Thieves could go free while victim faces jail time

[RIPP_n_WIPE]

What the hell is a 82 year old man supposed to do as two thieves run away with his trailer ? Sprint after them like an Olympic athlete ? The only mistake the old man made was not aiming well enough.

Sad part is that this is very true. Had he killed both guys instead of hitting one, he would have probably been better off.

[Vendetta]

What the hell is a 82 year old man supposed to do as two thieves run away with his trailer ? Sprint after them like an Olympic athlete ? The only mistake the old man made was not aiming well enough.

Take the plates from their truck, report the theft to the police, claim on his car insurance.

Y'know, the same as everyone else is supposed to do.

[weemadando]

OK let's break this down.

He's inside his house and sees two guys trying to steal his trailer.

Rather than calling the police and reporting it while he has the chance to see the truck and the criminals who he'd be able to give a full and accurate accounting of, he grabs his gun and runs outside yelling at them and then opens fire as they are leaving and while they are presenting no current threat to his own or anyone else's safety.

Also - the people who are arguing that it would have been self defense because they tried to run him over don't have a leg to stand on as he left a safe and secure location to attempt to intervene. And indeed, any lawyer would be able to make a case for self-defense on the part of the thieves due to the excessive force threatened and employed by this old coot.

What we're looking at here is an idiot with a severe case of unwarranted bravado who fully deserves to get charged with attempted murder for his actions. All because he believes that his trailer is worth more than the lives of two thieves (and anyone else who lived on his street and could have caught a stray round and that going Rambo is the better option than calling the police. What a fucking genius.

[General Zod]

What the hell is a 82 year old man supposed to do as two thieves run away with his trailer ? Sprint after them like an Olympic athlete ? The only mistake the old man made was not aiming well enough.

Sad part is that this is very true. Had he killed both guys instead of hitting one, he would have probably been better off.

On the other hand, if a stray round had hit a bystander living on the same street, he would have been doubly fucked.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

Also - the people who are arguing that it would have been self defense because they tried to run him over don't have a leg to stand on as he left a safe and secure location to attempt to intervene. And indeed, any lawyer would be able to make a case for self-defense on the part of the thieves due to the excessive force threatened and employed by this old coot.

Worse, the man's credibility is questionable. He initially stated to investigators that he didn't shoot anyone. From the Post:

Wallace repeatedly denied shooting at the thieves but eventually handed over the gun he had hidden, saying "here is what you are looking for," according to an arrest warrant affidavit.

As far as I can tell there's only one source for the allegation that the thieves attempted to run over the property owner. And that's the property owner, whose truth-telling abilities I've already showcased.

[Corpsman]

I have a hard time mustering some sympathy for those two. You don't steal from people.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Also - the people who are arguing that it would have been self defense because they tried to run him over don't have a leg to stand on as he left a safe and secure location to attempt to intervene. And indeed, any lawyer would be able to make a case for self-defense on the part of the thieves due to the excessive force threatened and employed by this old coot.

Uh. I guess it might depend on the local laws, but as far as I'm aware you are not required by law to sit idle while someone commits a crime in your presence. If you decide to act then you are required to use reasonable force when effecting an arrest. Unfortunately, most people have no idea what reasonable means. This guy trying to stop them at gun point is not unreasonable. Him shooting them in the back when his safety wasn't threatened is unreasonable.

Furthermore, if he did place himself in a bad position he didn't force the thieves to try and run him over so if they did drive towards him and he shot them at that point then that could be viewed as reasonable because he didn't force their actions. Remember. They are the ones who chose to commit a crime and started the entire incident. Don't forget that. I don't know why people just suddenly forget that these two were the ones who started the whole situation. The law should default to the old man.

[Kamakazie Sith]

I have a hard time mustering some sympathy for those two. You don't steal from people.

I agree. For me it is the principle of the matter. In this case if you give people an inch they will take a mile. Making it OK to shoot people who are stealing from you means you could introduce a precedence where someone might get off on murder because "I thought they were trying to steal something".

[Kamakazie Sith]

What the hell is a 82 year old man supposed to do as two thieves run away with his trailer ? Sprint after them like an Olympic athlete ? The only mistake the old man made was not aiming well enough.

Take the plates from their truck, report the theft to the police, claim on his car insurance.

