Car burglary victim found guilty of 2nd degree manslaughter in Seattle

[Trlsmn]

Originally Posted by TNThomas View Post
This shooting happened only a few miles from my house. I am glad that he used deadly force to protect his property. If you guys have ever been around here cars are getting broken into all the time, hopefully this puts some fear in the heart of those kids when they start @#&$ing with somebodys car. I am just sorry for the guy who is being sent to jail, the guy who was gettin his $#!& stolen.

Disgusting. To use the term "kids" and then express how happy you are one was killed without need. Just disgusting.

Actually he said "puts some fear in the heart of those kids", It's quite a stretch to say the guy enjoys the thought of killing of children. Also the deceased criminal was 21 which is not a "kid". You must consider though that at our age anyone 20 years younger than us is typically referred to as a kid.

Now my own feelings are not "I'm glad", as I would be happy if this situation never happened at all. Though I am not glad the guy is dead I am however indifferent toward the criminals fate. Darwin can be cruel on the best of days no reason to temp the theory.

Again, it's reasonable to say that it could of been avoided. He didn't have his rifle with him initially. He walked back inside, grabbed it, (probably loaded it) and then came back out and shouted, "Freeze"

Now, up until the time when he walked back outside, I would have done the same thing.

He was trying to stop the robbery, not defend himself. Defending himself would of been staying inside where they are going to have a time trying to shoot him. He walked right outside clear into a potential line of fire.

I would argue that he was running on adrenaline, if he went outside and simply started to shoot them. But he told them to stop, which means he probably wasn't running on automatic.

If he had simply came out and started shooting them, then I would fully believe he felt entirely that he was in mortal danger. And in that case, he should of been let go.

I respect your right to let the authorities handle the situation and yes it would have been safer for you and the criminal but I don't share this same belief and the law is with me in the right to protect my property armed if necessary.

I am a firm believer in the broken window theory, are you familiar with that?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixing_Broken_Windows

After you read that feel free to comment if you like. As always discussion is a good thing.

 

[AGCR]

Nothing I own is worth taking someones life over.

Unless I am threatened, or my housemates are threatened, THINGS can be replaced, PEOPLE cannot.

Exactly. Anytime a gun is used to kill someone while defending their car stereo it just provides more ammo to those who want to ban firearms.

Also, regarding the "crucify" and "hang" all the criminals hysteria, it used to be people were hung for picking a pocket or stealing bread. That never kept crime down. Actually solving those problems requires alternate economic opportunities plus rehabilitation, not knee jerk vengeance against small time criminals.

 

[56kninja]

I respect that. But if the same thing happens to you, you can't honestly claim that you didn't comprehend the consequences.

My rule of thumb: Unless they are inside your house, or threatening someone (or you) outside your house with a knife or a gun, let the authorities handle it.

And I'd say the broken window theory is something I agree with. Criminals do escalate as they are able to.

It's tough to deal with. Confront them and you might put some fear into them. But you also run the risk of getting into a situation like this.

And the criminal justice system is joke, they aren't fixing the problem either.

 

[michaels]

Exactly. Anytime a gun is used to kill someone while defending their car stereo it just provides more ammo to those who want to ban firearms.

Also, regarding the "crucify" and "hang" all the criminals hysteria, it used to be people were hung for picking a pocket or stealing bread. That never kept crime down. Actually solving those problems requires alternate economic opportunities plus rehabilitation, not knee jerk vengeance against small time criminals.

+1 on both

 

[huntpotter]

He should have shot him in the leg.
If you steal from my property, I'll shoot you in the leg, so you can't run away. You can explain to the police how you were shot, while stealing.
If you are in my house, with a weapon, or sneaking into my childs window, then I think shooting him in the head is justified. The level of threat should be met with appropriate action.
Nobody's life was threatened by stealing from a car. So he didn't need to shoot. I still feel like criminals are getting away with too much, because law abiding citizens are too afraid to fight back. Unfortunate all around.
What happened to the good ol days when you could shoot to kill if somebody was stealing your horse, or cattle? Risk of death is a good deterent.

 

[AGCR]

I have read that home break ins are relatively low in the US compared to other criminal acts. I used to live in East Berlin and for recreation my friends and I would break into abandoned houses, warehouses, cold war bunkers and the like at night and it was certainly a relief knowing we probably wouldn't get shot by people thinking we were burglars.

 

[Stomper]

Well, technically you WERE burglars... and OF COURSE burglars are relived to know they most likely won't get shot doing what they do....

If you wanted recreational activities, why didn't you guys just patch up all the old bullet holes from WWII that were/are still everywhere around there (from what I saw when I was there in the '87-'88)? But...since it was in EAST Berlin that you were doing such things, you were sticking it to the "commie-regime"... so that was A-OK!! :winkkiss:

 

[56kninja]

He should have shot him in the leg.
If you steal from my property, I'll shoot you in the leg, so you can't run away. You can explain to the police how you were shot, while stealing.
If you are in my house, with a weapon, or sneaking into my childs window, then I think shooting him in the head is justified. The level of threat should be met with appropriate action.
Nobody's life was threatened by stealing from a car. So he didn't need to shoot. I still feel like criminals are getting away with too much, because law abiding citizens are too afraid to fight back. Unfortunate all around.
What happened to the good ol days when you could shoot to kill if somebody was stealing your horse, or cattle? Risk of death is a good deterent.

I'd say it's a good plan, but too much risk.

Shotgun tasers might be a lot better. But then it's easy to make the case that you just wanted to hurt somebody for fun.

