User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 6/28/2017 10:42:10 AM EDT
[#1]
In a just world that would be a good shoot.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2017 10:50:21 AM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Stealing property is stealing life. Do you work for free? Is everything given to you for free? No? You earn money by sacrificing hours of your life for hard earned money to buy what you need and want? So.....I should be allowed to steal your car and property, and as long as I am unarmed or running away to hurt someone else I am ok? You cannot shoot to protect your property? Only a fucking communist believes that. My property represents YEARS of my life spent at work. At jobs I hated. So I could acquire what I needed and wanted legally and honorably. My property IS my life. Why should huge chunks of my life be sacrificed for other peoples laziness? Why is a thiefs life worth more than mine? Why should they not have to work for what they want? Why should I have to work MORE (much more) to allow them to steal it from me with no fear of consequences? Do you also believe slavery is ok too? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2017 10:51:10 AM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
In Texas if you see the thief in church eight years later you can still shoot him.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2017 10:51:21 AM EDT
[#4]
More dead thieves = fewer living thieves. I'm good with that.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2017 10:52:43 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Shooting the thief as he was running away is most likely a bad shoot. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2017 10:52:55 AM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
In a just world that would be a good shoot. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2017 10:53:45 AM EDT
[#7]
Good shoot in principle, bad shoot in reality
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2017 10:55:43 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Then why do armored cars, banks, and Fort Knox have armed guards? Its only property - right? What makes THIER property worth deadly force - and not MINE? BTW I think Singapore style canning is sufficient for actual children - 12 and below. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Should we also shoot children who steal candy from the c store? If not then how do you determine which thieves get shot? Is it like a $500 and up value stipulation? In a cars case we talking blue book or trade in? My point is you only use deadly force when there is rosk of death or grave bodily injury. BTW I think Singapore style canning is sufficient for actual children - 12 and below. For all you "good shoot" people, answer this: Is or is not America a nation of laws? Should we or should we not eschew vigilante justice? Is the average person properly qualified to be judge, jury, and executioner? (And before you answer that one, think back to that "should we allow the average person to carry a gun on a plane" thread.) I'm all for punishing thieves. I'm all for use of force to prevent use of force - up to and including deadly force. If someone threatens the life or health of another person, then that other person should be perfectly justified in using whatever force he or she deems necessary to protect himself or herself. That doesn't include shooting a fleeing thief (or attempted thief, since in this case I don't think he actually stole anything) in the back unless you can prove that the thief presents a threat in his flight. Personally, I hope that the homeowner can articulate that he saw a weapon in the thief's hand and that the thief, in his flight, presented a threat to everyone in his path. But shooting someone who is presenting no threat to you, just because you saw them trying to steal something? That's third-world, "pour gas on them and light them up" shit right there. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2017 11:09:59 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Armored cars and banks have armed guards because what they have to steal is valuable enough to temp criminals into using deadly force to steal it. If the car owner felt his car was that valuable, he could have had an armed person guarding it as well. For all you "good shoot" people, answer this: Is or is not America a nation of laws? Should we or should we not eschew vigilante justice? Is the average person properly qualified to be judge, jury, and executioner? (And before you answer that one, think back to that "should we allow the average person to carry a gun on a plane" thread.) I'm all for punishing thieves. I'm all for use of force to prevent use of force - up to and including deadly force. If someone threatens the life or health of another person, then that other person should be perfectly justified in using whatever force he or she deems necessary to protect himself or herself. That doesn't include shooting a fleeing thief (or attempted thief, since in this case I don't think he actually stole anything) in the back unless you can prove that the thief presents a threat in his flight. Personally, I hope that the homeowner can articulate that he saw a weapon in the thief's hand and that the thief, in his flight, presented a threat to everyone in his path. But shooting someone who is presenting no threat to you, just because you saw them trying to steal something? That's third-world, "pour gas on them and light them up" shit right there. