Mixed feelings on this one

[Guest kj4gxu]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2343491/Welcome-Glock-Block-Vigilante-neighbors-Oregon-town-say-longer-calling-police-armed-instead.html

 

Glad to see them taking their protection into their own hands, but I foresee this one going badly.  In the event of even a valid self defense shooting in this neighborhood I can see those signs being dragged into the court room as proof that the entire neighborhood conspired to engage in "Vigilante Justice".

Edited June 18, 2013 by kj4gxu

[Makiaveli]

I agree with you on this. One of them is going to wind up shooting a teenage vandal which will end badly for both.

[peejman]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_prsgZnPMQg

[RobertNashville]

I suspect, should one of the residents need to defend themselves with deadly force, any prosecutor who decided to bring charges will use their statements, and signs and all the rest to try and paint a picture of a neighborhood out to be a vigilantly force rather than just a citizen defending his/her life.

 

I think they would have been far better off to do what they are doing but keep their mouths shut about it..

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Nothing wrong with someone trying to protect their own property. If you want to read a book about vigilantism,

try "Place of Execution" by Val McDermid. Talk about vigilantism. It's loosely based on the Moor murders in

Scotland in the 60's.

 

No comparison.

 

If a teen vandal gets shot while attempting his vandalism, what's the difference between he and an adult? You

do have a right to protect your property without asking for ID first.

Edited June 25, 2013 by 6.8 AR

[Alleycat72]

It says they don't call the police. I assume that means before and after they pop some scumbag. 300 people with a Glock 19. Who did it? :shrug:

[Spurholder]

Making a statement versus following through with a course of action.  Worked well for Kennesaw, Georgia back in the day, IIRC.

 

The "we don't call 911" theme presented here is a little over the top, and unfortunately, something that an eager ambulance-chaser would immediately seize upon.

[Guest kj4gxu]

Nothing wrong with someone trying to protect their own property. If you want to read a book about vigilantism,

try "Place of Execution" by Val McDermott. Talk about vigilantism. It's loosely based on the Moor murders in

Scotland in the 60's.

 

No comparison.

 

If a teen vandal gets shot while attempting his vandalism, what's the difference between he and an adult? You

do have a right to protect your property without asking for ID first.

I may be wrong here but isn't it correct that you do not have a right to protect property as in vandalism with deadly force.  As I understand the laws you have a right to protect yourself from death or serious physical harm, but not property.  As you know I'm a lot newer to this than you are so please clarify if I've got something wrong.

I personally wouldn't shoot for a property crime either way unless the perpetrator turned on me and threatened or attempted assault when confronted.

[robbiev]

I may be wrong here but isn't it correct that you do not have a right to protect property as in vandalism with deadly force.  As I understand the laws you have a right to protect yourself from death or serious physical harm, but not property.  As you know I'm a lot newer to this than you are so please clarify if I've got something wrong.

I personally wouldn't shoot for a property crime either way unless the perpetrator turned on me and threatened or attempted assault when confronted.

Very briefly, yes, protecting property using deadly force is illegal in most U.S. States.

[daddyo]

I can especially understand women who are the head of the household or living alone wanting the means to protect themselves, but unless your life is in imminent danger, deadly force is not justified.

[Guest ab28]

Yeah, for what they mentioned, lethal force isn't the answer. I wouldn't shoot someone over stolen property, unless they were in my house, in which case it wouldn't be over the property. Things aren't worth people's lives.

[JAB]

Things aren't worth people's lives.

 

Some 'things' are irreplaceable.  Things that belonged to my late father, grandparents, great-grandparents and so on.  Those things are one of a kind because of the family connection and I place a much higher value on them and that connection than on the life of some lowlife scumbag who would steal them.  No, I wouldn't shoot to protect those things but only because it is against the law.  If our laws were more reasonable - like Texas - then a choice between irreplaceable things with priceless, sentimental value and the life of some lowlife crook would be no choice, at all.  I will abide by the laws as they stand but if our state government were to entertain the idea of allowing the use of deadly force to protect property then I would support such a change.

 

Other things are just 'stuff', however.  In those cases, even if it were legal, I would not be likely to shoot to protect property.  Not because I think the scumbag's life is 'of more value' but simply because I wouldn't want the hassle of having shot someone over 'stuff' - even if it were legal to do so.

 

All that said, I agree with the fears that the residents in this case have gone too far with the fliers they have posted, etc.  I don't disagree with them taking a stand but things would probably 'end better' for them if they weren't so vocal and extreme in the declarations they make before-hand.

Edited June 25, 2013 by JAB

[fourteentwo]

That just looks like propaganda to me.

I couldn't imagine that lady shooting someone over a lawn ornament but their fliers are serving as intimidation.

The fear of being shot will drive these people away from that neighborhood to one that looks less risky.

That's one of the effects of an armed society. That's what happens in Texas in general thanks to their laws. And I bet few people actually get shot just trying to steal something. Less people try to...

