Posted on 11/09/2007 9:21:36 AM PST by SergeiRachmaninov
Selma — An intruder who police say was pinned between a car and a fence has died at the hospital.
John Reid said he pulled into his driveway near the intersection of Hawkins Road and U.S. Highway 301 between Micro and Selma Thursday afternoon when he noticed two men getting into a brown sedan outside a gate on his property.
Reid, whose property had been burglarized several times in the past year, said he did not want the pair to escape.
(Excerpt) Read more at wral.com ...
Looking at it from another perspective, you seem to be arguing that Mr. Reid decided to smash up his own vehicle and his perfectly good fence after he had effectively already recovered the stolen goods.
I don't buy that. Why would he compound his loss?
In the "I freaked out" adrenalin rush/ split second reaction time, "My foot ended up getting stuck on the gas pedal and in between the brake" is plausible. The episode unfolded very quickly.
The Sheriff there disagrees with you. I don’t know what the law is there, but would think the Sheriff of that county does.
From the article:
“Johnston County Sheriff Steve Bizzell said his preliminary findings make it unlikely Reid would be charged.”
Sorry, but this is intrinsically a wrong headed arguement IMHO. I work for what I get. I sacrfice my time and a portion of my life for it. When someone comes to take that thing that I have worked for, my possession, they are:
1) Showing clear and utter disregard for my life.
2) Placing themselves in a position where I MUST assume they are a mortal threat to my life (they are not there to do my good, therefore there is a huge potential that they will do my harm to get what they want to take).
For these reasons, any intruder, anyone stealing your property should be considered a dangerous and mortal threat to your life...and you should confront them accordingly, or risk losing your very life.
You should also be able to take whatever means necessary to prevent them from stealing that which you have worked for. Anything else, invites chaos and emboldens criminals.
Wow. I hate to sound like a lib but lethal force is not called for when “protecting your property”. Only in self defense or justifiably perceived threat of personal harm!
Almost everyone knows “you cant shoot someone unless they break into your house” and even that doesn’t hold up in court these days. If you are going to use your car to ram someone just to ‘stop them from getting away’, then you might have to expect to do some prison time if that person dies. I understand they MAY have been committing a crime..
_____________________________________________________________
That is only the State of Current Law... It is not a given or a moral imperative..and it can and should be changed.
I believe Lethal force is justified in defense of ones property.
The reason we hung Horse thieves is because their theft could lead to the death of others.
Have you ever had anything significant stolen?
I am a disabled GI and older, likely am no longer able to fully recover from such major loss.
If people or corporations are allowed to steal with no real consequence(as they are today). They may indeed be sentencing that person from whom they stole or members of their family to death or impoverishment. Maybe after the theft there is no longer sufficient money for to live other than in a single wide trailer (I have seen that with my now deceased WO friend). Maybe the person whose property was stolen can not turn that asset into something of value for their children’s benefit (I have seen that too). The thief who steals a working mans Truck and tools or fails to pay the moneies owed for a job completed. Perhaps he prevents the honest man from continuing to work so then he can no longer make his house payment.. or pay his other bills.. (I know a man in that situation as we speak)
The Police and others all too often use the self serving argument “insurance will cover it” Poppycock..Insurance other than to cover liability for injury to others is largely a racket anyway. I pay more than 10k for insurance each year now it still does not cover everything anyway.
We all too often seem to fall into the illusion that the thief is stealing a loaf of bread to eat...
That is just not the case in America today..
When someone breaks into a small sailboat and is killed trying to escape (This happened in Marina I was at) it seems terrible right? Until it was revealed the boat was in fact the owners only home and their life savings of 14k was aboard.. Suddenly banging some guy in the head with an oar as he swam away from that boat seemed 100% appropriate to me (The thief drowned...happy day)
Catch someone stealing what you have worked for.. and they are killed in the commission of a crime no matter how sleight they are responsible not you.. You did not ask them to steal from you.
It is a happy day... Win Win for everyone.
Except of course the Criminal, the Courts, the Prisons, Jails, Police Departments and Insurance companies. All who benefit when the criminal victimizes the citizen. Be that criminal a man or a corporation.
It is time to change any law that says it is not.
Just the threat of real consequences coming from ones actions and crooks either with masks or in Suits will quickly and largely cease their conduct.
Making our society a far better place to live, as it once was.
W
Not so in Texas. Since the passage of the castle law burglars can be shot on sight. Before that you had to catch them in the act and it had to be after dark.
LOL!
