Johnston Intruder Pinned by Car Dies (Deliberately rammed by man protecting his property)

WRAL-TV (Raleigh, NC) ^ | 11/9/07 | WRAL

[Graybeard58]

Reid said the stolen equipment was a piece of machinery used to dig holes

Probably a P.H.D., I have two P.H.D.s by the way.

[MrB]

These Burglar laws were passed long ago:

Exodus 22:2-3 (New American Standard Bible)

2”If the (A)thief is caught while breaking in and is struck so that he dies, there will be no bloodguiltiness on his account.

3”But if the sun has risen on him, there will be bloodguiltiness on his account. He shall surely make restitution; if he owns nothing, then he shall be (B)sold for his theft.

[EEDUDE]

"I hate to sound like a lib but lethal force is not called for when “protecting your property”."

I have a concealed carry permit and every time I leave my house, I am armed.

I could never justify shooting someone for stealing my property. That's what insurance is for.

[zencat]

Looks like the law doesn't agree with you.

"I don't think John Reid has done anything wrong...", Bizzell said.

The sheriff not thinking anything wrong was done, has nothing to do with the law.

[lormand]

" I hate to sound like a lib but lethal force is not called for when “protecting your property”."

Yes, you do sound like a lib.

When someone enters someone else's property with the intent to commit a crime, what prevents them from committing a violent crime to cover it up if caught in the act?

I won't wait to find out, if you know what I mean.

Here in Texas, I have the law on my side, and that is, I can legally use lethal force to stop someone from taking my property.

I suppport this 100%

[RatRipper]

They are still costing you, and everybody else who is insured, because the insurance premiums are high because of people with attitudes like yours. I do not understand why we have changed in this country to think it is a bad thing to protect ourselves and our property. That is a GOOD THING!!!!!!!!!

[LibLieSlayer]

In Mississippi we have the “Castle Doctrine”. If you break into a Mississippi home... and the owner perceives his or her life is in danger... we can use lethal force without fear. This is indeed the American Way. Thank GOD for Haley Barbour!

LLS

[ghostrider]

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!

I hate to sound like an "outdated American," but all thieves should be responsible for their own actions and should also be responsible for all injuries incurred when others are forced to defend against the actions of the thieves. Those defending their property should only be responsible to the extent that unreasonable or excessive force injuries innocent parties.

[Rick.Donaldson]

It's NOT likely he is in any trouble. Read the article. "Johnston County Sheriff Steve Bizzell said Thursday no final determination has been made, but it was unlikely Reid will be charged." UnLIKELY means he is NOT likely in any trouble. By the way, different states have different laws regarding "use of deadly force". Most states have specific laws citing when it is permissible and when it is not. In my state, Colorado, under the law, citizens cannot be prosecuted for using deadly force against suspected threats to themselves in their houses and on their property - for example (and primarily), intruders. If someone is ON my property and has stolen something, attempting to flee I might or might not shoot the person. It's going to depend, for me, on several circumstances. If the property the person has stolen is something I can't under any circumstances replace (family heirlooms) I'm going to stop him from leaving. If he has threatened me in the process, or has a weapon, I wouldn't hesitate to shoot first. If my home has been robbed more than once, you can bet I'll be on the look out. I've had three robberies at my home while not there. They were all on my property, all of them were in vehicles. One was left unlocked, the other times the vehicles were locked and we were out of town. Apparently the robberies occurred in broad day light at least twice according to evidence. Neighbors saw nothing, but later one admitted he'd been robbed as well and was afraid to tell anyone. See, people who rob a home once and get away with it, will indeed go back again and again. The robber was the bad guy, NOT the home owner.

[GovernmentShrinker]

Insurance only pays if you can PROVE the property was stolen, which is not always possible if the thief got away with it.

[Eaker]

Wow. I hate to sound like a lib but lethal force is not called for when “protecting your property”.

It is in Texas.

Only in self defense or justifiably perceived threat of personal harm!

Not in Texas.

Almost everyone knows “you cant shoot someone unless they break into your house”

Bullshit.

and even that doesn’t hold up in court these days.

Bullshit.

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.

One final bullshit to you.

Perhaps if you would say in "State" you cannot do "xyz" and include a copy of your law degree you might be taken seriously.

Not today for you.

[stevio]

Yes, you sound like a lib. Kudos to the police for sticking up for the homeowner.

[Eaker]

Nope.

[HuntsvilleTxVeteran]

How is a sincere criminal, trying hard, going to get ahead in his profession if his victim fails to cooperate?
Almost all crime depends on the cooperation of the victim.
If the victim refuses his assigned role, the criminal is placed at a disadvantage,
one so severe that it usually takes an understanding and compassionate judge to set right.

LAZARUS LONG

[SergeiRachmaninov]

From the article: Reid said he tried to block the sedan in with his truck. When the driver of the sedan, Cornelius Brown, got out and tried to run, Reid said he hit the gas pedal. "My foot ended up getting stuck on the gas pedal and in between the brake, and I hit their car," he said.

I am pretty strongly on the "right to defend and protect" side as a general proposition but the bit above is pretty damning.

Ironically, if Reid had stopped at blocking or ramming the perps' car, he would have recovered his property and they both would have undoubtedly been caught, even if they fled on foot.

I guess my sympathy with protecting property would stop a little short of what Reid seems to have done -- deliberate ram a man on foot (not buying the old foot-stuck-on-gas-pedal story).

[Jeff Head]

Amen...see my post 19 bro. Good to cyber-seeya.

[rolling_stone]

umm and if he didn’t give a statement to police before talking to a lawyer, he might have remembered in the excitement he thought the guy was going to shoot him and he ducked down and his foot slipped off the brake...end of story...

[taxed2death]

Getting charged with Vehicular Manslaughter is the likely outcome. He’ll get his azz sued 7 ways to Cleveland in civil court by the family of the perp.

[SubGeniusX]

Several states have passed “Shoot the burglar” laws. If someone breaks into your house you can shoot them in the act whether or not they threaten you. In Florida, homeowners are exempt from civil liability.

that would not apply here as the persons were already off of the property... and were in the process of leaving ... Mr. Reid cannot claim any sort of feeling that he was being menaced or felt he was in danger.

[Resolute Conservative]

Nope what?

If you drive onto your street and see someone leaving your property and enter a car and they drive off and you engage them with deadly force when they are no threat to you I can bet you will be indicted.

Jury nullification is another matter.