| Author | Post |
|---|
cynicist
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sun Aug 17th, 2008 |
| Location: | Yakima County |
| Posts: | 461 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 7th, 2009 08:18 pm |
|
I remember when this happened. We all thought he'd get acquited. [Edit: last I heard before this was that he was released without charges, and that recently other carprowlers had killed owners. Sorry about the "we."]
And he used a Mosin Nagant.
http://www.seattlepi.com/local/411698_northgate30.html
Here's the OP from when it happened
http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/view_topic.php?id=16644&forum_id=55&highlight=car+prowler
I
Last edited on Sun Nov 15th, 2009 11:15 pm by cynicist
|
Tawnos
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sat Nov 7th, 2009 08:24 pm |
|
I find it hard to call that a "conviction." He pled guilty because the variability of sentencing and possibility of a jury finding him guilty was hard. He was offered the plea deal because, as the prosecutor said, they were afraid a jury wouldn't convict someone who just removed a car thief from the gene pool (okay, didn't say it just that way).
|
deanf
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sat Nov 7th, 2009 08:55 pm |
|
We all thought he'd get acquited. (sic)
Who's "we"? Is that the Royal "we"?
|
jarhead1055
Regular Member
|
Posted: Mon Nov 9th, 2009 03:37 am |
|
innocent people take plea bargins because stupid lawyers dont do there jobs and the average person dosnt have the understanding of the law that a paid lawyer does. The legal system is broken and needs to be fixed.
People get sent to prison over profit because lets face it, if the prisons and jails are full someone is making serious coin on it.
|
joeroket
Regular Member
|
Posted: Mon Nov 9th, 2009 04:02 am |
|
| I never for once thought this guy was innocent or would get an acquittal. Using lethal force for a misdemeanor is not authorized by the law.
|
jarhead1055
Regular Member
|
Posted: Mon Nov 9th, 2009 04:04 am |
|
its a misdemoenoer until he steals the car and kills someone with it now its a danger to society
|
joeroket
Regular Member
|
Posted: Mon Nov 9th, 2009 04:07 am |
|
| He obviously was not stealing the car nor was he a threat to the shooter.
|
jbone
Regular Member
| Joined: | Wed Jun 4th, 2008 |
| Location: | Arlington, WA |
| Posts: | 935 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 9th, 2009 10:36 am |
|
Shot him in the back of the head over a speaker! Wow! I would'nt even shoot if they were stealing the whole dam car, thats what I have insurance for. Plus I never leave anything of value inside anyway.
Any civil suits filed yet?
|
David.Car
Regular Member
|
Posted: Mon Nov 9th, 2009 03:20 pm |
|
I thought he was guilty as @#$% as soon as the story came out. The guy was running away from the car and was shot in the back of the head.
The shooters health was never at risk. He fired from an elevated position. All over some stuff in a car. Yeah... Great priorities.
|
n16ht5
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sat Feb 14th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 176 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 9th, 2009 07:34 pm |
|
| theres one less piece of trash on the streets
|
swatspyder
Regular Member
|
Posted: Mon Nov 9th, 2009 07:37 pm |
|
David.Car wrote: I thought he was guilty as @#$% as soon as the story came out. The guy was running away from the car and was shot in the back of the head.
The shooters health was never at risk. He fired from an elevated position. All over some stuff in a car. Yeah... Great priorities.
After dark in Texas, your property is yours to defend against theft with deadly force. We should adopt that law here in WA.
|
jarhead1055
Regular Member
|
Posted: Mon Nov 9th, 2009 07:55 pm |
|
ya i like the tx law, ok so the guy used excessive force but none the less if the cops did there damn job and actually patrolled like they were paid 2 then this may not have happened
|
Batousaii
Regular Member
|
Posted: Mon Nov 9th, 2009 08:29 pm |
|
swatspyder wrote: David.Car wrote: I thought he was guilty as @#$% as soon as the story came out. The guy was running away from the car and was shot in the back of the head.
The shooters health was never at risk. He fired from an elevated position. All over some stuff in a car. Yeah... Great priorities.
After dark in Texas, your property is yours to defend against theft with deadly force. We should adopt that law here in WA.
+1 100% agree, and it should be everywhere.