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I may be wrong here but isn't it correct that you do not have a right to protect property as in vandalism with deadly force.  As I understand the laws you have a right to protect yourself from death or serious physical harm, but not property.  As you know I'm a lot newer to this than you are so please clarify if I've got something wrong.

I personally wouldn't shoot for a property crime either way unless the perpetrator turned on me and threatened or attempted assault when confronted.

It happened in Clarksville, but the teenage perp was not killed. It was the kid of the owner of the BlackHorse Brewery

and a friend who got an old guy up and out his door with a pistol when he heard noise, one night a few years ago.

The owner was not charged and the kid got shot somewhere around the knee.

 

From what I understand, the Castle Law doesn't just mean inside your house, but inside your property, which is your

land, and also inside your car. The old way cops and other folks said to make sure you were in the right was to make

sure the perp is inside your home before you shoot. That isn't necessarily the case, any more. You rights are where

your property line is, and most certainly the situation that caused the problem, in the first place.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Wherever Jamie went, he could fill the details in on that one much better than I.

[Guest kj4gxu]

It happened in Clarksville, but the teenage perp was not killed. It was the kid of the owner of the BlackHorse Brewery

and a friend who got an old guy up and out his door with a pistol when he heard noise, one night a few years ago.

The owner was not charged and the kid got shot somewhere around the knee.

 

From what I understand, the Castle Law doesn't just mean inside your house, but inside your property, which is your

land, and also inside your car. The old way cops and other folks said to make sure you were in the right was to make

sure the perp is inside your home before you shoot. That isn't necessarily the case, any more. You rights are where

your property line is, and most certainly the situation that caused the problem, in the first place.

I'm editing because my recollection was not exactly right.  

 

http://www.wkrn.com/story/12570979/clarksville-teen-shot-in-leg-while-playing-prank

 

Apparently the homeowner said he heard a noise he thought was an explosion, thought someone was breaking into his home and fired at 2 people standing in the shadows.

Edited June 26, 2013 by kj4gxu

[Guest kj4gxu]

I'm editing because my recollection was not exactly right.  

 

http://www.wkrn.com/story/12570979/clarksville-teen-shot-in-leg-while-playing-prank

 

Apparently the homeowner said he heard a noise he thought was an explosion, thought someone was breaking into his home and fired at 2 people standing in the shadows.

 

Wherever Jamie went, he could fill the details in on that one much better than I.

 

It happened in Clarksville, but the teenage perp was not killed. It was the kid of the owner of the BlackHorse Brewery

and a friend who got an old guy up and out his door with a pistol when he heard noise, one night a few years ago.

The owner was not charged and the kid got shot somewhere around the knee.

 

From what I understand, the Castle Law doesn't just mean inside your house, but inside your property, which is your

land, and also inside your car. The old way cops and other folks said to make sure you were in the right was to make

sure the perp is inside your home before you shoot. That isn't necessarily the case, any more. You rights are where

your property line is, and most certainly the situation that caused the problem, in the first place.

I understand the Castle doctrine the same way, that it applies to your home, property and vehicle, but as I understand you still have to be in fear of death or grievous bodily harm so the concern would be the homeowner in the above neighborhood chasing down someone stealing their lawn gnome and putting 2 in his back or stepping out onto your front lawn and putting 2 in the kid who's tearing up your flower bed doesn't seem like it would fall under castle doctrine.

[RobertNashville]

Nothing wrong with someone trying to protect their own property. If you want to read a book about vigilantism,

try "Place of Execution" by Val McDermid. Talk about vigilantism. It's loosely based on the Moor murders in

Scotland in the 60's.

 

No comparison.

 

If a teen vandal gets shot while attempting his vandalism, what's the difference between he and an adult? You

do have a right to protect your property without asking for ID first.

You don't have the right to use deadly force to protect just property; not in TN anyway.  But, I do agree, the age of the thug is not the issue.

 

If a stranger who has not reasonable right to be ther shows up in my back hallway at 3AM he's going to meet the busines end of my SD weapons, I relly don't care if hes 16 or 26.

[RobertNashville]

Some 'things' are irreplaceable.  Things that belonged to my late father, grandparents, great-grandparents and so on.  Those things are one of a kind because of the family connection and I place a much higher value on them and that connection than on the life of some lowlife scumbag who would steal them.  No, I wouldn't shoot to protect those things but only because it is against the law.  If our laws were more reasonable - like Texas - then a choice between irreplaceable things with priceless, sentimental value and the life of some lowlife crook would be no choice, at all.  I will abide by the laws as they stand but if our state government were to entertain the idea of allowing the use of deadly force to protect property then I would support such a change.

 

Other things are just 'stuff', however.  In those cases, even if it were legal, I would not be likely to shoot to protect property.  Not because I think the scumbag's life is 'of more value' but simply because I wouldn't want the hassle of having shot someone over 'stuff' - even if it were legal to do so.

