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

[Blov]

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

I was thinking the same thing.

 

[Blov]

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.

Agreed the judicial system stinks, but our crime in the US is fairly low for a non homogeneous society. I lived in South Africa for 9 years, now they have a serious crime problem and it is very difficult to get a firearm permit (it took me 6 months and its longer now). If you want an illegal full auto, there cheap.

 

[Trlsmn]

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

So by your standard you just wait until the guy is shooting at you? How was the guy supposed to know if he was reaching for a gun or reaching to pull up his homey pants that are falling off like most of the delinquent I see? Do you propose he man up and take the first shot and then return fire?

Considering the balcony, that is conjecture but he could have easily gone back inside the apartment.

So your solution to your property being stolen is run and hide and wait for the police?

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.

I have no idea what any of this irrelevance has to do with the statements made, we should just stick to the evidence.

I suppose he could have set off a Nuclear weapon too, but.........

 

[Trlsmn]

Agreed the judicial system stinks, but our crime in the US is fairly low for a non homogeneous society. I lived in South Africa for 9 years, now they have a serious crime problem and it is very difficult to get a firearm permit (it took me 6 months and its longer now). If you want an illegal full auto, there cheap.

No amount of crime is a tolerable amount

 

[Blov]

So by your standard you just wait until the guy is shooting at you? How was the guy supposed to know if he was reaching for a gun or reaching to pull up his homey pants that are falling off like most of the delinquent I see? Do you propose he man up and take the first shot and then return fire?





So your solution to your property being stolen is run and hide and wait for the police?



I have no idea what any of this irrelevance has to do with the statements made, we should just stick to the evidence.

I suppose he could have set off a Nuclear weapon too, but.........

He should have stayed in the house. And yes my solution is to run and hide, if he were to come after me that's different. I would have no idea if there were more perps, if I was out gunned etc. If someone tries to break in to my home, all bets are off.

I'm also coming at it from having lived in South Africa for 9 years. Those who charged out of the house chasing a burglar often ended up dead.

You are also reading in that the guy was agressive all the article says is that the guy thought he saw him going for a gun. If I shot someone and found out he wasn't armed I'd be saying the same thing.

 

[Blov]

No amount of crime is a tolerable amount

Agreed, that's why we need zero tolerance. We also need more traffic cops etc. The ideal society would be Singapore where you are fined for spitting on the ground. No crime though. (yes i'm being sarcastic) But to say no amount of crime is tolerable is great but how far do you want to take that line of reasoning?

 

[Trlsmn]

He should have stayed in the house. And yes my solution is to run and hide, if he were to come after me that's different. I would have no idea if there were more perps, if I was out gunned etc. If someone tries to break in to my home, all bets are off.

If that's how you care to handle the situation that is your right but the law says you have the right to defend and take steps to recover you property. So the guy was legally within his rights.

I'm also coming at it from having lived in South Africa for 9 years. Those who charged out of the house chasing a burglar often ended up dead.

Now there you have a point, though not relevant to this discussion I agree that your best weapon is your brain and running into a situation blind is not the best plan. He did have the high ground though!

You are also reading in that the guy was agressive

I respectfully ask that you don't make statements about what I think (reading in). If you want to know what I think just ask.

all the article says is that the guy thought he saw him going for a gun.

And if that is true he was within his rights to shoot him!

If I shot someone and found out he wasn't armed I'd be saying the same thing.

This is definitely a possibility that I, as many, including the justice system have considered. The guy that went there to rob took this burden onto himself with disastrous consequences.

I look at it like this. As I sit here at my computer in front of my front window, if I saw a car pull up and guy get out and start hovering around my car, what would I do?

First I would go over to my door and look out, if they were just milling around my car and not attempting to commit a crime I would turn on my porch light to give them a little clue. If I looked out and they were in my car I would first call the police and then sneak around the side of my house and draw down on them yelling to get on the ground. At that point is where it will get very scary, the guy is going to do one of three things.

1.He will drop to the ground.
2.He will drop what he's doing and run.
3.He will fight back.

If he does 1 or 2 he will be safe, if he does 3 he will likely get shot. If he reaches to pull up his homey pants he will get shot, if it's him or me, I vote him with my bullets.

What I won't do is live a life where I let criminals have free reign over my family, my property, or me.

 

[Trlsmn]

Agreed, that's why we need zero tolerance. We also need more traffic cops etc. The ideal society would be Singapore where you are fined for spitting on the ground. No crime though. (yes i'm being sarcastic) But to say no amount of crime is tolerable is great but how far do you want to take that line of reasoning?

There a lot of laws I would like to see changed that I feel are stupid laws.

 

[Blov]

I respectfully ask that you don't make statements about what I think (reading in). If you want to know what I think just ask.

Will do

I look at it like this. As I sit here at my computer in front of my front window, if I saw a car pull up and guy get out and start hovering around my car, what would I do?

First I would go over to my door and look out, if they were just milling around my car and not attempting to commit a crime I would turn on my porch light to give them a little clue. If I looked out and they were in my car I would first call the police and then sneak around the side of my house and draw down on them yelling to get on the ground. At that point is where it will get very scary, the guy is going to do one of three things.

With you so far. I'm not sure if I would confront them, it would depend on the situation. From my perspective a car is a car, it's not worth anyone's life.

