Indiana man sentenced in shooting of intruder

[nickf2005]

Not to mention it was the garage. What in your garage is worth using deadly force on another human being******, that is running away?

My Shelby

Ah yes, so cavalier about taking a life. I have good friends that have night terrors from such things even being 100% justified. I've seen lives ruined, families torn apart, careers over, and they did nothing wrong. What might interest you is that they all had similar attitudes that I am seeing here. Talk is easy until the rubber meets the road then pretend is over and reality kicks in. While I train for this and I like to think I will do what I need to do when needed and have been nano seconds away from pulling that trigger, I will never talk like taking a life is easy. Having witnessed self defense shootings firsthand, stuff isn't worth taking a life. LIFE is worth taking a life. And yes, I've been a victim of a burglary/theft as well. Much of what I have seen posted here is 100% an emotional response and not a logical one. We should refrain from making life altering decisions based on emotions...kinda like the gun grabbers do huh?

For what it's worth, there is a big difference between just stealing someone's stuff and violating their home in order to steal their stuff.

+1 for both

 

[Dead Duck]

[STRIKE]My Shelby[/STRIKE] My Shelby

FIFY





So - Can I have your Shelby?
Because if you value a dirtbags life more than a Mustang Shelby, then you don't deserve to own it.

 

[nickf2005]

FIFY





So - Can I have your Shelby?
Because if you value a dirtbags life more than a Mustang Shelby, then you don't deserve to own it.

I LITERALLY just LOL'd. I thank you for that.

You, sir, have made me reevaluate my position on this topic. I'll get back to you when I come to my second conclusion.

 

[BogWalker]

Even if it were legal to shoot those absconding with your property that would not mean you were legally obligated to do so.

 

[2ADMNLOVER]

I think a reason so many feel this bloodlust is because they know that after they're the victims of one of these crimes, the bad guy, more often than not, gets away with it and the victim is left to recover, rebuild, and restore at his/her own time and expense.

We can thank politicians , judges and lawyers for that .

So what is the solution then? Are we to assume that every small time criminal is destined to a violent future, and therefore render the maximum punishment?

Why not ? After all , isn't that logic train the same one that wheels of justice roll down when they're rolling over some guy for smoking / dealing pot ?

Makes perfect sense , judges and cops don't need to exercise due diligence when planning or executing a no knock warrant for a drug offense , that often seems to lead to pets / occupants being roughed up / shot , babies being burned and houses being damaged with NO recourse to the offended .

This homeowner practically catches a thief in the act , shoots him , and he's the ******* , WTF ?

Seems like the moral of this story is if the state wants to do it , you'd better roll over and take it . If you do it , you'd better be ready to do jail time .

 

[nickf2005]

I always approached arming myself for the moment my life was in immediate danger. Not, "this guy is a thug, so must provide justice".

 

[cook5oh]

We can thank politicians , judges and lawyers for that .



Why not ? After all , isn't that logic train the same one that wheels of justice roll down when they're rolling over some guy for smoking / dealing pot ?

Makes perfect sense , judges and cops don't need to exercise due diligence when planning or executing a no knock warrant for a drug offense , that often seems to lead to pets / occupants being roughed up / shot , babies being burned and houses being damaged with NO recourse to the offended .

This homeowner practically catches a thief in the act , shoots him , and he's the ******* , WTF ?

Seems like the moral of this story is if the state wants to do it , you'd better roll over and take it . If you do it , you'd better be ready to do jail time .

No, actually it's not the same "Logic Train". Because that "Logic Train" doesnt even exist. You really think that every person caught smoking pot gets a life sentence, or that most no knock warrants end in extreme violence and babies getting burned? As if that's part of the pre planning process.

Now your just dragging some kind of anti law enforcement sentiment into the mix and trying to use that to justify the shooting.

 

[MikeDVB]

We should refrain from making life altering decisions based on emotions...kinda like the gun grabbers do huh?

 

[2ADMNLOVER]

So what is the solution then? Are we to assume that every small time criminal is destined to a violent future, and therefore render the maximum punishment?

No, actually it's not the same "Logic Train". Because that "Logic Train" doesnt even exist. .

" Doesn't exist " ? It is the exact same thing !

The anti drug control freaks that like to tell people what they can and can't put in their bodies use the exact same " logic " .

How many times do we hear that pot is a " gateway " drug and that drug users WILL move on to harder stuff , that exact same argument is being used from local leo on up to politicians .

Why is that form of " logic " acceptable when it's used to control people's behavior , but NOT when used to deal with dregs ?

If that's the " logic " standard we're using it stands to reason that yes , this dirtbag WILL move on to bigger , more deadly crimes .

 

[jsharmon7]

It's unfortunate that someone was attempting to commit a crime on his property and he's the one getting punished, but knowing when one is justified in using deadly force is an important part of gun ownership. Recently I was talking with a guy who had the rims stolen off his vehicle at a local apartment complex. He was telling me how we need to step up patrols because he usually carries a pistol and he'll shoot the thief next time. I tried to explain that shooting someone in the parking lot of an apartment complex for stealing rims is a no-go, but he didn't seem to get it. Unfortunately I talk to a lot of people who don't seem to understand when deadly force is justified. Ultimately, it's the thief who forces the situation and it would be nice if the responsibility fell solely on them, but we as gun owners are also expected to know when to use deadly force and when to cut our losses. That's without even mentioning the possible civil suit you may face if you do shoot someone, justified or otherwise. What could be in your garage that is worth more than your potential legal fees?