Y'know, the same as everyone else is supposed to do.

What if his car insurance doesn't cover that? What if he can't afford his deductible?

[General Zod]

Furthermore, if he did place himself in a bad position he didn't force the thieves to try and run him over so if they did drive towards him and he shot them at that point then that could be viewed as reasonable because he didn't force their actions. Remember. They are the ones who chose to commit a crime and started the entire incident. Don't forget that. I don't know why people just suddenly forget that these two were the ones who started the whole situation. The law should default to the old man.

Except for the fact that he lied repeatedly about shooting his gun. Even if it is easier to sympathize with him it's a bit hard to take some of his claims at face value thanks to that.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Furthermore, if he did place himself in a bad position he didn't force the thieves to try and run him over so if they did drive towards him and he shot them at that point then that could be viewed as reasonable because he didn't force their actions. Remember. They are the ones who chose to commit a crime and started the entire incident. Don't forget that. I don't know why people just suddenly forget that these two were the ones who started the whole situation. The law should default to the old man.

Except for the fact that he lied repeatedly about shooting his gun. Even if it is easier to sympathize with him it's a bit hard to take some of his claims at face value thanks to that.

I agree. Which is why the evidence is more important...

[weemadando]

Also - the people who are arguing that it would have been self defense because they tried to run him over don't have a leg to stand on as he left a safe and secure location to attempt to intervene. And indeed, any lawyer would be able to make a case for self-defense on the part of the thieves due to the excessive force threatened and employed by this old coot.

Uh. I guess it might depend on the local laws, but as far as I'm aware you are not required by law to sit idle while someone commits a crime in your presence. If you decide to act then you are required to use reasonable force when effecting an arrest. Unfortunately, most people have no idea what reasonable means. This guy trying to stop them at gun point is not unreasonable. Him shooting them in the back when his safety wasn't threatened is unreasonable.

Furthermore, if he did place himself in a bad position he didn't force the thieves to try and run him over so if they did drive towards him and he shot them at that point then that could be viewed as reasonable because he didn't force their actions. Remember. They are the ones who chose to commit a crime and started the entire incident. Don't forget that. I don't know why people just suddenly forget that these two were the ones who started the whole situation. The law should default to the old man.

There's a big difference here - between Kitty Genovese Syndrome and choosing not to actively try and murder someone over a few thousand dollar (at most) flatbed trailer.

In one case there is a clear and present danger to another human being who without third party intervention will be injured or killed. In the other, there is no direct threat to anyone and you can call the police, give a full report and no-one has to get shot at. It doesn't take a fucking genius to figure out which one is appropriate when a fucking trailer is getting stolen.

What the hell is a 82 year old man supposed to do as two thieves run away with his trailer ? Sprint after them like an Olympic athlete ? The only mistake the old man made was not aiming well enough.

Take the plates from their truck, report the theft to the police, claim on his car insurance.

Y'know, the same as everyone else is supposed to do.

What if his car insurance doesn't cover that? What if he can't afford his deductible?

Then, I don't know, maybe when the police (who he could have called and given descriptions of the two criminals to, along with the plate number and description of the truck and the plate number and description of his trailer - INSTEAD OF RUNNING OUTSIDE WITH A GUN AND OPENING FIRE) find it, as they no doubt would with all the information he was able to supply, they can fucking return it to him.

This is a clear cut case of a fucking idiot treating his property as more valuable than the lives of anyone within shooting range of him.

Do people really have so little faith in the police that they think that calling them and giving them all these fucking details that would let them do their job quickly and efficiently would just lead to nothing happening, the criminals getting away scot-free and the guy being left out of pocket? And do people seriously believe that running out onto the street and attempting to murder two people is somehow a better option than calling the police? Because I find that fucking STUPEFYING.

[Uraniun235]

Accurately or not, some people do genuinely believe that the police are ineffectual at investigating most property crimes. Feel free to make a big production out of how unbelievable you find this.

I don't condone popping off shots at the thieves but claiming that calling the police would have resolved the crime isn't necessarily true; we don't know what the lighting or distance was like (nor his particular eyesight) so he may not have been able to give an accurate description of the thieves (and the trailer might have obscured the license plate).

[Akhlut]

What the hell is a 82 year old man supposed to do as two thieves run away with his trailer ? Sprint after them like an Olympic athlete ? The only mistake the old man made was not aiming well enough.