1.He will drop to the ground.
2.He will drop what he's doing and run.
3.He will fight back.

This is where things can go downhill in a hurry.

If he does 1 or 2 he will be safe, if he does 3 he will likely get shot. If he reaches to pull up his homey pants he will get shot, if it's him or me, I vote him with my bullets.

There are so many variables from someone panicking etc.

What I won't do is live a life where I let criminals have free reign over my family, my property, or me.

Completely agree, but for me stuff will never equal a person's life. So while I want to eradicate crime I will be very hesitant in exactly how I personally will confront it. Now if I feel endangered all bets are off. I would do all I could to protect my wife and child.

 

[Blov]

There a lot of laws I would like to see changed that I feel are stupid laws.

Agreed, but they are still the law until rescinded.

 

[Trlsmn]

With you so far. I'm not sure if I would confront them, it would depend on the situation. From my perspective a car is a car, it's not worth anyone's life.

I would point out the that criminal gambled his life on that perspective and lost.

Completely agree, but for me stuff will never equal a person's life.

I also wouldn't kill to retain a possession, only for defense. If the guy ran off after my telling him to get on the ground I wouldn't shoot him just so we are clear.

So while I want to eradicate crime I will be very hesitant in exactly how I personally will confront it. Now if I feel endangered all bets are off. I would do all I could to protect my wife and child.

One thing to consider when you let a criminal slide is that when a criminal finds what they perceive as an easy "mark" they will often come back.

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

Originally Posted by Trlsmn
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.

I am not ignoring it. I just do not believe it. It seems like way to convenient a story and since no gun is present it makes it even harder to believe.

I am not a big fan of just setting the bar at "I thought he might try something" as good reason to shoot someone.

 

[smithmax]

trlsmn:If that's how you care to handle the situation that is your right but the law says you have the right to defend and take steps to recover you property. So the guy was legally within his rights.

I'm pretty sure you aren't allowed to use lethal force to protect/recover property. At least that's what I've always heard on these boards and others. TX let's you, but that's TX. You are allowed to use physical force. So if shooter decided to run out there and tackle the guy then he wouldn't be in jail.

Several years ago my wife (fiance at the time) and I lived near the UO campus in a Lutheran owned co-op. We called the police at least a few times a month. One night my wife came running into my room saying that she saw some guy trying to get into her car. So I got a couple of the bigger guys we lived with and went outside to confront them. We didn't take any weapons, we didn't want to fight, we just wanted him to leave. Wifey called the cops and gave a detailed description of the guy, his car, and his friends. His friend ended up apologizing a few days later for the guy trying to break into her car.

My chl instructor told us this: You should never go anywhere with a gun that you wouldn't go without a gun. Do you think the shooter would have gone out there if he didn't have a rifle? I understand "heat of the moment", but the short story is that he shot an unarmed guy in the back of the head from quite a distance. That doesn't suggest "self defense" to me, that suggests someone who makes poor choices and overvalues a car speaker.

 

[Trlsmn]

I'm pretty sure you aren't allowed to use lethal force to protect/recover property.

Please point out where I said that or even hinted at that position. Then when you find you are wrong as a penalty go back and reread the entire thread and you will find my position is clearly stated.

 

[CEF1959]

Good. So we all agree that executing a guy by shooting him in the back for stealing a stereo speaker is wrong. I'm amazed it was even controversial to begin with.

Next topic please.

 

[onearmedswordsman]

As for Mr Sheets, he is now a convicted felon. The 9 months may be easy, its the rest of his life he'll have to deal with, with that hanging over him.

Including bye-bye to future legal gun ownership, as a convicted felon of a violet crime. I wonder what will hurt more!

 

[Trlsmn]

Good. So we all agree that executing a guy by shooting him in the back for stealing a stereo speaker is wrong. I'm amazed it was even controversial to begin with.

Hold on a sec, while I agree with that statement on it's face I don't agree that it was proven that this is what happened in this case.

Next topic please.

How about tort reform?

 

[CEF1959]

Duly noted. The shooter said he thought he saw the guy going for something in his waistband. The facts didn't bear that out, but it's still a factor.

But that kind of bald assertion, contrary to the evidence on the ground, can't be a get-out-of-jail-free card. He shot the guy in the back of the head, and no gun was found. If that were all it took to get off, imagine the results: "Uh, I shot my wife's lover in the back during an argument, but I thought he went for a gun that he didn't have. So I'll just be going now. Thanks."

Tort reform is a good topic.

 

[Trlsmn]

Duly noted. The shooter said he thought he saw the guy going for something in his waistband. The facts didn't bear that out, but it's still a factor.

But that kind of bald assertion, contrary to the evidence on the ground, can't be a get-out-of-jail-free card. He shot the guy in the back of the head, and no gun was found. If that were all it took to get off, imagine the results: "Uh, I shot my wife's lover in the back during an argument, but I thought he went for a gun that he didn't have. So I'll just be going now. Thanks."

Tort reform is a good topic.

Now in that case I would have used the excuse "I thought he was raping her"

 

[tinman]

This may have gone diffrent if he was shot in the front instead o fthe back of the head.
I read that the shooter said the thief turned and was reaching for his waistband. If that was the case I would think the shot would be fired at that point,so he would have been shot in thefront of the body. Why was he shot in the back of the head. Sounds fishy to me.