 

[printcraft]

If in the commission of a criminal act you are injured or killed you have no one to blame but yourself.
I like to call this the “don’t start none, won’t be none” theory of personal behavior.


This is not about vigilantism or seeking out confrontation with criminals.
Coddling and tolerating criminals is a large part of the continual downgrading of society.


The moment you perpetrate action against another person you forfeit all protections.
I really don’t care what you do personally, you like crack? Enjoy your refreshing crack, I don’t care.
You have a job and can support your habit and are harming nobody but yourself, enjoy.


Oh, what’s that?
You can’t afford crack so you want to steal and harm someone else to support your habit?
You have just forfeited your right to live in a peaceful society.
If in the commission of a crime against another person you are injured or killed it is solely on you.
They didn’t seek you out, you did that. Personal responsibility.
This is not about wanting to get revenge or kill someone, this is about absolute justification of force if needed.
The VICTIM of the crime, in my mind, has free reign in this regard. It's time to worry about the VICTIMS rights, not the criminal.

 

[eldirector]

+1 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

 

[SicSTi]

What could be in your garage that is worth more than your potential legal fees?

Just this

And this

And my wife's bike, my Dillon 550b, reloading supplies (excluding all completed ammo that is put in the safe), all our hunting gear and tree stands, car detailing equipment, thousands of dollars in tools, and anything else laying around in there. (I have a 3 car garage so their is too much **** in there to list) Indiana law allows you protect yourself or anyone else from threat of injury or death as well as any of your personally property. House, car, trailer, doesn't matter where.

Where this guy went wrong is shooting someone in the back running away from him. Why he shot him isn't even a point here. Any cop will tell you that you have from the time of the first shot to the time he hits the ground to put as many rounds in him as possible while threatening you or your property. The second he runs, turns to leave, etc its no go from there. If he hits the ground it is now no-go unless he is still a potential threat with a weapon.

IMO frivolous law suits, even when the person was in the wrong, are going on everyday and people are winning due to stupid technicalities.
"Shoot to Kill" is now "Shoot to not get sued", meaning if you choose to use deadly force, you better hope you kill the person and had a good reason for doing it.

 

[rhino]

I reject any assertion that all people will react the same way emotionally to taking a human life.

The reaction afterward and longterm is going to vary by the individual. I've never killed anyone, but I know a surprising number of people who have under a variety of circumstances. Some of them are traumatized years later, and some accepted it as a necessary consequence of another person's actions and moved on.

I also think that pre-programming plays a huge role in how anyone feels and reacts after a traumatic event. If one is conditioned to believe they will be crippled with regret and grief before it happens, it's a lot more likely be the result.

 

[Denny347]

I reject any assertion that all people will react the same way emotionally to taking a human life.

The reaction afterward and longterm is going to vary by the individual. I've never killed anyone, but I know a surprising number of people who have under a variety of circumstances. Some of them are traumatized years later, and some accepted it as a necessary consequence of another person's actions and moved on.

I also think that pre-programming plays a huge role in how anyone feels and reacts after a traumatic event. If one is conditioned to believe they will be crippled with regret and grief before it happens, it's a lot more likely be the result.

Of course. I have a friend who shot a suspect through his eye hole when he had a knife to his girlfriend. Back to work the next day. I have several other friends that were about he same way in their shootings. Then I have others who have done very poorly since their incidents (man I have a lot of friends that have been involved in these things). Not quite a year ago I was involved in a police action shooting, my partner next to me took the shot, and I haven't lost any sleep. However, I stand buy the notion that we should not be so cavalier about being FORCED to take that action. I've seen the life leave a person's eyes, it's serious business.

 

[Robert Richardson]

Didn't they use to hang horse thieves?

 

[printcraft]

Of course. I have a friend who shot a suspect through his eye hole when he had a knife to his girlfriend. Back to work the next day. I have several other friends that were about he same way in their shootings. Then I have others who have done very poorly since their incidents (man I have a lot of friends that have been involved in these things). Not quite a year ago I was involved in a police action shooting, my partner next to me took the shot, and I haven't lost any sleep. However, I stand buy the notion that we should not be so cavalier about being FORCED to take that action. I've seen the life leave a person's eyes, it's serious business.

Not being cavalier about it at all, the friends you have that have been put in that situation I'm sure would have rather never have been put in that situation.
They bear no fault whatsoever of what happened to the criminals.
The guy with the knife chose for that to happen. The criminal makes the choice. They set forth the chain of events.
In your case, you did not chose for that to happen as well, your partner did not wake up that day looking to shoot someone, the criminal forced him to react.
Yes, it's serious business, it should never need to happen. The criminal makes it happen.

 

[Bigtanker]

According to an article from Gun save lives, the judge dropped the felony charges and went with mistermeiners so he could keep his job at the USPS and his 2A rights.

 

[LANShark42]

Again, I'm impressed by Denny's post, and I urge everyone to read it again.

X2