Auburn, WA - Man who tried to steal running car shot by homeowner

[American123]

You might wanna spend less time making unfounded assumptions about people and more time studying the laws of the state you reside in? It's pretty clear which circumstances permit for use of force generally and which circumstances permit use of deadly force in the state of Oregon.

https://www.oregonfirearms.org/use-of-force-rules

Adios.

That's all irrelevant to your stuff being replaceable.

You stated your thoughts on defending personal property, I asked you to share your address. I promise that while I am loading up 100% of your personal belongings I won't present any danger to you whatsoever, therefore you'll have no justification for shooting me. You'll get to live out your virtue, I'll get your replaceable stuff.

Seems like a win-win.

 

[The Heretic]

You might wanna spend less time making unfounded assumptions about people and more time studying the laws of the state you reside in? It's pretty clear which circumstances permit for use of force generally and which circumstances permit use of deadly force in the state of Oregon.

https://www.oregonfirearms.org/use-of-force-rules

Adios.

The point, albeit made sarcastically, was that it isn't a victimless crime. As I and others have pointed out, there is a lot more to theft of property than just losing the property and replacing it - especially for people who can't afford to replace it.

There is also the morals vs. the legal aspects. We are all pretty clear on the legalities.

 

[Mr J]

That's all irrelevant to your stuff being replaceable.

You stated your thoughts on defending personal property, I asked you to share your address. I promise that while I am loading up 100% of your personal belongings I won't present any danger to you whatsoever, therefore you'll have no justification for shooting me. You'll get to live out your virtue, I'll get your replaceable stuff.

Seems like a win-win.

Limiting the application of deadly physical force does not prevent the application of physical force generally. This is self evident. It's also clearly spelled out within the relevant statutes. Either you're being intentionally obtuse or I'm overestimating your level of reading comprehension. Either option makes fruitful dialogue a little too challenging for my tastes.

I've applied various degrees of force in multiple situations throughout my life experience. Fortunately for me, situations necessitating the threat or use of deadly force by me have been rare. On the other hand situations requiring general use of force have been all too common.

There are many options one can use in a situation prior to deadly force becoming necessary. The key word here is necessary. There's also the old adage; "if the only tool you have is a hammer, then everything starts to look like a nail".

Maybe ruminate on that a bit?

I'll leave you the last word for your own edification.

I won't be back.

This does not appear to be a community that I wish to associate with or promote in any way.

 

[Flopsweat]

Limiting the application of deadly physical force does not prevent the application of physical force generally. This is self evident. It's also clearly spelled out within the relevant statutes. Either you're being intentionally obtuse or I'm overestimating your level of reading comprehension. Either option makes fruitful dialogue a little too challenging for my tastes.

I've applied various degrees of force in multiple situations throughout my life experience. Fortunately for me, situations necessitating the threat or use of deadly force by me have been rare. On the other hand situations requiring general use of force have been all too common.

There are many options one can use in a situation prior to deadly force becoming necessary. The key word here is necessary. There's also the old adage; "if the only tool you have is a hammer, then everything starts to look like a nail".

Maybe ruminate on that a bit?

I'll leave you the last word for your own edification.

I won't be back.

This does not appear to be a community that I wish to associate with or promote in any way.

Thanks for confirming your true character with your parting shot.

 

[Knobgoblin]

 

[American123]

Limiting the application of deadly physical force does not prevent the application of physical force generally. This is self evident. It's also clearly spelled out within the relevant statutes. Either you're being intentionally obtuse or I'm overestimating your level of reading comprehension. Either option makes fruitful dialogue a little too challenging for my tastes.

I've applied various degrees of force in multiple situations throughout my life experience. Fortunately for me, situations necessitating the threat or use of deadly force by me have been rare. On the other hand situations requiring general use of force have been all too common.

There are many options one can use in a situation prior to deadly force becoming necessary. The key word here is necessary. There's also the old adage; "if the only tool you have is a hammer, then everything starts to look like a nail".

Maybe ruminate on that a bit?

I'll leave you the last word for your own edification.

I won't be back.

This does not appear to be a community that I wish to associate with or promote in any way.

Still waiting for that address… you could help out by putting your things in boxes for me and make the loading process easier.

We either have private/personal property rights or we don't - your putting the fault of a thief being shot on the owner of the property, I'm putting it on the thief who makes the choice to steal. By decriminalizing theft, or not prosecuting it (in effect the same thing) it promotes the idea that private/personal property doesn't exist. That's the current situation we are in and why crime is rampant and stores a literally shuttering their doors because they can't survive economically in a situation where people can steal without consequence. Homeowners/personal property owners are no different. If someone steals my car they aren't just taking a car, they are also taking anything I could have purchased with the money I will have to pay to fix that situation. They are also taking all the time it takes me to deal with that situation. Thinking about material items as strictly them, and not the time/money/effort it takes to replace them is a simpleton's viewpoint.

Ironically enough, if I was stealing something that you owned, but otherwise showing no hostility to you, and you used force against me that led me to fear for my safety, I could use force back to defend myself.

Isn't that a quandary, but that's actually the situation that exists today.

I'm trying to give you an opportunity to live up to the ideals you claim to have. I thought I was being rather charitable.

 

[Reperio]

Limiting the application of deadly physical force does not prevent the application of physical force generally. This is self evident. It's also clearly spelled out within the relevant statutes. Either you're being intentionally obtuse or I'm overestimating your level of reading comprehension. Either option makes fruitful dialogue a little too challenging for my tastes.

