VIGILANTE RIFLEMAN GETS 9 YEARS

New York post ^ | 7/20/02 | CLEMENTE LISI

[Brad C.]

I think this is rather strange. A man, angry because someone is breaking into his car, grabs a 22 rifle and goes out to confront the perpatrator on a city street. Upon being confronted, we don't know just what the perp did. Did he stay put and argue with the owner as the rifle muzzle comes up? Was the owner close enough to shoot point blank? It doesn't sound like the perp attempted to run away or disengage from the situation, as otherwise he would have been shoot in the back (unless this is where the buttocks come in). I don't believe they indicated what time of day this event occurred, so we don't know if other people may have been endangered by an angry man shooting a rifle down a city street.

Also, I note that we know that the "vigilante" does not have a previous crimminal record, yet we know nothing about the crackhead.

[Twodees]

These weren't ordinary eating or laying chickens, IOW somebody's livelyhood, but rather the guy's hobby

Were they gamecocks? If the kid was stealing or trying to kill the guy's brood birds from irreplaceable Kat Brazzell Mahogany or Tornado Gray stock there may have been more to it than a story of a hungry kid stealing chickens to cook.

[tet68]

then gone outside to hold the guy until they got there.

And HOW pray tell, was he supposed to do that.

[FreedomPoster]

Why go after such small pickings like breaking into a car when they can break into the dwelling of a liberal judge who you already know won't have a gun or the will to use it.

You clearly don't realize the hypocracy of liberals. Remember the Carl Rowan swimming pool incident? That judge is likely well armed, and, since he is a 1st Class Civil Servant (= Civil Master), likely has a concealed carry license that we peons cannot obtain in that part of the country.

[El Gato]

Were they gamecocks? If the kid was stealing or trying to kill the guy's brood birds from irreplaceable Kat Brazzell Mahogany or Tornado Gray stock there may have been more to it than a story of a hungry kid stealing chickens to cook.

I believe they were fighting chickens, but the kid wasn't stealing them to eat or to sell. I don't think they were all that valuable either, not in that neighborhood. He was doing it as a part of a gang initition, IIRC, or perhaps just as a dare.

[Twodees]

Well, I hate to hear about a kid going bad and being killed. That has been happening since time immemorial I guess.

[stylin_geek]

So, the gentleman who worked to earn the $200 has to earn another $200 to buy another stereo. You are now up to $400 this person has spent on stereo equipment for his car. Obviously, property rights mean very little to you, because as long as what is being taken from you can easily be replaced by more work on your part, then anyone who does not want to earn what they have is free to take whatever they want of yours. As for us being a nation of laws, yeah, we are a nation of laws that take from those that produce, and give to those that do not produce.

[Zeroisanumber]

So, the gentleman who worked to earn the $200 has to earn another $200 to buy another stereo. You are now up to $400 this person has spent on stereo equipment for his car.

$400 dollars vs having to kill someone and spend 9 years in jail. You can keep the $400 bucks.

Obviously, property rights mean very little to you, because as long as what is being taken from you can easily be replaced by more work on your part, then anyone who does not want to earn what they have is free to take whatever they want of yours.

No one is "free" to steal anything of mine, but personal property is far less valuable than human life. Given the choice between shooting a man and losing a stereo; I'd let him have the stereo. That's not to say that I'd make it easy for him, but I wouldn't resort to deadly force unless my life was in danger

As for us being a nation of laws, yeah, we are a nation of laws that take from those that produce, and give to those that do not produce.

So you suggest shooting anyone who gets in your way?

Yeah, that's twisting your words, but turnabout is fair play.

[primeval patriot]

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.

Yep, I remember that one.

The shooter's silent car alarm went off so he went outside with his SKS to see what was going on.

He caught the perp red-handed and proceeded to empty the magazine (this was a 30 round mag) into the punk. I believe the shooter even reloaded his rifle and fired more shots at the goof.

Needless to say, the coroner noted that the perp had a good dozen or so fatal wounds.

Property crimes are taken seriously in Texas.

[TaZ]

Don't worry you all....it won't be long before these anti-constitutional judges come to a court near you!

Remember, where are the majority of lawyers, who all judges start out as, coming from?

Law schools on the east & left coast.

In case you haven't noticed, the elitist have been able to lead the sheeples around by the nose and convince them that aggressive, self-protective behavior is a bad thing.

This guy is lucky to have only got a nine year sentence.

Remember, slaves have no rights to property or anything else.

[stylin_geek]

I agree, getting tossed in jail in defense of ones property does put one in the position of letting thieves have their way. I wonder, what if you take a baseball bat to the thief, and knock him cold? Then, you can spend some time in court, spending money, defending yourself against the lawsuit the thief is liable to bring against you. I might add, what if the thief is much larger than you are, what do you do then?

[LanaTurnerOverdrive]

As one that has experienced being the victim of this Bullshit....Texas has it right, Shoot the SOB's on SITE!

I guess it boils down to what kind of person you are. If you believe that the contents of your car are worth taking a human life over, then so be it.

But always remember Brother, What Would Jesus Do?

[from occupied ga]

In principle not even police may shoot someone for mere fleeing. There has to be some basis to believe the person poses a danger to humans of serious bodily harm or death.

You would think this to be true; however, in one of the Atlanta metro counties (DeKalb or Gwinnett - I forget which) last year cops shot (and killed) fleeing suspect running through woods after traffic stop - was ruled OK. The practical rule is that police may shoot anyone at any time for any reason, and it's OK. The police may NOT beat black prisoners while being videotaped. Beating not OK, but back shooting, just fine.

[stylin_geek]

I would argue, by the way, that we are not "a nation of laws, not men," because this premise implies that if an action is not against the law, then there is nothing wrong said action. Also, which way do you want it? Are you decrying killing someone over $400, or would you restrain yourself because $400 is not worth 9 years in jail? Interesting that you could go to jail over $400, but a thief might get 90 days, at most. When one can go to jail defending property rights, it means property rights are under serious assault in this country.

[jjm2111]

you mean to say that in TX, if I caught someone trying to hot-wire my truck and I popped him in the head with a .45, I walk?

[tracer]

Sounds like the judge caved in to pressure by PETA.....

[jjm2111]

you're not getting 9 years for $400, you're getting nine years for a life. Crackhead the mope may have been, but he doesn't live anymore.

[tracer]

"Our entire criminal justice system favors the scumbag."

Gee, haven't you ever heard of "professional courtesy?"