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

[Alexx1401]

The whole global vaccine mandate thing is starting to look pretty sinister too.

That minted several new billionaires so it was easy to see what was going on there. Scary that so many are pushing this on little kids who have no risk from the bug but may well be at risk from the "cure". All in the name of making money.

 

[Andy54Hawken]

Hmmm....
I could have sworn that this thread was about a Auburn man who tried to steal a car and was shot.....
I'm pretty sure that has nothing to do with COVID...Lets get back to the OP, please.
Andy

 

[Flopsweat]

Hmmm....
I could have sworn that this thread was about a Auburn man who tried to steal a car and was shot.....
I'm pretty sure that has nothing to do with COVID...Lets get back to the OP, please.
Andy

But we were talking about shots?

 

[Andy54Hawken]

But we were talking about shots?

When it comes to shots....
I prefer...something amber colored....and from Bourbon County Kentucky....

In any event..
I know this is NWFA...and the threads often do go far afield...lets get it back to the OP please....
Andy

 

[rhollister71]

You're taking this too literal. It has nothing to do with him "deserving" to have his car stolen cause he left it unoccupied and running….. obviously.

It's the same principle for a guy open carrying in a sh!t holster and having his gun stolen. Or the girl who goes into a dangerous area/neighborhood dressed provocatively and gets assaulted….. did they deserve it? NO. Should the person who committed the crime have to pay? Absolutely.

Choices have consequences. Whether it's what you do with your personal belongings, how you dress, where you go, or how you run your mouth. You're free to do what you want. Just dont be surprised when life kicks your teeth in.

America isn't safe. Criminals aren't prosecuted and have been emboldened. Act accordingly. But that doesn't give you the right to just shoot people. Sorry.

Speaking truth right here

 

[rhollister71]

The point of my post is that theft is not a victimless crime.

Theft has a victim, and it has an impact on that victim.

Saying "insurance" will cover it is excusing the criminal, and blaming the victim.

Finally, not everybody can afford insurance against theft on every item they own, or even the difference between what insurance will pay vs. actual cost of replacement for the item(s) stolen.

Dont forget the deductible needed to recover another loss you do not ever get back. 500-1000 just gone, sure cars back but im out that grand forever

 

[Koda]

Dont forget the deductible needed to recover another loss you do not ever get back. 500-1000 just gone, sure cars back but im out that grand forever

and depending on where someone is at in life that can really set them back in much bigger ways than just a deductable. E.g: A temporary loss of a car can cost someone their job or prevent them from getting to a hospital.

 

[Nick Burkhardt]

Graphic content warning

Vigilante Justice: Shoot the perp's hands off!

Take a bite out of crime! Rob Abuela, then this happens. LOVE IT. Jim Crenshaw mirrored and it got 15k views.. Happens all the time. Tune in here. SUBSCRIBE..Like.. Share. #NEWS #MUSIC #MOVIE #COPS #SHOT #FIGHT #STABBED #ROBBED #SHOT #HANDS #OFF …

tinyurl.com

 

[Member 53328]

Graphic content warning

Vigilante Justice: Shoot the perp's hands off!

Take a bite out of crime! Rob Abuela, then this happens. LOVE IT. Jim Crenshaw mirrored and it got 15k views.. Happens all the time. Tune in here. SUBSCRIBE..Like.. Share. #NEWS #MUSIC #MOVIE #COPS #SHOT #FIGHT #STABBED #ROBBED #SHOT #HANDS #OFF …

tinyurl.com

I'm good with that. Hopefully he can new use that hand to take advantage of the elderly again.

 

[Reperio]

Most of those who vote for it yes. Those "in power"? Its the simple "follow the money". There has sprung up a HUGE money making machine around this. The "homeless" has made a LOT of people a LOT of money chasing "solutions", that always include HUGE amounts of cash. When they admit what they are spending its easy to see they could buy a damn place for everyone of the people they claim they are trying to help. So the money is mostly going strait into someones pocket as they say they just need more cash. Rubes keep voting for it as those making a pile of cash laugh up their sleeve at them. There is one HUGE encampment here that has been making the news for a while. Right next to a VERY high end neighborhood. The people who live close to the scum pile voted for this by about 80% and now are SCREAMING that the people they voted for are not "fixing this". I personally think it is laugh out loud funny to watch them have to lay in the bed they made. The multi million dollar homes and 5 star school they were so proud of now has a little 3d world city a stone's throw from their front doors. Enjoy what they voted for.

The manipulation of lefty feelings is a billion dollar industry. Never mind the actual outcomes are the exact opposite of proposals. Portland Walmart closures, for a recent example.