Take the plates from their truck, report the theft to the police, claim on his car insurance.

Y'know, the same as everyone else is supposed to do.

What if his car insurance doesn't cover that? What if he can't afford his deductible?

Then he should cut his losses and move on. It's a trailer, not the end of the goddamn world. If it is vital to a home business, he can write it off on his taxes and hopefully get enough of a refund or the like to get a new one. If it is for personal use, renting one for the rest of his life should be sufficient. It's not a perfect solution, but it's workable and doesn't involve shooting people.

[CJvR]

I find it hard to sympathize with criminals getting shot on the job. Even if the prosecution have techically a solid case I suspect there will be trouble getting a jury to pull the trigger on the old guy, particulary on murder charges.

[Kamakazie Sith]

There's a big difference here - between Kitty Genovese Syndrome and choosing not to actively try and murder someone over a few thousand dollar (at most) flatbed trailer.

I never said otherwise. I am saying that a citizen is within his/her rights to arrest a person in the commission of a crime and if they have to use force to effect the arrest then said force must be reasonable. I then further explained that the involvement of a firearm wouldn't make it unreasonable just because it was present. What would make it unreasonable is if he shot them while he or anyone else was not in any physical danger. In other words...I don't think this guy is in the right.

In one case there is a clear and present danger to another human being who without third party intervention will be injured or killed. In the other, there is no direct threat to anyone and you can call the police, give a full report and no-one has to get shot at. It doesn't take a fucking genius to figure out which one is appropriate when a fucking trailer is getting stolen.

Are you addressing me or someone else? Because I never said that he is within his rights to shoot them because they're stealing his trailer. I did say that if he went outside and challenged them and he stood in front of the vehicle and then they tried to run him over then the use of deadly force would be justified because he did not make them try to run him over and he was effecting a legal arrest - in other words you don't have a right to run away, and you don't have the right to use deadly force against someone effecting a legal arrest when they are in vehicle, might be armed, and out number you.

If they would have been caught by the police in the middle of this the police would firearms pointed at these two as well...

Then, I don't know, maybe when the police (who he could have called and given descriptions of the two criminals to, along with the plate number and description of the truck and the plate number and description of his trailer - INSTEAD OF RUNNING OUTSIDE WITH A GUN AND OPENING FIRE) find it, as they no doubt would with all the information he was able to supply, they can fucking return it to him.

My department has a pretty good response time to high priority calls such as this and it's around five minutes (yearly average). In five minutes they can get pretty far away. However, I never said that he did the right thing in this case. It's pretty obvious that he did not. I'm just pointing out that insurance isn't the be all savior that people in this thread seem to be making it out as. Some people would have plenty of motivation and good reason to stop someone from stealing their vehicle.

This is a clear cut case of a fucking idiot treating his property as more valuable than the lives of anyone within shooting range of him.

Agreed.

Do people really have so little faith in the police that they think that calling them and giving them all these fucking details that would let them do their job quickly and efficiently would just lead to nothing happening, the criminals getting away scot-free and the guy being left out of pocket? And do people seriously believe that running out onto the street and attempting to murder two people is somehow a better option than calling the police? Because I find that fucking STUPEFYING.

Most stolen vehicles are recovered after they're dumped and not while they're being driven around. Sometimes the thieves are decent enough to park it and leave it be, but every year when the water level goes down we pull quite a few stolen vehicles out of the river.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Then he should cut his losses and move on. It's a trailer, not the end of the goddamn world. If it is vital to a home business, he can write it off on his taxes and hopefully get enough of a refund or the like to get a new one. If it is for personal use, renting one for the rest of his life should be sufficient. It's not a perfect solution, but it's workable and doesn't involve shooting people.

Yeah, hopefully. Sometimes it doesn't work out that way though. However, to clear up the confusion I'm not saying this guy was in the right. I am saying that you don't have to stand by and watch someone steal your property. You can stop them, and you can use force to do. That force just needs to be reasonable...

[Lord of the Abyss]

I don't condone popping off shots at the thieves but claiming that calling the police would have resolved the crime isn't necessarily true; we don't know what the lighting or distance was like (nor his particular eyesight) so he may not have been able to give an accurate description of the thieves (and the trailer might have obscured the license plate).

