2 Dead Over Stolen Radiator

[Guest Engloid]

You are NOT innocent if you are on my land taking my property!! If you are not on my land taking my stuff, I will not shoot you.

How many innocent people would be killed following that logic?

Many would. Lets say that you have had things stolen from your carport about 6 times. One evening, some kids cut through your yard going home. You think the're the ones stealing, so you shoot them.

We have courts for a reason. It's so that a third party or can reflect upon an incident after the "heat of the moment," in daylight, and make a fair and more educated decision than you would in that situation.

You have absolutely no right, privilege or anything to be on my land without my conncent...and damn sure don't have any right to take something that doesn't belong to you...even it if it $0.99 lollipop reflector.

YOU have no right do make the decision whether they are guilty, and impose the penalty of death. It's that easy. Argue the way you want things to be all you want, but that's the way it IS.

[DaveTN]

If you own a gun you need to know the laws on who you can shoot. Protecting your property doesn’t help your family much if you are in prison and they lose everything they have.

[Guest jackdog]

Make no mistake I do know and understand the law. Like others on the board I wish TN law was like TX. law. Nope not quite ready to go to jail thank you

[Guest TNDixieGirl]

Many would. Lets say that you have had things stolen from your carport about 6 times. One evening, some kids cut through your yard going home. You think the're the ones stealing, so you shoot them.

We have courts for a reason. It's so that a third party or can reflect upon an incident after the "heat of the moment," in daylight, and make a fair and more educated decision than you would in that situation.

YOU have no right do make the decision whether they are guilty, and impose the penalty of death. It's that easy. Argue the way you want things to be all you want, but that's the way it IS.

Shooting a person under those scenarios would be ignorant at best, and I think the forum members here have a tad bit more intelligence than you seem to think.

Don't insult my intelligence by throwing out lame "what-ifs". What moron woud shoot a kid(s) thats just strolling through his yard? NO ONE here even implied such a thing. Surely you don't even believe that!

If a stranger is running out my door carrying my stereo and my car keys, I can guarantee you he's guilty. I'm not ignorant enough to need a judge to tell me that.

[Fallguy]

Thank you Dixie.

A kid strolling through the yard does not have a armful of my stuff from my shed. I did say in the act of stealing something...not just being within sight. I by no means meant to shoot on site someone just standing in my yard. Although that is legal after dark in TX. Also....I would not shoot someone over some cheap yard ornament, I was just trying to point out to some degree the value of the object is irrelevant, it belongs to me, not them.

I do know the laws of TN and feel I have a pretty decent grip on when it is ok to shoot and not. I agree, in this radiator case, the guy had no legal right to shoot. I think some are just pointing out in other states he would have, and some (like me) wish we could in TN.

I will also say if you are on my land, you have a decent chance of being confronted by me while I'm armed. Even though I may not can use it, unless and/or until you threaten me directly. ...and FYI the law does say you can threaten the degree of force necessary to prevent the theft or stop the trespass. But that you can only use deadly force as it would apply to self-defense.

[Guest canynracer]

Sorry to butt in here guys, but there are other threads on this board with the SAME people in this thread...this thread "OK to shoot" other threads "Not justified, he was not in immediate danger"

the point is, this guy shot into a car that was driving away with a radiator that was in his yard.......

sorry, but not justified self defense.

now, if the theives broke into his home, different story, but that is not the topic here.

[Guest TNDixieGirl]

I dont recall ever saying "not justified, he was not in immediate danger" cause I've never bought into that "in immediate danger" stipulation. I've always advocated protecting life and property from the bad guy. But I will be the first to admit, every situation or circumstance can be very different forcing a different outcome or last second decision.

Let me ask this, since the what ifs are being laid out there.

What would you do if you walked up on your front porch and about the time you went to twist the front doorknob a stranger with gun in one hand and a purse in the other throws open the door, runs past you and heads for the street. In the meantime you see your wife/daughter/girlfriend/grandmother (whichever) laying on the couch with a bullet hole in her skull. Remember, you arent in immediate danger, after all he's running away with his back to you. But he just killed your loved one in order to steal her purse. Do you shoot the guy thats running from your house? Again, you are NOT in immediate danger.

Edited February 13, 2008 by TNDixieGirl

[Guest canynracer]

Please dont think I was pointing any single person out, just making the statement in general...it was just an observation.