 

[Nick Burkhardt]

True

Portland auditor: $850K wasted on homeless vet housing

A scathing report from the Portland City Auditor said the Joint Office of Homeless Services “spent $850,000 over 16 months to provide apartments to veterans but allowed the property to deteri…

www.koin.com

 

[Flopsweat]

True

Portland auditor: $850K wasted on homeless vet housing

A scathing report from the Portland City Auditor said the Joint Office of Homeless Services “spent $850,000 over 16 months to provide apartments to veterans but allowed the property to deteri…

www.koin.com

I find it ironic that the do-gooders named the organization Do Good.

 

[Nosferatu]

A lot of things used to be legal that are no longer. It used to be legal to own people like property, to use children in forced labor, for men to beat their wives, etc. All of those things were horribly wrong, and I'm very glad they are no longer legal.

In Montana, it's illegal for unmarried women to go fishing alone in the dark. Time to get rid of that antiquated law, removing the unmarried part.

"Besmirching a man's character" - in other words, talking $hit - is called freedom of speech. "Acting offensively" is also freedom of speech - what is offensive to you may not be offensive to someone else. Why should either of those things justify the death of a person?

When I was a kid, my mom used the phrase "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me". I wonder what happened to that?

I don't find the legal deadly force standard to be unduly burdensome or unfair... That being said, the politicized trial and character assassination by media that follow are a different story entirely. That is what is shameful about our current system, in my opinion. We should be thanking people for being willing to defend themselves and others from legitimate harm, not penalizing them for doing so.

Allowing a civil suit after being found not guilty of a criminal charge should go away.

 

[Reperio]

I find it ironic that the do-gooders named the organization Do Good.

They are just following a long standing naming convention rule. Employ an appeal to emotions and/or convey an obvious ideal of virtuousness or progress. Crowder calls it the "Don't Kick Puppies, Inc." rule, because who would disagree with that?

Cares Act, Patriot Act, Planned Parenthood, Inflation Reduction Act, BLM, et al. Not one achieved/achieves the goals implied by its name.

 

[Member 53328]

They are just following a long standing naming convention rule. Employ an appeal to emotions and/or convey an obvious ideal of virtuousness or progress. Crowder calls it the "Don't Kick Puppies, Inc." rule, because who would disagree with that?

Cares Act, Patriot Act, Planned Parenthood, Inflation Reduction Act, BLM, et al. Not one achieved/achieves the goals implied by its name.

Infact they achieve the exact opposite.

 

[Reperio]

Infact they achieve the exact opposite.

I believe that was Flopsweat's point.

 

[Cavedweller]

This is a very interesting discussion with a lot of valid points being made on both sides. IMHO, where the conflict arises, some want to argue what is legal, while others want to argue what is right. Anyone with life experience knows that law and ethics are 2 different things.

Often the law is what the majority can impose on the minority, however slim that majority may be. Such is the case in the life vs. property debate. However, laws can be changed. They are not written in concrete. The law pendulum has swung in one direction. Perhaps as more and more people are victimized by the atmosphere of permissiveness, they will demand a return to sanity. One can only hope.

To those who say life is more valuable than property, and therefore should never be defended at the cost of life, I would say that property IS life. Some things can not be replaced. The time (a portion of my life) that I spent in labor to acquire my property cannot be replaced. I may no longer have the financial or physical ability to replace that which is taken from me. If my property is used in my livelihood, when you take or destroy my property, you take my ability to support myself and my family.

To those who argue that insurance will compensate for losses, I say that financial compensation, and I know this from experience, is not only incomplete (due to deductibles, depreciation, non-covered items, etc.) but also inadequate. One cannot be financially compensated for the trauma, inconvenience, life disruption. and so forth resulting from the loss of those "things."

On the other hand, a life which is spent victimizing other members of society has no value.

As long as the law is the law, we must obey it or suffer the consequences. So I say let's change the law.

 

[Koda]

I may no longer have the financial or physical ability to replace that which is taken from me. If my property is used in my livelihood, when you take or destroy my property, you take my ability to support myself and my family.

Didn't this used to be a law way back in the western days? I thought there was some old obscure law that said you had a right to defend your livelihood with deadly force.

Deadly force isn't appropriate for defense of general property but IMO the problem is that the laws have shifted in favor of protecting the criminal... they dont want you confronting thief's. Tort and larceny laws should always favor the victim not protect the suspect. It should not be considered unreasonable to confront a thief armed but the argument is that you weren't in fear of your life by choosing to confront a thief in the act.

Its complicated with no simple solution here.

 

[American123]

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.

Cool, post your address so we can come get your stuff. It's replaceable, you can get more after all.

 

[Mr J]

Cool, post your address so we can come get your stuff. It's replaceable, you can get more after all.

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.