 

All that said, I agree with the fears that the residents in this case have gone too far with the fliers they have posted, etc.  I don't disagree with them taking a stand but things would probably 'end better' for them if they weren't so vocal and extreme in the declarations they make before-hand.

Some things are irreplaceable but is there anyting more irreplaceable than a human life? Especially, as is the case in this story, somr bored teenagers?

 

I get what you are sying...I really do; but I'm not going to take anyone's life over "stuff" no matter how much "meaning" it has for me...doing so is against the law in TN but it's also against my God's law as I understand it and attempt (emphasis on "attempt") to follow it. ;)

[JAB]

Some things are irreplaceable but is there anyting more irreplaceable than a human life? Especially, as is the case in this story, somr bored teenagers?

 

I am not talking about shooting bored teenagers over some spraypaint, etc.  Also, as I said, I will comply with the law and would not use potentially deadly force in defense of property, only in defense of my life.  However, I would have no moral qualms in supporting a change in TN law.

 

As far as some scumbag who would steal family heirlooms being 'replaceable', yes - there are hundreds more where they came from.  In fact, there is a regrettable surplus.  Honestly, I wish there weren't so many 'replacements'. 

Edited June 26, 2013 by JAB

[Spiffy]

Very briefly, yes, protecting property using deadly force is illegal in most U.S. States.

 

I personally think that should be changed in every state where it is illegal. It would thin the herd of the Free Stuff Army and would thin down the number of break ins when people are home.  Texas has the right idea. 

[RobertNashville]

I understand how people feel...I started working a real job when I was 14 and that was a long time ago; everything I have is a result of my own efforts; no inheritance...no silver spoon in this mouth until I bought one myself. Still, "stuff" will never be as important as human life so I carry good insurance.

 

If you want to thin the Free Stuff Army then keep criminals locked up...I'd bet that an overwhelming majority of the crime we see every day would disappear if we just kept convicted criminals locked up where they belong.  How often do we hear of a break in or violent assault, etc that the thug hasn't already been in prison before (and for that matter is currently on parole).

Edited June 27, 2013 by RobertNashville

[JAB]

I understand how people feel...I started working a real job when I was 14 and that was a long time ago; everything I have is a result of my own efforts; no inheritance...no silver spoon in this mouth until I bought one myself. Still, "stuff" will never be as important as human life so I carry good insurance.

 

If you want to thin the Free Stuff Army then keep criminals locked up...I'd bet that an overwhelming majority of the crime we see every day would disappear if we just kept convicted criminals locked up where they belong.  How often do we hear of a break in or violent assault, etc that the thug hasn't already been in prison before (and for that matter is currently on parole).

 

You are certainly correct about repeat offenders, etc.  Of course, I am not sure there is any way to stop bleeding-heart judges, etc. from going easy on criminals nor any, good way to stop such criminals from getting parole/early release not because of their own efforts to straighten up but simply because the jails and prisons are overcrowded.  I will add to your rhetorical question, "How often do we hear of violent offenders who have escalated from 'simple' burglary to more violent crimes in which their victims are injured or killed?"

 

Too bad there isn't a simple, effective way to deal with such criminals that would guarantee that parole is not an option and that they will not have an opportunity to be 'repeat offenders', huh?  Too bad that such a method can't be implemented (legally) before they graduate from 'simply' violating the sanctity of other people's homes and stealing property to threatening someone's life.

Edited June 27, 2013 by JAB

[Spiffy]

I understand how people feel...I started working a real job when I was 14 and that was a long time ago; everything I have is a result of my own efforts; no inheritance...no silver spoon in this mouth until I bought one myself. Still, "stuff" will never be as important as human life so I carry good insurance.

 

If you want to thin the Free Stuff Army then keep criminals locked up...I'd bet that an overwhelming majority of the crime we see every day would disappear if we just kept convicted criminals locked up where they belong.  How often do we hear of a break in or violent assault, etc that the thug hasn't already been in prison before (and for that matter is currently on parole).

 

 

Why should we have to warehouse and keep up criminals? I don't put the value on human life, the other person does. I value my life enough to protect it, carry a firearm and live by the laws of the land. When the criminal decides his life is worth my laptop or TV is a choice he made. We all have to live with our choices.

[Dennis1209]

Someone needs to play the Devils advocate here? Who better than "The Menace" :rofl:

 

Does anyone take it personal a trespasser is committing a crime against you. Your time wasted dealing with the situation, fear of being the victim (again), filing insurance claims if you even have insurance on the item(s) stolen, what are they going to take and / or do next to you or your neighbors? Personally, I've never heard of criminals deescalating their crimes. Even if they do eventually get caught, does the revolving court system administer fair compensation to the victims and fair justice? Their crimes and records sealed under eighteen years of age, criminal records generally not admissible for a trial, plea bargaining to lesser offense, probation, complex court error resulting in case over turned, clogged judicial systems, juvenile detention and house arrest and not big boy punishment for big boy crimes?

 

How do criminals such as these have "value" to you individually or as a community?