property and he put himself in danger on that one. He got off lucky.
Had the guy in the OP been in Texas, this would have been a non-issue other than lulac and la-raza being pissed off that some racist tried to kill some poor immigrants...

(sarcasm)

[edit on 9-7-2010 by brutalsun]

I suppose my issue with this 'Texan' law is that if I shoot a thief dead on 'my' property, How do I prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the 'thief' was actually attempting to steal something? I couldnt.

This sort of law sucks to me because it assumes that every gun owner in the great state of Texas is competent, in body and mind. Im sorry but even in Texas I just dont think thats the case. Seems as I remember a certain compound...something about incindiary(spelling) tear gas....any way.

The obsessional focus on inane details and arguments about such detracts from the overall issue of cops attacking someone who was defending themselves, on their own property, against aggression by non cop thugs.
The issue is the cops and their knee jerk response that violated a man's constitutional property and self protection rights.

Engage in all the mental masturbation talk you want about obsessive compulsive semantic issues but at the end of the day, anyone with a brain and balls will admit that this is yet another example that the cops have become the enemy of the people of america. Arguments otherwise are from cop suck up pussies or paid cop shills whose job is to support the cops and their false image of community protectors on internet blogs.
Time to stop.

Originally posted by Survivorman
To everyone saying that this man had no right to shoot people that were just stealing his trailer, please read the article!

This man did everything right....

1) He went outside and confronted them. He asked them to stop.
2) They did not stop, and infact continued to steal his property.
3) They then tried to RUN HIM OVER with their truck.

....The thieves tried to run him over with their truck. The THIEVES tried to RUN HIM OVER with their TRUCK!

If someone tries to run me down with a vehicle, I sure as hell will think my life is in danger and use any means necessary to save it.

How can anyone think that trying to run someone down with a vehicle is not a direct attack on their life????

As for calling the cops...good luck with that one. By the times the cops would have gotten there, that trailer would have been long gone, probably in some garage, getting cut up, or repainted, and stripped of all serial numbers.

Oh and let's not forget that the Supreme Court ruled a few years back that the Police DO NOT have a Constitutional duty to protect you.

The article states the old man told reporters "...they almost ran me over."
But this is NOT in the arrest affidavit. In the arrest affidavit, at first,
the old man lied about walking outside with a gun. It does not state
that he was danger. It states that as he was firing his weapon
one of the thieves was running towards the passenger side of the truck,
and also states that a bullet hole was found in the side of the truck.

If the scenario involves the old man nearly being run down by the
thieves then I agree with you the old man is justified in killing the
thieves...but since it appears he was not in danger, do you still believe
he is justified...I mean if he was standing beside the truck, yelling halt,
and out of danger...is it still justified to kill to protect a trailer?

[edit on 9-7-2010 by rival]

Originally posted by doctorwork
The obsessional focus on inane details and arguments about such detracts from the overall issue of cops attacking someone who was defending themselves, on their own property, against aggression by non cop thugs.
The issue is the cops and their knee jerk response that violated a man's constitutional property and self protection rights.

Engage in all the mental masturbation talk you want about obsessive compulsive semantic issues but at the end of the day, anyone with a brain and balls will admit that this is yet another example that the cops have become the enemy of the people of america. Arguments otherwise are from cop suck up pussies or paid cop shills whose job is to support the cops and their false image of community protectors on internet blogs.
Time to stop.

Im just quoting this to see if it gets deleted as I would like to see,