I've applied various degrees of force in multiple situations throughout my life experience. Fortunately for me, situations necessitating the threat or use of deadly force by me have been rare. On the other hand situations requiring general use of force have been all too common.

There are many options one can use in a situation prior to deadly force becoming necessary. The key word here is necessary. There's also the old adage; "if the only tool you have is a hammer, then everything starts to look like a nail".

Maybe ruminate on that a bit?

I'll leave you the last word for your own edification.

I won't be back.

This does not appear to be a community that I wish to associate with or promote in any way.

Self evident, and duly recognized and acknowledged, ad nauseam. It appears "obtuse" doesn't mean what you think it means. I call dibs on your magic mirror.

 

[Alexx1401]

Still waiting for that address… you could help out by putting your things in boxes for me and make the loading process easier.

We either have private/personal property rights or we don't - your putting the fault of a thief being shot on the owner of the property, I'm putting it on the thief who makes the choice to steal. By decriminalizing theft, or not prosecuting it (in effect the same thing) it promotes the idea that private/personal property doesn't exist. That's the current situation we are in and why crime is rampant and stores a literally shuttering their doors because they can't survive economically in a situation where people can steal without consequence. Homeowners/personal property owners are no different. If someone steals my car they aren't just taking a car, they are also taking anything I could have purchased with the money I will have to pay to fix that situation. They are also taking all the time it takes me to deal with that situation. Thinking about material items as strictly them, and not the time/money/effort it takes to replace them is a simpleton's viewpoint.

Ironically enough, if I was stealing something that you owned, but otherwise showing no hostility to you, and you used force against me that led me to fear for my safety, I could use force back to defend myself.

Isn't that a quandary, but that's actually the situation that exists today.

I'm trying to give you an opportunity to live up to the ideals you claim to have. I thought I was being rather charitable.

Hell with boxes, I want them to help me load the stuff up too.

 

[American123]

Hell with boxes, I want them to help me load the stuff up too.

He didn't say he was willing to work for free, just that his stuff wasn't worth shooting someone over.

 

[The Heretic]

He didn't say he was willing to work for free, just that his stuff wasn't worth shooting someone over.

It might not be, in which case it might not be worth stealing either.

Get your stuff stolen often enough and all you are left with (or can afford), is crap.

 

[Alexx1401]

He didn't say he was willing to work for free, just that his stuff wasn't worth shooting someone over.

Hell if he is giving it away he can help me load it up

 

[Knobgoblin]

Give til it hurtz

 

[Alexx1401]

Just had to go to the local Wally for a battery for one of the cars. Even those are locked up now.
Had to stand there while the employee's made molasses look like it pours fast and then pay there. Then armed guard at the door going out. Wonderful days one party rule has brought us here. Took longer to buy the damn battery than it took me to install it

 

[The Heretic]

Just had to go to the local Wally for a battery for one of the cars. Even those are locked up now.
Had to stand there while the employee's made molasses look like it pours fast and then pay there. Then armed guard at the door going out. Wonderful days one party rule has brought us here. Took longer to buy the damn battery than it took me to install it

And the local Wally's are closing down

 

[Knobgoblin]

You seem to be a bit emotionally "charged"

 

[GrayGoose]

Just had to go to the local Wally for a battery for one of the cars. Even those are locked up now.
Had to stand there while the employee's made molasses look like it pours fast and then pay there. Then armed guard at the door going out. Wonderful days one party rule has brought us here. Took longer to buy the damn battery than it took me to install it

That's racist!

 

[Nosferatu]

Not everything stolen has monetary value or can be replaced.

Back in the late '90's in San Jose, I was working late. A coworker and I went outside to get some fresh air and found someone going through my car. As soon as he saw us, he hightailed it to a waiting running vehicle and they took off. I usually carried a G27 in those days, but didn't have it on me. I would have taken every fiber of my being not to plug their radiator a couple times and track them to where they broke down!

Anyway, they got a away with a couple speakers from the car, and 4 boxes of stuff from my trunk. I was at the tail end of a move at the time, so was still bringing random stuff between places. What was their haul? A bunch of photos and pretty much all my hockey trophies, ribbons, and related memorabilia from my playing days. I'm sure it all ended up in a dumpster somewhere once they opened it all up.

Of course the cops didn't give a bubblegum. We were at the office for 4 hours after that and nobody ever came.

So, those lecturing about everything being able to be replaced, stick it you judgmental pricks. I look forward to when you actually have to deal with being robbed and see how your tune changes.

FWIW, I've also had someone break into my house while I was home on a Christmas Eve, in that same place I was moving into. They were lucky I had some self-restraint and didn't shoot, but they did bubblegum their pants when they opened the door to an AR in their faces.

 

[bradsteen]

You seem to be a bit emotionally "charged"

He's just "shocked" at the lack of customer service.

 

[American123]

Just had to go to the local Wally for a battery for one of the cars. Even those are locked up now.
Had to stand there while the employee's made molasses look like it pours fast and then pay there. Then armed guard at the door going out. Wonderful days one party rule has brought us here. Took longer to buy the damn battery than it took me to install it

You know you are in the ghetto when they lock stuff up rather than can trust the customer base not to steal it. Some stores, even the condoms are locked up.

Seems backwards, if anything can be given away for free, please, let it be birth control. I fully support these useless turds producing less offspring.

 

[GrayGoose]

You know you are in the ghetto when they lock stuff up rather than can trust the customer base not to steal it. Some stores, even the condoms are locked up.

Seems backwards, if anything can be given away for free, please, let it be birth control. I fully support these useless turds producing less offspring.

I'll bet they don't lock up the work boots like that. Wonder why...