Liberalism has very much crippled civilians to do something about crime when the law is doing little.

I'm not afraid of criminals, but I am afraid of the law coming down on me for something that it should not.

One of my worst possible scenarios would be having to defend my actions in a case where I had no choice other than to kill, or seriously injure a person.

 

[Stomper]

Not to mention a CIVIL SUIT filed by the surviving "victim" that was shot in the leg....

 

[56kninja]

Not to mention a CIVIL SUIT filed by the surviving "victim" that was shot in the leg....

That too.

If I have to shoot someone however, they won't be getting up.

 

[AGCR]

Well, technically you WERE burglars... and OF COURSE burglars are relived to know they most likely won't get shot doing what they do....

If you wanted recreational activities, why didn't you guys just patch up all the old bullet holes from WWII that were/are still everywhere around there (from what I saw when I was there in the '87-'88)? But...since it was in EAST Berlin that you were doing such things, you were sticking it to the "commie-regime"... so that was A-OK!! :winkkiss:

I would use the term "urban adventurers" more than burglars since we never took anything valuable; mostly old books, soviet gear, etc.
And actually my friends there are communists.

 

[Wenis]

I wonder how much jailtime the "victim" would have received if he caught the thief and cut his right hand off, instead of killing him?

 

[AGCR]

I wonder how much jailtime the "victim" would have received if he caught the thief and cut his right hand off, instead of killing him?

Fortunately such barbaric customs aren't practiced here.

 

[Trlsmn]

I wonder how much jailtime the "victim" would have received if he caught the thief and cut his right hand off, instead of killing him?

He would he received much more time 10 to 15 years likely, and he would have deserved it. The difference being if he has the capacity to safely hold the guy and cut off his hand, he would have the capacity to hold the guy for the police.

 

[ORBrit]

Fortunately such barbaric customs aren't practiced here.

I'm not condoning vigilante justice, but what if those "barbaric" laws were enforced by the judicial system here?
Eye for an eye..
maybe a finger for your first burglary/theft
a hand for your second.

That way everyone would know what the consequences were, and you'd live with them the rest of your life.
That's rehabilitation right there.
Cost to the tax payer would be a lot less than sending them to criminal training facilities - I mean prisons at a tax payer expense of $30,000 + per inmate per year.

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

I'm not condoning vigilante justice, but what if those "barbaric" laws were enforced by the judicial system here?
Eye for an eye..
maybe a finger for your first burglary/theft
a hand for your second.

That way everyone would know what the consequences were, and you'd live with them the rest of your life.
That's rehabilitation right there.
Cost to the tax payer would be a lot less than sending them to criminal training facilities - I mean prisons at a tax payer expense of $30,000 + per inmate per year.

What are we...Iran now?

And let's keep that "cost per inmate" figure in perspective. Only a tiny portion of that money is actually cost of housing and feeding an inmate. The VAST majority of it is for salaries of employees, contracts for building prisons, costs of maintaining roads, etc. Money which goes into the pockets of local people and businesses. Even the money to feed the prisoners goes into a US companies pocket and filters down to the general population. It is not like that money is disappearing.

 

[AGCR]

I'm not condoning vigilante justice, but what if those "barbaric" laws were enforced by the judicial system here?
Eye for an eye..
maybe a finger for your first burglary/theft
a hand for your second.

That way everyone would know what the consequences were, and you'd live with them the rest of your life.
That's rehabilitation right there.
Cost to the tax payer would be a lot less than sending them to criminal training facilities - I mean prisons at a tax payer expense of $30,000 + per inmate per year.

Since these customs used to be practiced in western countries- branding, ear amputations or slitting, etc. we know exactly what happens. The social cost is much higher. You get people forced into the criminal subculture with no hope of an exit. My roomate used to do car break ins when he was younger but he turned his life around. Who would hire him with his ears cut off? He'd be a thief the rest of his life. Amputations are only a deterrent in Saudi Arabia cos oil profits are nationally distributed across society so nobody bothers with small time crime.

 

[ORBrit]

So amputations are the extreme - I admit - I was making a point that results come at a cost. Cause and effect.

But the current judicial system is no deterrent at all to petty criminals. A typical burglary or theft is not even going to be investigated by the police. The man power and funding is not even close to being available.
One of the few state budgets that has seen growth this last decade is the DOC budget for new prison construction. We spend more on that than higher education in this state.

"Let 's just build more prisons to lock up all the kids we're letting down with the education system..."

The only winners are the insurance companies. They force you to insure your possessions out of fear, and then you can't justify the deductibles or hiked up premiums if you make a claim.

 

[CEF1959]

A stupid kid does not deserve to die for stealing a speaker. Shooting him in the back of the head over a speaker. That is just plain stupid.

It is shootings like this that the anti's love to have to promote banning guns.

 

[Blov]

And you know that how? Please explain how you can say this with certainty!

Why are all you nay sayers purposely ignoring the part about he though the guy was reaching for a gun? No where in the statement does the guy (true victim), the sheriff, or the DA say they think he shot the criminal to recover his sub woofer!

I also have a high view of human life, the first of which would be my own in this situation.

He may have been reaching for a gun but didn't have one, or am I missing something.

Considering the balcony, that is conjecture but he could have easily gone back inside the apartment. It doesn't indicate that he had been in the residence. I suppose he could have shot blindly into the house but since he didn't have a gun that would be difficult. Also the last thing he would have wanted was to draw more attention on himself by blindly shooting into a home.