You’re correct about the presumption issue — previously, I’ve seen laws on the books where the homeowner was given that presumption in the statute - ie, if someone broke in, you didn’t need to play a game of 20 Questions to ascertain his intent to justify your reasonable fear. He committed a felony in breaking into your home, you’re given the presumption of having reasonable fear of GBI or death in the situation. The cite you gave makes it a bit more detached, but any smart homeowner would do as you say “he broke in, that’s a felony, I reckoned he was going to commit more felonies once inside. Tap, rack, bang.”
re: definition of ‘home’ or ‘residence’ - I’m not a lawyer and you should consult a real lawyer on stuff like this. Lawyers (and DA’s are, after all, lawyers) get very picky about the definitions of words and a lot hinges on that definition in this statute. Your tagline says you’re a Marine, so here’s a similar example — think about how much hinges on the definition of “combatant” when shooting at someone in a combat area of operations. Was he a kid? Hmmm. Looks bad. Was the kid packing a RPG? Well, that makes him a possible combatant. Was he pointing the RPG at you or your fellow Marines? Clear, bright line has been crossed, he’s a (presumably deceased) combatant, since pointing weapons at Marines is not a healthy thing to do. But the JAG’s lawyers have clear criteria that must be met to define the kid as a “combatant.”
Same deal here — homeowners should get a clear operating definition before they open fire.
example: In some states, if you’re sleeping in your car in a rest stop, or you’re in a RV in a campground, the case law defines those vehicles as your residence for the time you’re there motionless, and therefore having a weapon loaded and on your person is allowed and shooting someone trying to break in is treated just as it would be if you were home and in bed. This kind of case law varies wildly from state to state, and that’s why everyone should consult a real lawyer with some real experience in these situations for a working opinion on the matter.
Or maybe they couldn't read the huge No Trespassing signs on Reid's fence? (Watch the video)
Reid said that this was the fourth time his place has been burglarized this year. Good chance that it was these guys, coming back for more of Reid's stuff. And not insignificant stuff. They were stealing the tools he uses to earn a living.
It did under the Law of Moses, to which I was referring.
Yep, you sound like a lib.
Awesome response, WLR. Thank you. Awesome
Having your car stolen from you, while you’re in it, being CARJACKED IS ABSOLUTELY A CRIME where you can indeed defend yourself with deadly force. It COULD KILL YOU. Look at the many people who were car jacked int he last few years who LOST their lives and couldn’t defend themselves. Then look at the reduced number of carjackings since folks have started arming themselves and actually SHOOTIng the car jackers. MUCH LESS CRIME
The punishment is plenty proportionate to the crime. Thieves cause people to live in constant fear of losing important and hard-earned possessions, cause others to give up after major losses of what they’ve worked so hard for, cause people to spend huge amounts of money on security measures and insurance, necessitating a lot of extra time spent working to earn that money, rather than with their children or elderly parents.
When thieves make a voluntary decision to violate the property rights of another person, they should regard that as a potentially suicidal decision. Nothing else is a sufficient deterrent, and deterrence is absolutely essential. Good luck even getting single restitution for valuable property taken by some lowlife thug, much less double, triple, quadruple. And there is no way to make restitution for fear, lost time and money for security and insurance, a sense of hopeless defeat in a hard-working person or family, and all the other intangible damage caused by a society overrun with brazen thieves who have no reason to fear death or maiming if they get caught.
Vehicles in this state (C0) are treated as residences, for your example, Dave. In fact, they are treated separately, but the same AS here. Moving or not. Sitting at a light or parked in a rest area sleeping are the same. If someone tries to carjack me, he’s going to be very shocked and surprised for a few seconds while it dawns on him what just happened.
That would be: “Amen, Sister!”
We’re not talking about “Law of Moses”. That law won’t be considered by a jury. It means nothing in this situation. You and others are trying to argue that Reid might be guilty of murder and he’s not justified in using force, especially not deadly force to stop an apparent thief.
This is blatantly disingenuous and you know it. One of you is arguing “precise wording” of laws, and the other is trying to obfuscate the facts by pointing at Biblical law.
In this case, you’re BOTH overlooking the obvious.
The man who died was ROBBING someone, and was in the APPARENT COMMISSION of a crime. Mr. Reid, on the other hand was completely caught unawares when he showed up and discovered these “alleged thieves trying to leave his property”.
LOGICALLY Reid did what he could under the circumstances, he blocked the vehicle. The felon... pardon me the ALLEGED felon, the DEAD FELLOW, got caught between two hard places. In the case of Reid, he apparently refused to remove the vehicles because he didn’t want the guy to escape (This time).
Moses has nothing to do with this.
The laws of North Carolina are similar to the laws of my state, and the man, Reid was well within his rights to protect his property and was DOING A GOOD DEED to stop the thieves from escaping!
He didn’t intentionally KILL someone. It’s pretty damned obvious that the guy that died was a crook and he died accidentally. Too bad, but, at least he won’t commit any more crimes, now will he?
That is an argument I have tried to get accepted for years, but Libs just don't buy it.
Ergo, keep mugging Libs, until enough become Conservatives to get it ensconced into Law.
I live in the country, and it has happened to me, too...both ways.
Those up to no good, attempt to flee.
Myself on another's property, and those innocents who have ended up on my property, STOP; show peaceful intent; APOLOGIZE for the intrussion; and ASK directions.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.