Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Off Topic' started by ATCclears, Mar 28, 2012.
Homeowner, 80, charged in shooting of burglar: 'Unjust that I can't protect me' - chicagotribune.com
If you are a felon you give many of your rights away - I support this. No one made you a felon and since the old guy had two prior weapons convictions - sorry but his inability to have a firearm rests directly on his shoulders. This is the law - not my law but as long as it is the law I will support it.
Your point brings up a great question JG. One that I believe needs to be addressed, with regard to Chicago felons having their gun rights restored.
Don't get me wrong, I believe convicted violent felons should lose their gun rights forever, along with their right to vote.
Having said that, during the period when Chicago's unconstitutional handgun ban was in effect, many people were convicted of breaking a law that has since proven to be unlawful itself. Whether they ever used the gun, or not, to even HAVE one was a felony violation.
So how many people are "felons," solely because of a bad law that was overturned?
In my way of thinking, those people convicted of violating ONLY that law, should have their convictions overturned, and their felony records expunged.
Kudos to the judge for kicking the old man loose on his OR.
Unfortunately it's all too easy for the average law abiding citizen to get a weapons conviction in Chicago. Especially, a black man that owns a bar. The deck is stacked against him.
This is an example of how tolerance of gun law encroachment ultimately hurts the "average law abiding citizen".
I could support a ruling reversal on a bad law but until that is done, based on what the law is curently - he is still a felon with no rights to firearms.
Unfortunately, bad law seems to be a precursor to an honest citizen being involved in a political debacle.
Why is that?? Once someone has paid there debt to society , they should be at 0, they shouldn't have to be continually paying the same old debt over and over. ( save for the 3 strikes law, at that point they will never learn.)
Why are you bringing the race card into the discussion?
I'm sure I'm in the minority on this, but I don't see how he was justified in shooting him, unless when he confronted the punk the dude came at him. If this happened in Oregon, you would be arrested as well- you cannot justifiably use deadly force unless a reasonable person would conclude you were in fear of death or serious bodily harm at the time. Some scumbag stealing booze does not hold up to that standard. Some punk stealing the stereo from your car or living room does not hold to that standard. I know most on this board will disagree, but it doesn't change the law- the perpetrator must have the ability, opportunity, and immediate jeopardy to cause you or others grievous bodily harm or death to justifiably employ deadly force. I am in no way condoning the burglars actions, I'm just saying from what is in the news article the punk didn't have a weapon- though given the age difference the punk looks like he probably could have beaten the owner to death- so Ability, check. Opportunity? Well- he was in the owners property in the dead of night, and reasonably close so as limited as the info is I'll give the owner the benefit of the doubt and say check. That brings us to jeopardy. Unless scumbag came at him and tried to assault him- Jeopardy did not exist, and therefore deadly force was not justified. This is all without even considering prior weapons charges. That's all I have for now- flame on guys...
Just an observation. I suspect a white bar owner might get the same hassles. Actually, he would get it worse if he shot a black kid.
WRONG - IMHO - you do not set things straight just because you get out of jail or do your time -the felon did wrong and does not get a do over. He is not set back to zero and only those that have been felons seem to feel differently ( or are related to them ). Better luck in their next life. I would support this restorations of rights only if the people that they did wrong were to say it was ok for the felon to get thier rights back.
So what is an 80 year old man going to do to stop a 20-30 year old man?
Stand in his way?
Shake his finger at him?
Call 9-1-1? (yeah right)
The old man has the right to stop the burglar from taking his stuff. It doesn't matter what it is, but in this case, it's the old man's livelihood. He owns the bar/bubblegum, so in this case the burglary has a direct effect on his standard of living.
It would be the same if the burglar was taking a carpenter's tools, or a bookkeeper's computers, or a seamstress' sewing machine etc.
How hard would you try to stop someone from taking your income source?
Now factor in being 80 years old.
The potential for an extreme disparity of force is easily realized in when dealing with a young person in their prime, but is a slam dunk in this case.
Or are you advocating the old man step aside and just allow the punk to take his livelihood/rent/next months food?
And if you are,...
What are you doing here?
Then what happens if the kids steals the booze, gets drunk and stumbles in front of a moving bus and is killed?
Should the kid's family be able to sue the old man because he didn't stop the kid?
Because you can betchurazz that there's a lawyer somewhere that would file that lawsuit on behalf of the family.
The kid was lucky he was only wounded. Of course he may be back to visit the old man, since he wasn't killed.
An old man who has been rendered defenseless by the police when they took his gun.
So after a guy has paid his debt, you still want to punish him more? People do screw up once in awhile. And no I am not and was not and never been related to a felon.
So why even release them in the first place? First offense straight to the gas chamber.
So for one felony they should only lose 1/3rd of their rights :laugh:
As the law is written, when one commits a felony, they lose those rights.
It's the law, and you can bet yer butt that the perp knew the consequences before they committed. Especially in the case of violent crime(s).
I don't know about you, but I believe there does need to be checks and balances in the framework of laws that our society lives by. That one has been a part of that framework for some time, and our society has deemed it of some value.
If you don't like that aspect, I suppose you could try to get the law changed. I'm happy with it the way it is. Basically I don't really care to see it changed, and I am the relative of a repeat felony offender.