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Should we also shoot children who steal candy from the c store? If not then how do you determine which thieves get shot? Is it like a $500 and up value stipulation? In a cars case we talking blue book or trade in? My point is you only use deadly force when there is rosk of death or grave bodily injury. BTW I think Singapore style canning is sufficient for actual children - 12 and below. For all you "good shoot" people, answer this: Is or is not America a nation of laws? Should we or should we not eschew vigilante justice? Is the average person properly qualified to be judge, jury, and executioner? (And before you answer that one, think back to that "should we allow the average person to carry a gun on a plane" thread.) I'm all for punishing thieves. I'm all for use of force to prevent use of force - up to and including deadly force. If someone threatens the life or health of another person, then that other person should be perfectly justified in using whatever force he or she deems necessary to protect himself or herself. That doesn't include shooting a fleeing thief (or attempted thief, since in this case I don't think he actually stole anything) in the back unless you can prove that the thief presents a threat in his flight. Personally, I hope that the homeowner can articulate that he saw a weapon in the thief's hand and that the thief, in his flight, presented a threat to everyone in his path. But shooting someone who is presenting no threat to you, just because you saw them trying to steal something? That's third-world, "pour gas on them and light them up" shit right there. Your post is hypocritical and reeks of elitism. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2017 11:23:51 AM EDT
[#10]
Not guilty
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2017 11:26:57 AM EDT
[#11]
Quoted:
Link “You could have got that car back brother, I can't get my nephew back, I can't,” said Typurs Mitchell. . burnt beyond recognition. Good shoot Fuck thieves. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2017 11:36:29 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Stealing property is stealing life. Do you work for free? Is everything given to you for free? No? You earn money by sacrificing hours of your life for hard earned money to buy what you need and want? So.....I should be allowed to steal your car and property, and as long as I am unarmed or running away to hurt someone else I am ok? You cannot shoot to protect your property? Only a fucking communist believes that. My property represents YEARS of my life spent at work. At jobs I hated. So I could acquire what I needed and wanted legally and honorably. My property IS my life. Why should huge chunks of my life be sacrificed for other peoples laziness? Why is a thiefs life worth more than mine? Why should they not have to work for what they want? Why should I have to work MORE (much more) to allow them to steal it from me with no fear of consequences? Do you also believe slavery is ok too? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2017 11:46:42 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Stealing property is stealing life. Do you work for free? Is everything given to you for free? No? You earn money by sacrificing hours of your life for hard earned money to buy what you need and want? So.....I should be allowed to steal your car and property, and as long as I am unarmed or running away to hurt someone else I am ok? You cannot shoot to protect your property? Only a fucking communist believes that. My property represents YEARS of my life spent at work. At jobs I hated. So I could acquire what I needed and wanted legally and honorably. My property IS my life. Why should huge chunks of my life be sacrificed for other peoples laziness? Why is a thiefs life worth more than mine? Why should they not have to work for what they want? Why should I have to work MORE (much more) to allow them to steal it from me with no fear of consequences? Do you also believe slavery is ok too? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2017 11:47:12 AM EDT
[#14]
Wait.....
So now because the theifs life and rights are more important then mine....I have to work even more to earn even more money to pay protection money to a company just to have a better chance of having my property and life restored? And I still have to pay an expensive deductable to do it? So I am still out money (money=hours of LIFE spent earning it) because someones laziness, worthlessness, lack of morals, greed, and THEIR life is worth more than mine? Yeah.....that makes sense. To atheist communists. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2017 11:49:50 AM EDT
[#15]
Any law that puts a criminals rights above his victims is wrong.
I say bring back capital punishment for convicted rapists, and more for common criminals like this. Within 15 years crime will fall and many hood rats might see this and decide school and better choices ARE easier. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2017 11:54:13 AM EDT
[#16]
We're a nation of laws.
Both of them broke the law, both of them will pay the price. Bad shoot doesn't matter how you cut it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2017 12:02:05 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm not sure if shooting someone over a property crime is a good shoot. In NYC if you are not connected or pay off the cops in the pistol licensing bureau  the only way you can get a carry permit is if you are moving a certain amount of money. So if you are not moving at least the minimum then no permit for you. So basically the powers that be feel your life is only worth protecting if you have "X" # of dollars. Of course they counter it by saying criminals target those that carry at least this magical dollar figure, but we know a thief will kill you for a dollar or just for kicks.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2017 12:08:31 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
He did have an armed person protecting it....himself. So rich corporations should be allowed to shoot would be robbers because they are rich. You realize that vehicle probably represented a larger fraction of that individual's wealth than what an armored car contains? Your post is hypocritical and reeks of elitism. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Should we also shoot children who steal candy from the c store? If not then how do you determine which thieves get shot? Is it like a $500 and up value stipulation? In a cars case we talking blue book or trade in? My point is you only use deadly force when there is rosk of death or grave bodily injury. BTW I think Singapore style canning is sufficient for actual children - 12 and below. For all you "good shoot" people, answer this: Is or is not America a nation of laws? Should we or should we not eschew vigilante justice? Is the average person properly qualified to be judge, jury, and executioner? (And before you answer that one, think back to that "should we allow the average person to carry a gun on a plane" thread.) I'm all for punishing thieves. I'm all for use of force to prevent use of force - up to and including deadly force. If someone threatens the life or health of another person, then that other person should be perfectly justified in using whatever force he or she deems necessary to protect himself or herself. That doesn't include shooting a fleeing thief (or attempted thief, since in this case I don't think he actually stole anything) in the back unless you can prove that the thief presents a threat in his flight. Personally, I hope that the homeowner can articulate that he saw a weapon in the thief's hand and that the thief, in his flight, presented a threat to everyone in his path. But shooting someone who is presenting no threat to you, just because you saw them trying to steal something? That's third-world, "pour gas on them and light them up" shit right there. Your post is hypocritical and reeks of elitism. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2017 12:19:57 PM EDT
[#19]
Quoted:
Stealing property is stealing life. Do you work for free? Is everything given to you for free? No? You earn money by sacrificing hours of your life for hard earned money to buy what you need and want? So.....I should be allowed to steal your car and property, and as long as I am unarmed or running away to hurt someone else I am ok? You cannot shoot to protect your property? Only a fucking communist believes that. My property represents YEARS of my life spent at work. At jobs I hated. So I could acquire what I needed and wanted legally and honorably. My property IS my life. Why should huge chunks of my life be sacrificed for other peoples laziness? Why is a thiefs life worth more than mine? Why should they not have to work for what they want? Why should I have to work MORE (much more) to allow them to steal it from me with no fear of consequences? Do you also believe slavery is ok too? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2017 12:36:42 PM EDT
[#20]
I say Manslaughter. Discharged with time served. I hate thieves.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2017 12:38:28 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
He'd walk if I was on the jury. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2017 12:40:32 PM EDT
[#22]
GJ NTB
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2017 12:40:49 PM EDT
[#23]
Here your car is an extension of your home.
Fuck Marcus. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2017 12:43:31 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2017 12:44:39 PM EDT
[#25]
Quoted:
Link Atlanta police said it was a deadly shooting over a car. Investigators said the car owner was the shooter and is now facing felony charges.
Police said Josiah Gilbert looked out of his apartment window on Candler Road and saw someone trying to steal his car. Investigators said Gilbert grabbed his gun and shot the suspected car thief as he was running away. “He found a person he didn't know breaking into his automobile. He shot him in the back of the head,” said Atlanta Police Sgt. Warren Pickard. Marcus Mitchell, 20, was rushed to the hospital. He spent four days in critical condition. His family said Marcus passed away Tuesday morning. “I'm devastated his life had to end this way, senseless shooting,” said his uncle, Typurs Mitchell. Mitchell's uncle said despite what police said Marcus was doing, it was not worth taking a life. They had a message for the shooter. “You could have got that car back brother, I can't get my nephew back, I can't,” said Typurs Mitchell. Gilbert was arrested and charged with aggravated assault. Police said those charges will likely be upgraded to murder. Kinda torn. I know that property loss does not justify use of deadly force. It doesn't sound like self-defense was in any way implicated here. I also can't stand a thief. But I wonder a little bit about how all this played out. The guy gets shot in the back of the head. Does that tell us anything about the event as it played out? Was the shooter lucky in his shot placement, or is he some crack shot or was he a lot closer than he told the police? It's awful easy to claim the dead guy was doing something to you when he isn't around to deny it. Was there any damage to the vehicle indicating it was actually being broken into? Any witnesses other than the shooter? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2017 12:52:36 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
My state's best law. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Texas Penal Code - PENAL § 9.42. Deadly Force to Protect Property A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property: |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2017 12:53:22 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm not sure if shooting someone over a property crime is a good shoot. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Shooting the thief as he was running away is most likely a bad shoot. My libertarian beliefs allow everyone else to shoot anyone that messes with anyone/anything of theirs, including property. I'll say good shoot. I hate thieves. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2017 12:55:22 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
He did have an armed person protecting it....himself. So rich corporations should be allowed to shoot would be robbers because they are rich. You realize that vehicle probably represented a larger fraction of that individual's wealth than what an armored car contains? Your post is hypocritical and reeks of elitism. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Should we also shoot children who steal candy from the c store? If not then how do you determine which thieves get shot? Is it like a $500 and up value stipulation? In a cars case we talking blue book or trade in? My point is you only use deadly force when there is rosk of death or grave bodily injury. BTW I think Singapore style canning is sufficient for actual children - 12 and below. For all you "good shoot" people, answer this: Is or is not America a nation of laws? Should we or should we not eschew vigilante justice? Is the average person properly qualified to be judge, jury, and executioner? (And before you answer that one, think back to that "should we allow the average person to carry a gun on a plane" thread.) I'm all for punishing thieves. I'm all for use of force to prevent use of force - up to and including deadly force. If someone threatens the life or health of another person, then that other person should be perfectly justified in using whatever force he or she deems necessary to protect himself or herself. That doesn't include shooting a fleeing thief (or attempted thief, since in this case I don't think he actually stole anything) in the back unless you can prove that the thief presents a threat in his flight. Personally, I hope that the homeowner can articulate that he saw a weapon in the thief's hand and that the thief, in his flight, presented a threat to everyone in his path. But shooting someone who is presenting no threat to you, just because you saw them trying to steal something? That's third-world, "pour gas on them and light them up" shit right there. Your post is hypocritical and reeks of elitism. The bank guards, or armored guards, can respond to force WITH force. They're no different than you or I... or the owner of the car in this story. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2017 12:57:39 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Shooting the thief as he was running away is most likely a bad shoot. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2017 12:59:17 PM EDT
[#30]
Should have cut his damn fingers off. Old timey justice.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2017 1:05:22 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Good shoot/Bad shoot? That is the question or one of the questions. Another of several additional questions is: Was the punishment received by the criminal proper and appropriated for the crime of ' Attempted theft'? The logical answer is, NO plain and simple. Was the owner justified in firing his weapon under the reported circumstances. He certainly has the right to protect his property. Perhaps a warning shot would have been more appropriate even shooting the would be thief in the leg would certainly be OK. I don't see attempted car theft of an unoccupied vehicle as justification for killing the perp. Yes, yes, I know the thief will never come back and threaten the victim again or anyone else. However, the punishment in this particular incidence does not seem to fit the crime. He was not getting away with the car. The property was not stolen. Justification of killing the perp does not exist in this case. Had the thief been driving away in the owners car and the owner shot and killed the thief I could place no blame on the owner. He does indeed have a right to protect his property. Respectfully, YMMV . That throws the rest of your argument in the AK-47 can. Punishments are meted out after some kind of determination is made. "Falling" is not punishment for letting go of the trapeze, it's just what happens when you do. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2017 1:06:48 PM EDT
[#32]
Next time, be waiting in the car and blast him in the front as he is breaking into your vehicle with the intent of harming you
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2017 1:21:10 PM EDT
[#33]
The state's penalty for property crime is too lax, and the victim's penalty for property crime is too harsh. Meanwhile, certain lawyers are reaping the benefit of both.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2017 2:17:09 PM EDT
[#34]
The world according to GD:
A citizen sees someone breaking into his car. He shoots and kills the suspect that is running away; good shoot. A cop responds to someone breaking into a car. He shoots and kills the suspect that is running away; bad shoot. Reality: Both are wrong. While we may not like thieves, I guarantee anyone's life would be substantially better by choosing not to shoot if they find themself in this situation. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2017 2:30:43 PM EDT
[#35]
Shooter is in deep shit.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2017 2:31:36 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It would be a mistrial if I was on the jury. Quote HistoryQuoted:
It would be a mistrial if I was on the jury. Quoted:
He'd walk if I was on the jury. Quoted:
Not guilty. Quoted:
Not guilty. Quoted:
Good shoot all day if I was on the jury. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2017 2:32:58 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
He'd walk if I was on the jury. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2017 2:34:16 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The world according to GD: A citizen sees someone breaking into his car. He shoots and kills the suspect that is running away; good shoot. A cop responds to someone breaking into a car. He shoots and kills the suspect that is running away; bad shoot. Reality: Both are wrong. While we may not like thieves, I guarantee anyone's life would be substantially better by choosing not to shoot if they find themself in this situation. They're both good shoots. Fuck thieves. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2017 2:42:54 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm not sure if shooting someone over a property crime is a good shoot. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2017 2:47:06 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Stealing property is stealing life. Do you work for free? Is everything given to you for free? No? You earn money by sacrificing hours of your life for hard earned money to buy what you need and want? So.....I should be allowed to steal your car and property, and as long as I am unarmed or running away to hurt someone else I am ok? You cannot shoot to protect your property? Only a fucking communist believes that. My property represents YEARS of my life spent at work. At jobs I hated. So I could acquire what I needed and wanted legally and honorably. My property IS my life. Why should huge chunks of my life be sacrificed for other peoples laziness? Why is a thiefs life worth more than mine? Why should they not have to work for what they want? Why should I have to work MORE (much more) to allow them to steal it from me with no fear of consequences? Do you also believe slavery is ok too? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2017 3:09:28 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Good shoot/Bad shoot? That is the question or one of the questions. Another of several additional questions is: Was the punishment received by the criminal proper and appropriate for the crime of ' Attempted theft'? The logical answer is, NO plain and simple. Was the owner justified in firing his weapon under the reported circumstances. He certainly has the right to protect his property. Perhaps a warning shot would have been more appropriate even shooting the would be thief in the leg would certainly be OK. I don't see attempted car theft of an unoccupied vehicle as justification for killing the perp. Yes, yes, I know the thief will never come back and threaten the victim again or anyone else. However, the punishment in this particular incidence does not seem to fit the crime. He was not getting away with the car. The property was not stolen. Justification of killing the perp does not exist in this case. Had the thief been driving away in the owners car and the owner shot and killed the thief I could place no blame on the owner. He does indeed have a right to protect his property. Respectfully, YMMV . |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2017 3:13:41 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Stealing property is stealing life. Do you work for free? Is everything given to you for free? No? You earn money by sacrificing hours of your life for hard earned money to buy what you need and want? So.....I should be allowed to steal your car and property, and as long as I am unarmed or running away to hurt someone else I am ok? You cannot shoot to protect your property? Only a fucking communist believes that. My property represents YEARS of my life spent at work. At jobs I hated. So I could acquire what I needed and wanted legally and honorably. My property IS my life. Why should huge chunks of my life be sacrificed for other peoples laziness? Why is a thiefs life worth more than mine? Why should they not have to work for what they want? Why should I have to work MORE (much more) to allow them to steal it from me with no fear of consequences? Do you also believe slavery is ok too? At what point is $X worth a life? When it reflects the moments in my life I spent making it? The first penny. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2017 3:15:53 PM EDT
[#43]
Shooting thieves that are not threatening you with death or grave bodily harm is prohibited in the vast majority of states.
Texas allows shooting thieves under restricted circumstances. Like at night and if recovering the property would be 'difficult' IIRC. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2017 3:16:21 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
For all you "good shoot" people, answer this: Is or is not America a nation of laws? Should we or should we not eschew vigilante justice? Is the average person properly qualified to be judge, jury, and executioner? But shooting someone who is presenting no threat to you, just because you saw them trying to steal something? That's third-world, "pour gas on them and light them up" shit right there. Your muddling of the term "vigilantism" is the same as the BradyBloomieBLM hacks, and equally as invalid. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2017 3:18:42 PM EDT
[#45]
Put me on the jury, NOT GUILTY.
Next case.... I have ZERO mercy for thieves |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2017 3:19:13 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
He'd walk if I was on the jury. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2017 3:20:46 PM EDT
[#47]
I will just leave this hear....Ga courts don't really give a damn what any other State court says
GEORGIA CRIMINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS (G.C.J.I. 2003) GA 3.02.10 Justification; Use of Force in Defense of Self or Others A person is justified in threatening or using force against another person when, and to the extent that, he/she reasonably believes that such threat or force is necessary to defend himselfYherself or a third person against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. A person is justified in using force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if that person reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily injury to himself/herself or a third person or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony. O.C.G.A. §16-3-21 The State has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was not justified. State v. Shepperd, 253 Ga. 321 (1984) Bishop v. State, 271 Ga. 291 (1999) (Give the following only as appropriate.) A person is not justified in using force, if that person a) initially provokes the use of force against himself7herself with the intent to use such force as an excuse to inflict bodily harm upon the assailant; or b) is attempting to commit, is committing, or is fleeing after the commission or attempted commission of a felony (define arguable felony); or c) was the aggressor or was engaged in a combat by agreement, unless the person withdraws from the encounter and effectively communicates his/her intent to withdraw to the other person, and the other person still continues or threatens to continue the use of unlawful force. O.C.G.A. §~16-3-20, 16-3-21 Maddox v. State, 241 Ga. 398 (1978) Dasherv. State, 146 Ga. App. 118 (1978) Rinerv. State, 147 Ga. App. 707 (1978) Scottv. State, 141 Ga. App. 848 (1977) Heardv. State, 261 Ga. 262 (1991) Williams v. State, 274 Ga. 371 (2001) |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2017 3:24:47 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm not sure if shooting someone over a property crime is a good shoot. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2017 3:28:44 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Shooting the thief as he was running away is most likely a bad shoot. Jury nullification would be appropriate. Community service at worse if convicted. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2017 3:33:45 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If he hadn't been trying to steal a car he would not have been shot. So what if he ran away once he was confronted. Good shoot Saving us for all of the POS's future crimes. No mother should have to worry about their sons life every time he robs or steals from someone.    |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
