Grandpa Arrested for Holding Burglar at Gunpoint

page: 3
21
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 07:22 PM
link   
I am not one to say its okay to shoot somone who running away with your flatscreen under his arm, but if that person was physically threatening him, I hope the law recognizes the need for self defense to prevent bodily harm.




posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 07:26 PM
link   
This is why I don't call the cops anymore. I try and solve things if I can alone, If not I ask a neighbor for help, or a bystander.

No trust anymore in them. How is this sane?

If this happened in my neighborhood, it would read, "burglar found unconscious and naked in the street. Police are asking residents for any possible leads."

edit on 23-2-2012 by casenately because:




posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 07:59 PM
link   
I am seeing more and more stories like this lately coming out of New Hampshire.

I guess their state motto "Live free or die" don't mean squat anymore.

You have no rights in New Hampshire, it's just another eastern liberal state.
edit on 23-2-2012 by mwood because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 08:04 PM
link   
I don't see where grandpa did anything wrong.

In most states anyone has the right to make a citizen's arrest when they see a felony in progress.

In this case a thief claiming out a window would look like a felony to me.

In most cases when making a citizen's arrest you can use justifiable force.and it doers not have to be inside your home.

I did one once when i caught someone in my truck in my yard.

My gun was out of sight till he came out of the truck with a screwdriver(weapon?) in his hand.
I then pulled my gun and held him at gunpoint.

The nice thing about the state i live in and many others you don't need a concealed weapons permit to carry on your own property. you also have the right to make a citizen's arrest.

This give you the right and way to stop them if they become a immanent threat to your life when they can not leave because you have the way out blocked.

the good thing about the US is the cops can arrest you but the DA has to try you and find 12 member of a jury to convict you .

In this case i believe because of the publicy the DA had a good idea that there was no jury that would convict.(jury nullification)
Jury nullification is a constitutional doctrine which allows juries to acquit defendants who are technically guilty, but who don't deserve punishment. It occurs in a trial when a jury reaches a verdict contrary to the judge's instructions as to the law.
en.wikipedia.org...

edit on 23-2-2012 by ANNED because: 439563



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 08:38 PM
link   
I can't say that I disagree with what grandpa did to stop the robber,as someone on page one or so said ,he's a hero. But the fact remains that his actions were not covered by the castle doctrine. If you are the owner of a firearm,especially if your firearm is specifically for the defense of your home, you need to know what your rights are with it. If someone is intruding in your home,your car,sometimes even your place of business,that is considered your castle and you can shoot them "In states that have the castle law".Or in papaws case fire a warning shot.Thing is this doctrine doesn't cover people fleeing from your home,or in your neighbors yard ,or leaving your neighbors place,or in your neighbors house,or whatever else.Only in your castle.He may or may not have known the consequences of discharging a firearm outside like that. If i get busted outside smoking a doobie I can't really get mad when the cops charge me for it. But at least the charges were dropped. Someone buy that dude a beer or or a bag of worthers originals



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 10:40 PM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

I just got through posting about this in the Glendale Police shoot and Kill grandfather with granchild in arms thread.

But here you go:

Brandishing a Weapon
Assault and Aggravated Assault
Assault is defined as the intentional act of threatening to injure a person. Brandishing a weapon falls firmly under the definition of assault. If a firearm or other deadly weapon is used, the charge is elevated to aggravated assault, a felony in Texas. Even if you were acting in self-defense by brandishing a firearm, you could still be at risk of being convicted for aggravated assault.

Pulling a firearm on someone without firing it suggests that the gun was not necessary and that you did not fear for your life, because if you had you would have pulled the trigger. Fighting an aggravated assault charge with the self-defense doctrine can therefore be a difficult argument to make in court.

Also from above link:

The Burden of Proof for Self-Defense
In any criminal case, the prosecution's main goal is to show that a crime was committed. In this instance, the prosecution must simply show that a weapon was brandished, which qualifies as assault. Whenever a defendant chooses to argue self-defense in a case, the burden of proof falls on the defendant, not the prosecution.