In the case of non-violent crime, I'm inclined to agree with you though. White-collar embezzlers for instance, that show no sign of disregard for human life (in the commission of their crimes), probably should be able to get their voting and gun rights back.
But for rapists, murderers, and those that commit armed robbery etc. using guns, I say no way.
I neither forced him to become a felon or did I make the law that made him a felon. I can feel for the man and I would admit I would do what he did but that does not excuse the fact that he is a felon with previous convictions. To my way of thinking he put himself in this position due to his previous actions not mine, not once but twice. I do not support someone that has previously broken the law. I do not know the man and have nothing personal against him. He made the choice to break the law again in the protection of his lively hood. Choices and consequnces. I am happy with the outcome of this so far. I admittantly would do the same but guess what I would also expect the same outcome. He made a choice and he knew the consequences of that choice.
Felons lose alot of rights when they decide or choose to break law - they make that choice and should live with the consequences of such actions. We forget that for every action we choose there are consequnces to those actions.
SO the man is a drunk driver and kills my family - he is charged with man slaughter and after he gets out you thinks he has paid his dues - I think you are nuts sir. Because he is out of prison does not mean he has paid his dues.
Clearly you don't know the law. It is not justifiable to shoot someone for stealing your property. It is not legal to under the current statutes. I think a lot of people on this forum (and many others like it) don't realize the ramifications of taking another human's life. Is a stereo, or a few bottles of booze worth ending someone's life? The laws say no. Is protecting yourself or others from grievous bodily harm or death? The laws say yes. As I laid out in my earlier post- 2 of the 3 necessary elements of a justifiable use of deadly force existed, however without the punk placing the owner in direct jeopardy for his or his wife's life by attacking them, he had no reasonable justification for shooting him under the law. If the punk had died he would be facing manslaughter or homicide, not assault with a deadly weapon. I don't know if Illinois is a "Stand your ground" state- I don't believe it is. The homeowner should have called the police, and then defended himself and his wife if the burglar came at them- the way the laws are written you can not shoot people for stealing your property without a direct and reasonable threat to your life or the life of others. Businesses and homeowners have insurance to replace stolen property. There isn't a single thing in my household besides myself and my wife that is worth killing over- all that crap can be replaced if stolen- but if someone threatens me or mine, I have no problems shooting at all- especially since I know the law, and I know if I do shoot someone I'll have it on my side. All you trigger happy keyboard commandos...well, blast someone over your blu-ray player at your own peril because the best case scenario is spending thousands of dollars to try and stay out of the slam, and worst case is having to call Bubba your boyfriend when you're in jail for manslaughter...
So, a burglar breaks into your place of business, which has been broken into multiple times. Each time they take the goods that provide you with the means to pay your heat bill, food bill, rent etc.
So you either lose the revenue, or pay out more to replace them.
The police have told you they don't have the manpower to camp out on your street to stop the perp(s).
You are an 80 year old man and have no way to stop the perp from stealing your means of support.
What do you do?
Let them continue?
Just give up?
Go out of business?
File an insurance claim and pay increased premiums?
When you catch a perp just after he climbs through your window, you have no way to know why he's there. It might be for your stereo, blu-ray, booze etc.
But it might also be to rape your wife, kids etc.
He may be there to kill you.
If he turns and runs for the window to get back out, no, you don't have the right to shoot him in the back.
But if he approaches you, you have no way to know his intent.
You are armed, as is your right.
I don't know about you, but I'm not going to give him the gun. Even though, heck, the gun can be replaced!! (at least according to your line of thinking)
But I can give him the bullets, and I'm afraid that's how it would go down.
The bottom line is, unless he's wearing a sign that says: "I'm only here for your stereo," I have no way of knowing why he's there, and will defend my life and property as I see fit.
And I believe you are wrong. It seems to me someone successfully defended their property with deadly force in Oregon a few years back.
The boldface part is the key to justified or not. I'm not suggesting you "give him your gun" what I am saying is you can't shoot someone for stealing-it's the law. You can disagree with me all you want but it's the law and I hope you never have to test it. The scumbag being in his building in the middle of the night and the age difference alone satisfy 2 of the 3 things needed to make deadly force justified to a reasonable person- but without the direct threat of jeopardy of him approaching you- you are not justified in shooting him- even in the arm or leg, it's still deadly force. If you come home to find Mongo stealing your TV, and when you confront him he moves towards you in a manner that makes you fear for your life- you are absolutely withing your rights to shoot. If you come home and Mongo is holding your TV- you tell him to grab sky and he does you cannot legally shoot him no matter how angry or violated you feel- he is not threatening your or anyone elses' life. Your legal obligation at that point would be to cover him and wait for the police to show up. Again if he moves toward you- you're justified to shoot, but not unless the 3 criteria are met. This is how the laws are written. It's pretty clear in the Oregon statutes when you can and can't shoot someone, and defense of property- even if it deeply impacts your livelihood is not a justifiable reason for taking someone's life in a court of law
It a state with Castle Doctrine- the scumbag's presence in your house, or trying to carjack you- is enough to justify deadly force- such as I understand the law anyway. I'm no lawyer.