I didnt throw out any "what ifs" I was speaking about this scenario...

but to attempt to answer your question as openly and honestly as I possibly can, I have no idea what I would do, I guess I would tend to my wounded family first? but maybe after taking the shots at the dude that just ran past me with a gun in his hand leaving my house? I have no idea, I am human, I would most likely be a wreck....since we are being so honest...what would you do?

[Guest TNDixieGirl]

Oh I don't think you were pointing at me directly, I was just clarifying where I stand on the whole "in immediate danger" part of our TN law. And yes, I'm aware it's the law, but I wish it wasn't. I, personal opinion only, think Texas has it right. Criminals would have to have second-thoughts like "Is stealing this guy's TV really worth losing my life?"

I have no idea what I would do in that situation that I posed, that's my whole point. We all know the law, we all have our opinions of it, and we all would most likely react differently. But that particular situation is where I would definitely disagree with the "immediate danger" clause of the law. Human emotion would first say to me "Kill that bastard before he gets away".

[Guest canynracer]

Oh I don't think you were pointing at me directly, I was just clarifying where I stand on the whole "in immediate danger" part of our TN law. And yes, I'm aware it's the law, but I wish it wasn't. I, personal opinion only, think Texas has it right. Criminals would have to have second-thoughts like "Is stealing this guy's TV really worth losing my life?"

I have no idea what I would do in that situation that I posed, that's my whole point. We all know the law, we all have our opinions of it, and we all would most likely react differently. But that particular situation is where I would definitely disagree with the "immediate danger" clause of the law. Human emotion would first say to me "Kill that bastard before he gets away".

LMAO....Totally agree!!

[Guest TNDixieGirl]

Thats what I like most about this forum. We can all discuss, debate, toss our opinions in the ring, disagree with other opinions and still walk away at the end of the day smiling (at least I do). And most of the time, I actually learn something I hadn't thought of before.

[Fallguy]

Ok..I admit..I am one that in this thread is saying shoot and in another saying only when in reasonable fear of serious bodily harm or death.

That is because in the other thread I was giving my opinion as to how I interpret the law. In this thread I am giving my opinion in what I personally believe to be right and what I think the law should be.

I have also stated in this thread that as the law stands now, this guy was not legally justified in shooting at these people.

[Marswolf]

I keep going back to the concept that while you are in the process of committing a crime against a person or property, you should be considered an outlaw (a person excluded from normal legal protection and rights). When you act like a thug or are stealing someone's property - that they WORKED for - you give up your rights under any reasonable civilized body and its code.

You get caught and you deserve what you get.

I think that should be the law.

[Fallguy]

I keep going back to the concept that while you are in the process of committing a crime against a person or property, you should be considered an outlaw (a person excluded from normal legal protection and rights). When you act like a thug or are stealing someone's property - that they WORKED for - you give up your rights under any reasonable civilized body and its code.

You get caught and you deserve what you get.

I think that should be the law.

Very well said!

[Guest Engloid]

Don't insult my intelligence by throwing out lame "what-ifs". What moron woud shoot a kid(s) thats just strolling through his yard? NO ONE here even implied such a thing. Surely you don't even believe that!

You wrote one in your reply. Should I be insulted?

As I said before, the laws are not there to allow criminals a free ride with your possessions. They are in place to protect the innocent.

If a stranger is running out my door carrying my stereo and my car keys, I can guarantee you he's guilty. I'm not ignorant enough to need a judge to tell me that.

Even though making "what-if's" aren't above you, but are insulting to you when I make them, I'll go ahead and reply. IF this happened, you're a little slow, cause you should try and shoot the guy on his way in, not his way out.

It's all easy to say we want the law to allow us to shoot on sight of our possession in the hands of a thief, but if it's your son pushing his own mower through somebody's yard and

Edited February 14, 2008 by Engloid

[Guest canynracer]

I keep going back to the concept that while you are in the process of committing a crime against a person or property, you should be considered an outlaw (a person excluded from normal legal protection and rights). When you act like a thug or are stealing someone's property - that they WORKED for - you give up your rights under any reasonable civilized body and its code.

You get caught and you deserve what you get.

I think that should be the law.

interesting concept...is there some sort of dissemination about what is beng stolen? in other words, stealing a car compared to stealing a car stereo, or somethng of lesser value? or does theft get the same consequence?

I am not disagreeing, just trying to understand.