This means that the defendant must prove that the need for self-defense justified the commission of assault. If the defendant cannot successfully argue that self-defense was necessary, s/he may be found guilty of assault or aggravated assault.

So if you pull it, you better be able to prove that you needed too, that you were in fear of imminent danger, and you better use it. If you don’t then you are warned that under law you can end up with worse charges then the person who you brandished the weapon at.

Oh, BTW…
The fact that the man was a Grandpa has ZERO bearing on the case, nor what he did. Its simply propaganda to pull at peoples heartstrings to sway public opinion on behalf the supporters of the defendant. I bet that Charles Manson is a “Grandpa” by now too.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.

edit on 2/23/2012 by defcon5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 10:46 PM
link   
the system can't get much out of the dirtbag. only a bit of taxpayer cash for long term, prison etc. Grandpa on the other hand probably has a nice life savings they can dip into.



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 10:56 PM
link   
We all have to be careful. You cant CHASE a flleeing "suspect" off of your personal property...or hold a gun on him (unlawful detention).

In the case of "citizens arrest"....one has to be absolutely positive you have the right person, it was a felony committed in your presence...or a life was in immediate danger.

It seems none of this was true in this case. Actually...the "burgler" has every right to sue him for detaing him (obviosuly, most dont in a case like this).

But? Shoot the guy...and the burgler could have him arrested for attempted murder. Its happened many times before just like that.



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 11:23 PM
link   
dont worry everybody, the drones will be flying around the US shortly to monitor us all "for our own good" of course.



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 11:51 PM
link   
Defcon5 is right about burden of proof. If someone claims self defense in an assault charge or worse, that proactive defense takes on the burden of proof. Normally such a burden would lie with the state, but self defense is not so much a "not guilty" plea as it is a challenge to the application of law. The challenge is predicated on self defense so the burden of proof lies with the court party asserting it.

All of which is moot since the charges were dropped anyway.



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 04:25 AM
link   
My comment comes from the point of view and experience of a former Australian Police Officer. Here in Australia in the Crimes Act is Section 352 1(a) and Section 352 1(b).

These sections explain and give the public the power to make a citizens arrest. You have to keep the witness in eye contact from the moment you catch them in the act and decide to pursue. If they jump a fence and you lose sight of them you have lost the continuity of pursuit.

However if you pull your licensed firearm out (as in America) then I don't see how the older gentleman has committed an offence. He's licensed - no doubt trained in firearm safety and he fired a warning shot into the ground.

If the offender was coming towards him and threatening the old man - perhaps he could have shot him and claimed self defence.

The world and its politics and laws are so screwed up that it is very hard to tell the Police from the crooks!!!!

Much Peace...



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 04:49 PM
link   
I see about 1 story a day about how incompetent the U.S. police force has become AT LEAST 1 story a day. Maybe someone should build a website dedicated to this type of injustice toward citizens.



posted on Jul, 16 2013 @ 08:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cassius666
I am not one to say its okay to shoot somone who running away with your flatscreen under his arm, but if that person was physically threatening him, I hope the law recognizes the need for self defense to prevent bodily harm.


well if your not one to say its ok to shoot someone who is running away with your flatscreen. I will say it. F%^CKEN Thief's Shoot them in the head make sure when they come in to steel your stuff make sure they know the cost is there life maybe then they will quit being a thief if they dont want to end there life for that tv they will leave the tv alone. just got robbed myself I have posted signs. you definitely do not want to walk on my land. dont worry i did take a gun safety course had to for my CCW. so i will hit what i am aiming at.





new topics
top topics
 
21
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join


Haters, Bigots, Partisan Trolls, Propaganda Hacks, Racists, and LOL-tards: Time To Move On.
read more: Community Announcement re: Decorum