As much as it makes the softies gasp, i think that blatant burglars, thieves, muggers and home invaders are nothing more than diseased animals looking for prey to devour. They are evil and should be dispatched, and the law should be supporting those efforts. I am NOT talking about misplaced desperates stealing food or cloths to help their kids survive the cold, hard times making people do desperate things, or someone in some bizarre situation acting out of their character for survival... I am talking about the ones that do it because it is simply their nature, for a thrill, because they like to hurt others, or just don't care about anyone else. We need to suck it up and deal with the REAL scum bags, as they should be afraid for their survival, not us as citizens fearing them. The softies have forced, bred and brainwashed the modern populace to believe that being a victim (and thus allowing criminals to victimise more peeps) stands on a higher moral ground than protecting ones life, liberty, property and hard earned place in this life.
I propose that when you have a real criminal in your sights, that it becomes your moral responsibility to act in some way (maybe not shoot him, but definitely detain him if possible). If someone broke into my house, and i let him run away, and next week he kills my neighbor, friend, or family member or even a stranger that i never hear about... well... I had a chance to stop that course of events and chose not too. How then can i not consider their blood to be on my hands, even if partially? Had i detained him or stopped him, then he could not have advanced his evil dominion over this world. I consider these evil doers as if a demon in our midst, and to allow their advances falls upon us as a society as a whole.. or else we admit the ultimate role of sheeple and "just let the cops handle everything for us" ... hmmmm... that being the case, why do we need guns? Ba-a-a-HRmmm-Hrmmm (dammit i almost bleated there..). I understand many dont agree with me, it's just my take on it.
Of course, we all have to follow current law, and doing otherwise is foolish. My viewpoint is as food for thought only, not a call to action or vigilantism.
So was that guy in the OP guilty -- YES ... Sadly he was. But i still thank him for his contribution to a cleaner safer world.
 Bat
Last edited on Mon Nov 9th, 2009 08:31 pm by Batousaii
|
Tawnos
Regular Member
|
Posted: Mon Nov 9th, 2009 08:48 pm |
|
joeroket wrote: I never for once thought this guy was innocent or would get an acquittal. Using lethal force for a misdemeanor is not authorized by the law.
There's a significant chance the person with the subwoofer had just committed a felony. However, it was not a felony endangering people. So, despite the wording of the law, a felony does not make justifiable homicide.
|
New Daddy
Regular Member
|
Posted: Mon Nov 9th, 2009 09:20 pm |
|
Batousaii wrote: swatspyder wrote: David.Car wrote: I thought he was guilty as @#$% as soon as the story came out. The guy was running away from the car and was shot in the back of the head.
The shooters health was never at risk. He fired from an elevated position. All over some stuff in a car. Yeah... Great priorities.
After dark in Texas, your property is yours to defend against theft with deadly force. We should adopt that law here in WA.
+1 100% agree, and it should be everywhere.
As much as it makes the softies gasp, i think that blatant burglars, thieves, muggers and home invaders are nothing more than diseased animals looking for prey to devour. They are evil and should be dispatched, and the law should be supporting those efforts. I am NOT talking about misplaced desperates stealing food or cloths to help their kids survive the cold, hard times making people do desperate things, or someone in some bizarre situation acting out of their character for survival... I am talking about the ones that do it because it is simply their nature, for a thrill, because they like to hurt others, or just don't care about anyone else. We need to suck it up and deal with the REAL scum bags, as they should be afraid for their survival, not us as citizens fearing them. The softies have forced, bred and brainwashed the modern populace to believe that being a victim (and thus allowing criminals to victimise more peeps) stands on a higher moral ground than protecting ones life, liberty, property and hard earned place in this life.
I propose that when you have a real criminal in your sights, that it becomes your moral responsibility to act in some way (maybe not shoot him, but definitely detain him if possible). If someone broke into my house, and i let him run away, and next week he kills my neighbor, friend, or family member or even a stranger that i never hear about... well... I had a chance to stop that course of events and chose not too. How then can i not consider their blood to be on my hands, even if partially? Had i detained him or stopped him, then he could not have advanced his evil dominion over this world. I consider these evil doers as if a demon in our midst, and to allow their advances falls upon us as a society as a whole.. or else we admit the ultimate role of sheeple and "just let the cops handle everything for us" ... hmmmm... that being the case, why do we need guns? Ba-a-a-HRmmm-Hrmmm (dammit i almost bleated there..). I understand many dont agree with me, it's just my take on it.
Of course, we all have to follow current law, and doing otherwise is foolish. My viewpoint is as food for thought only, not a call to action or vigilantism.
So was that guy in the OP guilty -- YES ... Sadly he was. But i still thank him for his contribution to a cleaner safer world.
Bat
I often catch static for this viewpoint, but here goes.
If you knew that a guy was going to die in 10 hours, and you killed him (not euthanasia), would you be guilty of murder?
For everything I own, I've given a portion of my life. If I have a speaker worth $100, and I make $10/hour - that speaker is in effect worth 10 hours of my life. When you steal from me, you've stolen that period of my life, which I can never get back. It's no different than if the man murdered me, when I had 10 hours left to live.
If it was up to me, this would not have been a crime.
|
joeroket
Regular Member
|
Posted: Mon Nov 9th, 2009 09:22 pm |
|
Tawnos wrote:
joeroket wrote: I never for once thought this guy was innocent or would get an acquittal. Using lethal force for a misdemeanor is not authorized by the law.
There's a significant chance the person with the subwoofer had just committed a felony. However, it was not a felony endangering people. So, despite the wording of the law, a felony does not make justifiable homicide.
I doubt the dollar amount was $750.
|
Tawnos
Regular Member
|
Posted: Tue Nov 10th, 2009 12:18 am |
|
joeroket wrote: Tawnos wrote:
joeroket wrote: I never for once thought this guy was innocent or would get an acquittal. Using lethal force for a misdemeanor is not authorized by the law.
There's a significant chance the person with the subwoofer had just committed a felony. However, it was not a felony endangering people. So, despite the wording of the law, a felony does not make justifiable homicide.
I doubt the dollar amount was $750.
If he broke into the car, it's easy for it to have been malicious mischief of that amount. You priced out car repairs recently?
Also, at the time of this incidence, had the bill been enacted that raised it from $250 - $750?
*edit* to answer my own question, yes, they took place 23 days earlier.
Last edited on Tue Nov 10th, 2009 12:18 am by Tawnos
|
joeroket
Regular Member
|
Posted: Tue Nov 10th, 2009 12:27 am |
|
Tawnos wrote:
joeroket wrote: Tawnos wrote:
joeroket wrote: I never for once thought this guy was innocent or would get an acquittal. Using lethal force for a misdemeanor is not authorized by the law.
There's a significant chance the person with the subwoofer had just committed a felony. However, it was not a felony endangering people. So, despite the wording of the law, a felony does not make justifiable homicide.
I doubt the dollar amount was $750.
If he broke into the car, it's easy for it to have been malicious mischief of that amount. You priced out car repairs recently?
Also, at the time of this incidence, had the bill been enacted that raised it from $250 - $750?
*edit* to answer my own question, yes, they took place 23 days earlier.
Do we know how they got into the car? I don't recall reading that anywhere. If it was a broken window then maybe it was over $750. If they popped the door cylinder then it was not over $750. If they used lock out device it was not over $ 750.
By the statement of the shooter he could not see his car because it was under a car port. Hell did he even know for sure it was his car they took the speaker out of at the time he shot?Last edited on Tue Nov 10th, 2009 12:28 am by joeroket
|
David.Car
Regular Member
|
Posted: Tue Nov 10th, 2009 07:46 pm |
|
First off the owner was never in danger, nor was any other person at risk. You guys might think so, but I do not equate human life to property damage. Call the cops, yell at them, whatever, but why would you ever think shooting someone over a stereo is an okay thing?
Second, the suspect was shot in the BACK of the head as he was leaving the scene. Shooting someone as they run away from a property crime is illegal, and should be illegal in all states.
The vehicle owner was on a balcony. He wasn't remotely in danger, he was at an elevated position and could have just gone in his house. Why he shot, I don't know, but it was a stupid stupid thing to do, and he has to deal with the fact that he shot a man in the back over a few bucks.
|
FunkTrooper
Regular Member
|
Posted: Wed Nov 11th, 2009 08:39 am |
|
If we have a right to our property then we should be allowed to defend it. Criminals need to be afraid of the owner, if someone was stealing my computer and was getting away with it I would shoot him because I cannot afford to replace it and without it I wouldn't be able to afford anything. That's not to say you should always use lethal force but this guy worked hard so he could own his own car and the things inside of it. Should criminals feel safe knowing they can steal from others and the property owner cannot do anything if they run away with the goods, should they feel safe knowing the law protects them?
I feel our justice system has a double standard because when police commit similar acts they get paid leave and then come back to there job.
|
Current time is 04:35 pm | Page: 1 2 3 4 5   |
|
