At another place, there is much outrage being expressed that the three men involved in this killing have been ordered to pay compensation to the child of the deceased. Read more: http://www.gazette.com/articles/jury-123946-burglar-lot.html#ixzz1WTwUjL3h For myself, I am outraged that the three men involved in the shooting were not indicted for murder, and as accomplices to murder, and are not rotting in prison 'for the term of their natural lives'. What think you?
Self-defense, including defense of one's property, is a natural right. It could have been handled far better, but considering that the victim was armed and hiding, the DA probably didn't feel they could get a conviction even for simple manslaughter. I think the civil verdict is fair; it's restitution for far too zealous case of self-defense. The judgment seems high. Now, will they counter-sue for restitution from the family of the burglar for the damage done to the property by their antics?
Agree. If everyone's allowed to shoot thieves every kid who shoplifts a candy bar from a mom 'n pop is fair game. Not the mark of a civilized country.
I put my faith, in the knowledge of the court. They know what they're doing. Personally, it seems like self defense, but once again, it's what the court ruled.
I agree with Leo2. Burlars should be allowed to pursue their craft without having to be in fear of their life. And, if they should kill someone while pursuing their craft, it isn't really important.
I am very much in favor of the right to self-defense, I have a M&P45 next to my bed. However, I think the circumstances are certainly pushing what should be considered self-defense.
Murder's a little strong, but I do agree manslaughter would be in order. If it were Texas, though, the shooters would have been justified. Also, if it had been burglary of a home, rather than a business, the shooters would have been justified.
You have a right to defend your life and property. The victims here are the 3 business owners and I feel for them. I would've shot the bastard too. Who knows what kind of damage that guy was capable of? If he had been confronted would one of the business owners been killed? It's not worth the risk. If someone is committing a crime against you, you have the moral right and obligation to defend yourself and your property.
I think the men who shot the guy named Rob should have got life. There seems to be no reason at all why they should have shot someone who didn't pose a threat to them.
But they hadn't stolen anything. They only entered the property. Is it okay to execute someone for trespassing?
Well, you are probably right - murder presupposes intent, and I am not sure it can be proven the men intended to kill the other man hiding in the shed, but it needs to be asked - with what intent did they shoot blindly into it? Manslaughter can still get you many years in prison. The law varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but I do not know of many places where simply entering premises without permission is a capital offence.
I think you may be confusing the right to defend your life, with the right to defend your property. I know of no jurisdiction wherein simple trespass is a capital offence. What-ifs, and similar conjecture, is of little relevance in discussing this case. The facts of the matter have been reported, and that is all we may comment upon at this stage. Three men, whose commercial premises had been burgled previously, were pumped, armed, and waiting for the next person who entered their premises uninvited. Another two men scaled the fence and were confronted by three aggressive men, at least one of whom was armed. One miscreant fled over the fence, while the younger one sought refuge in a shed. The three men fired into the shed, and killed the young man hiding there. Presumably that was their intention. Neither intruder had acted aggressively, and both had attempted to flee. No one's life or safety was put in peril by their actions. Under those circumstances, what the businessmen did was, at the very least, culpable manslaughter. I do not see how they may be considered victims. Perhaps you can enlighten us?
Well the LAW rather than "Moral right" defines the rules of justifable legal defense and the LAW says: Since when did "defense of property" become "right to kill"? Sorry but you don't have a moral right to kill people for theft. Theft is a property crime, not a crime against life or limb. You think you'd be legally justified to shoot a thief in the back who is running down the street with your TV in his hands? Sorry, you're not. Self defense in this case is chasing the thief off or holding them for police at gunpoint, not killing.
No, they were waiting for the next burglars. I'm curious. People keep saying these are only trespassers. So, a man goes through a bedroom window, climbs on top of a young woman sleeping on the bed but there is no serious crime until there's penetration. No, before that point it's at most, simple assault. I know it's not popular to have any sympathy for victims but it gets tiresome constantly being sympathetic with the (*)(*)(*)(*)ed criminals. Especially when it's the same criminals over and over and over again. And, I'm curious. This business had been burglarized repeatedly with nothing happening. What's happened since that fateful night. Have the burglaries continued?
To clarify - if it's your property you can defend it with as much or as little force as you wish. Warning - if word gets out that you won't defend your stuff, you'll be liberated of it quite quickly =p. Since it seems like you'd want to know what I would have done: I would only use force as a last effort to protect my property. I would even give the thief a chance to surrender the stolen property and leave. But if they attempted escape with my property I have every right to protect it. Stealing justly acquired property is an indirect assault on your life as it took your time and energy to acquire it. You have every right to defend your property as it is an extension of your life, with any level of force required to maintain its integrity. As for the OP example...I reserve my right to change my opinion if new information comes out - but from what I know now the criminals attempted to flee with their loot- which as I already explained I see as a indirect assault on your life as you used time and energy to acquire the property they were attempting to steal. The property owners had every right and reason to kill that criminal. Edit: I forgot to mention the law is inconsistent with property protection. Police officers in pursuit of a thief have authority to use deadly force to prevent their escape. For some reason which escapes me - mere civilians aren't deserving of the same legal protections.
Property is replaceable, a life isn't. A life, even a criminal's, is more valuable in the eyes of the law than your property.
