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

[Knobgoblin]

My dirtbag neighbor died of starvation .
I hid his food stamp card in his work boots.

 

[Alexx1401]

And the local Wally's are closing down

I'm not in Potland. The Lakewood one I was just at is the one that finally had to hire armed guards. Will be interesting to see how long it takes till someone gets shot.

 

[American123]

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

Educational material is also perfectly safe.

 

[Flopsweat]

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

He said he didn't believe in personal property.

You seem to be a bit emotionally "charged"

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

He seemed a little drained to me. Nothing terminal, I'm sure. I hope that's not too polarizing. I guess I had a battery of puns. Sorry if I seem a little wired. Stay positive.

 

[bradsteen]

He said he didn't believe in personal property.




He seemed a little drained to me. Nothing terminal, I'm sure. I hope that's not too polarizing. I guess I had a battery of puns. Sorry if I seem a little wired. Stay positive.

It's pun-ception.

 

[Flopsweat]

It's pun-ception.

I just felt the need to puntificate.

 

[American123]

He said he didn't believe in personal property.




He seemed a little drained to me. Nothing terminal, I'm sure. I hope that's not too polarizing. I guess I had a battery of puns. Sorry if I seem a little wired. Stay positive.

You're right, it was a lack of belief in personal property.

 

[Pandaz3]

Please forgive me the dumb question because I'm a bit new to this group.

Is the general consensus around here something to the effect that it should be ok to use deadly physical force solely for the protection of property?

If that's truly the case then I think I need to just peace out and move along.

Morally, ethically, and legally, there's no justification for the use of deadly force unless there's a reasonable risk of serious injury or death from an assailant.

I figured this would be a place where that was generally we'll understood and agreed upon.

Frankly, I ain't ever going to be friends or business or partners with anyone who doesn't share this particular creed.

Life is precious. Stuff is replaceable. No amount of moral relativistic rhetoric will change that particular fact.

well the last line is. "Life is precious. Stuff is replaceable. No amount of moral relativistic rhetoric will change that particular fact."

Some 'stuff' might not be replaceable for all situations. Just because you could easily replace that property, does not mean others can. Holier than thou!

 

[American123]

well the last line is. "Life is precious. Stuff is replaceable. No amount of moral relativistic rhetoric will change that particular fact."

Some 'stuff' might not be replaceable for all situations. Just because you could easily replace that property, does not mean others can. Holier than thou!

I always think it's funny when people use that type of rhetoric to argue that it's the property owners fault and not the person stealing, who put themselves in that position in the first place.

It's kind of like, they clearly think their life is worth risking for what they are stealing. That's on them.

 

[The Heretic]

Ask a homeless person how easy it is to replace their shelter (car/etc., tent, etc.), sleeping bag, cooking stuff. All else aside, this is what they depend on to survive.

 

[uberguy]

No, you can try googling my avatar but im not here to derail this self defense discussion with politics

Antifa?
(disclosure, have not read all 11 pgs of comments)

 

[uberguy]

Thats a cute ad hominid ya got there

A hominid is a member of the family Hominidae, the great apes: orangutans, gorillas, chimpanzees and humans.

 

[uberguy]

Wow, lots of commentary on this topic. I'm no fan of thievery but would be inclined to follow Use Of Lethal Force legal guidance from my training.

That said, if I saw an attempt to steal my truck, I'd be fine with shooting out a tire or 2.
That would likely be much less expensive - if the thief became threatening, the scenario changes.

 

[bradsteen]

Wow, lots of commentary on this topic. I'm no fan of thievery but would be inclined to follow Use Of Lethal Force legal guidance from my training.

That said, if I saw an attempt to steal my truck, I'd be fine with shooting out a tire or 2.
That would likely be much less expensive - if the thief became threatening, the scenario changes.

I would strongly encourage you to read The Law of Self Defense. Shooting out tires is not legally defensible. If there is no imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury to yourself or others, you aren't justified in drawing a weapon and using deadly force.

 

[wjv]

I hate that my Subaru won't allow me to have my car locked, while it's sitting in the driveway warming up. Nope! It's a special feature to prevent you from locking your keys in the car. . .

From my perspective, if I lock my keys in the car, then I'm the dummy and any pain I suffer because of that is my own darn fault!

 

[uberguy]

I would strongly encourage you to read The Law of Self Defense. Shooting out tires is not legally defensible. If there is no imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury to yourself or others, you aren't justified in drawing a weapon and using deadly force.

Shooting my own tires, under the scenario, in my own driveway? I'd be happier to argue that situation in court vs. shooting the driver, while parked. No direct force was used against the thief in my example.

 

[Koda]

Shooting my own tires, under the scenario, in my own driveway? I'd be happier to argue that situation in court vs. shooting the driver, while parked. No direct force was used against the thief in my example.

If you pull gun on someone let alone fire it your using deadly force.

 

[Flopsweat]

If you pull gun on someone let alone fire it your using deadly force.

Yep, and while drawing a gun is vastly different from pointing it, the court is unlikely to see a substantial difference between shooting at someone and shooting toward them.

 

[bradsteen]

Shooting my own tires, under the scenario, in my own driveway? I'd be happier to argue that situation in court vs. shooting the driver, while parked. No direct force was used against the thief in my example.

Those aren't the only options on the table. Why would you introduce a gun to a situation where there is no imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm? Also, what purpose does shooting your tires out serve? You're making a very big assumption that the law will land on your side.
That approach has a significant chance of you getting charged with a variety of potential crimes from reckless endangerment to felony assault. That's why you should do some research, read some reputable sources on how laws related to use of firearms in defensive contexts actually work, and then make an informed decision on how best to approach that situation should you ever find yourself facing it.

Or don't. It's a free country. You do you.

 

[Koda]

That approach has a significant chance of you getting charged with a variety of potential crimes from reckless endangerment to felony assault.

Not only that, the bad guy would be able to argue self defense and shoot back, and be justified. There was a case a few months ago where this happened, guy robbed a store and ran down the street, owner chased him with a gun and fired, the robber returned fire and I think shot the guy. Ruled justified.

uberguy needs some legal training, essential. Start here. https://lawofselfdefense.com/law-of-self-defense-book/