[Marswolf]

.is there some sort of dissemination about what is beng stolen?

I see no reason for the distinction. If you are a thief, you are a thief.

[Guest tjbert47]

Shooting a person under those scenarios would be ignorant at best, and I think the forum members here have a tad bit more intelligence than you seem to think.

Don't insult my intelligence by throwing out lame "what-ifs". What moron woud shoot a kid(s) thats just strolling through his yard? NO ONE here even implied such a thing. Surely you don't even believe that!

If a stranger is running out my door carrying my stereo and my car keys, I can guarantee you he's guilty. I'm not ignorant enough to need a judge to tell me that.

Well said TNDixieGirl Bravo!!!

Tom in TN

[Guest tjbert47]

I dont recall ever saying "not justified, he was not in immediate danger" cause I've never bought into that "in immediate danger" stipulation. I've always advocated protecting life and property from the bad guy. But I will be the first to admit, every situation or circumstance can be very different forcing a different outcome or last second decision.

Let me ask this, since the what ifs are being laid out there.

What would you do if you walked up on your front porch and about the time you went to twist the front doorknob a stranger with gun in one hand and a purse in the other throws open the door, runs past you and heads for the street. In the meantime you see your wife/daughter/girlfriend/grandmother (whichever) laying on the couch with a bullet hole in her skull. Remember, you arent in immediate danger, after all he's running away with his back to you. But he just killed your loved one in order to steal her purse. Do you shoot the guy thats running from your house? Again, you are NOT in immediate danger.

HELL YES !!!! (justified or not)

Tom in TN

[Guest canynracer]

Mars...fair enough. Thanks

[Guest TNDixieGirl]

You wrote one in your reply. Should I be insulted?

The one I wrote wasn't about a scenario involving kids walking across your yard either. How stupid do you think we are to start shooting at kids that are doing nothing more than walking in your grass????? Thats the insulting of my intelligence part. Not the fact that you gave a "what if".

As I said before, the laws are not there to allow criminals a free ride with your possessions. They are in place to protect the innocent.

No one strolling off with MY possesions is innocent. Period. What part about that do people not understand??

Even though making "what-if's" aren't above you, but are insulting to you when I make them, I'll go ahead and reply. IF this happened, you're a little slow, cause you should try and shoot the guy on his way in, not his way out.

I'm not actually slow, if you'll read it again. The person was just walking onto th eir front porch (as in arriving home is what I should've said). How can you catch him coming in when you weren't even inside yet? If I'd been home, you bet I would've met them coming in. And as I said already, it wasn't the fact you presented a what-if scenario, it was the ridiculous one you gave us. Kids in our yards getting shot for nothng more than being in the yard????? C'mon. Who on this board do you HONESTLY think would even dream of doing that??

It's all easy to say we want the law to allow us to shoot on sight of our possession in the hands of a thief, but if it's your son pushing his own mower through somebody's yard and

I don't understand that one so I can't answer it.

Edited February 14, 2008 by TNDixieGirl

[Guest TNDixieGirl]

I'm not sure how to reply correctly to address certain statements so the bold parts don't indicate I'm yelling (cause I'm truly not). I just didn't know how else to indicate those were my words and not yours.

[Guest TNDixieGirl]

HELL YES !!!! (justified or not)

Tom in TN

And I truly think most of us would feel that way, but the way the law is written in TN, we would be up crapcreek with no paddle cause the guy was running away.

I'm no lawyer, heck I don't even know any lawyers, but I wish we didn't have to bend over backwards making sure we don't infringe on a criminals rights. If we do, we end up facing charges and that's nothing but wrong from any way you look at it.

[Guest canynracer]

I'm not sure how to reply correctly to address certain statements so the bold parts don't indicate I'm yelling (cause I'm truly not). I just didn't know how else to indicate those were my words and not yours.

You should have made the fonts Bigger, and different colors, and underlines with italics, unless you are yelling then make them all CAPS!!!!!!

[strickj]

And I truly think most of us would feel that way, but the way the law is written in TN, we would be up crapcreek with no paddle cause the guy was running away.

I'm no lawyer, heck I don't even know any lawyers, but I wish we didn't have to bend over backwards making sure we don't infringe on a criminals rights. If we do, we end up facing charges and that's nothing but wrong from any way you look at it.

next we will have a bill saying jailing bg's is cruel and unusual punishment:rolleyes: