Thanks for the heads up!
Posted on 07/20/2002 1:06:37 AM PDT by kattracks
Edited on 05/26/2004 5:07:32 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
But, again, as I stated in my first reply; no sane person, who does not have to, should go into the Bronx.
William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site
A couple of points. First killing someone because they stole your property is illegal everywhere. The only legal reason to shoot someone is because your life or someone elses in in danger. Theft does not justify murder. Anyone who owns a gun has a responsibilty to understand that.
Second, I blame the fact that he did so partly on NYC's asinine gun laws. In any normal place a person in this position could have aprehended the perp and called the cops. In NYC they would have arrested the not only the thief but the owner for having an "illegal" gun. Probably the thief would have been in a lot less trouble than the gunowner too. That makes aprehension a non-option which ecourages people to be either passive victims or vigilanties.
Thanks for the heads up!
First, the response is not proportional to the crime being committed. A stereo is usually worth about a couple of hundred bucks (and yes, I know that there are much more expensive stereos) and nobody should be killed over a couple hundred bucks.
Second, we live in a society governed by the rule of law. That law states that a citizen may only kill another human being when they feel that they or another person are in immediate danger of major bodily harm. Otherwise the only people authorized to deal with crime are agents of the court (cops, lawyers, judges, juries, etc.). Extra-judicial killing undermines the rule of law, which is the bedrock of our society.
As for the case itself, the car's owner just let his frustration take over and he did a stupid thing. He should have called the cops and then gone outside to hold the guy until they got there.
Actually, in some places, the police wouldn't be at the donut shop - they would be 'taking a bite out of crime' giving seatbelt, speeding, no front license plate, etc., tickets. Revenue gathering, so to speak.
Extra-judicial killings are justified sometimes but from the info given in this clearly biased piece,this one wasn't a justified killing. The rule of law is undermined as badly by judicial decisions with fair regularity.
In NEW YORK CITY, you are supposed to run and let the theives steal you blind. In Texas you can use deadly force to stop a felony in progress. Or to stop theft during the night, but the story doesn't say if this was in the night. Besides, you missed this part: Vicenty later said Bethea had threatened his life when he asked him to get out of his car.
Perhaps, but there is a difference between killing someone because they stole your property, and using deadly force to stop them from stealing it. The latter is legal in many states.
One of the more obscene phrases one would hope not to have to read. You can't license the exercise of a right.
This isn't vigilantism in any event. He didn't search out the perp, the perp came to him and stole his property, or tried to. That's called self defense in less "enlightened" jurisdictions.
You usually will not be charged. In Dallas a few years ago, well maybe about 5 or so, a guy shot at some kids who where attempting to steal his car wheels, killed one of them. He even used a semi-auto firing a military catridge, an SKS, IIRC. The DA took the case to the grand jury, but the grand jury no-billed him, most likely because he was clearly acting within the law. Similiarly, more recently, maybe 2 years ago, a kid around 13 was shot and killed while stealing some chickens in San Antonio, same result although I can't recall if the DA even took it to the Grand Jury, I think not. These weren't ordinary eating or laying chickens, IOW somebody's livelyhood, but rather the guy's hobby. Both the deceased and his would be victim were hispanic. It was a sad case, the kid had a really horrid life, but that was and is irrellevant as far as the law is concerned.
I agree, but isn't that something that would be theives should worry about, rather than their victims. Actions have consequences. One potential consequence of stealing other people's stuff should be the possiblity that they won't take kindly to your efforts and shoot your ass.
You have to remember that this was .22 rimfire. You could take a large number of shots to stop someone, especially someone on drugs. Chances are you could shoot someone 4 or 5 times and they'd keep on keeping on for quite some time. This perp was just unlucky, as one or more of the bullets managed to hit something vital.
"yes, officer, I took this dirty, beat-up .45 from the thief when I confronted him and he pulled it on me. I had to shoot him because I feared for my life..."
LEO's have been known to carry a "throw away" piece. So should the citizen!
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.