That scenario just makes things worse. A guy with bad eyesight or who just can't see what he's doing shouldn't be shooting guns.

[Gil Hamilton]

I find it hard to sympathize with criminals getting shot on the job. Even if the prosecution have techically a solid case I suspect there will be trouble getting a jury to pull the trigger on the old guy, particulary on murder charges.

It the prosecution has a solid case for a crime, then the jury must find him guilty. A jury is required to be impartial and judge a case on its merits. Thus, if the jury finds him innocent of a crime which it is beyond a shadow of a doubt that he committed, they are failing in their duty.

There doesn't have to be sympathy for the criminals. Charge everyone involve with the crimes they committed, including the dudes who were stealing his trailer.

[Oni Koneko Damien]

Things have to be judged by the harm they could do to both individuals and society. The burglars' actions, at worst, could have led to financial harm of an individual. The homeowner's actions could (and did) lead to death, and had the strong possibility of hitting an innocent bystander. By the most objective standards we can muster, the homeowner who impulsively shot at them is a greater risk to society than the burglars, and thus should face more stringent prosecution.

I don't condone popping off shots at the thieves but claiming that calling the police would have resolved the crime isn't necessarily true; we don't know what the lighting or distance was like (nor his particular eyesight) so he may not have been able to give an accurate description of the thieves (and the trailer might have obscured the license plate).

If the lighting and distance were so unclear he couldn't get a description of the license plate or the criminals, it seems highly unlikely they were clear enough to draw an accurate bead to fire on them either. The guy really doesn't have much of a defense here.

[General Zod]

Things have to be judged by the harm they could do to both individuals and society. The burglars' actions, at worst, could have led to financial harm of an individual. The homeowner's actions could (and did) lead to death, and had the strong possibility of hitting an innocent bystander. By the most objective standards we can muster, the homeowner who impulsively shot at them is a greater risk to society than the burglars, and thus should face more stringent prosecution.

I don't condone popping off shots at the thieves but claiming that calling the police would have resolved the crime isn't necessarily true; we don't know what the lighting or distance was like (nor his particular eyesight) so he may not have been able to give an accurate description of the thieves (and the trailer might have obscured the license plate).

If the lighting and distance were so unclear he couldn't get a description of the license plate or the criminals, it seems highly unlikely they were clear enough to draw an accurate bead to fire on them either. The guy really doesn't have much of a defense here.

Wallace, a retired mechanic and amateur hot rod driver, called police at 8:47 p.m. on Feb. 24. Minutes earlier, he was sitting on his couch watching TV when he heard a loud noise.

It starts getting dark pretty quickly that time of year in Denver.

[Sky Captain]

My only objection in this case is the possibility of accidentally shooting nearby innocent people. Otherwise I have zero sympathy for criminals stealing other people hard earned property. If a criminal gets killed when doing crime so be it, at least disposing off his body is cheaper to taxpayers than keeping him in prison for years. If this incident had taken place in some remote farm area with no one else around to accidentally shoot I could only congratulate the old man for making life harder to criminals.

[Zed]

My only objection in this case is the possibility of accidentally shooting nearby innocent people. Otherwise I have zero sympathy for criminals stealing other people hard earned property. If a criminal gets killed when doing crime so be it, at least disposing off his body is cheaper to taxpayers than keeping him in prison for years. If this incident had taken place in some remote farm area with no one else around to accidentally shoot I could only congratulate the old man for making life harder to criminals.

How much dollars should something be worth before an owner can shoot at people who're trying to steal it? 50.000$? 1.000$? 50$? 1$?

[lance]

My only objection in this case is the possibility of accidentally shooting nearby innocent people. Otherwise I have zero sympathy for criminals stealing other people hard earned property. If a criminal gets killed when doing crime so be it, at least disposing off his body is cheaper to taxpayers than keeping him in prison for years. If this incident had taken place in some remote farm area with no one else around to accidentally shoot I could only congratulate the old man for making life harder to criminals.

How much dollars should something be worth before an owner can shoot at people who're trying to steal it? 50.000$? 1.000$? 50$? 1$?

I'm going to say that it will depends on how rich the shooter is. Stealing 50k from Donald trump is less damaging than stealing a chicken from a dirt farmer in FamineDroughtistan

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

My only objection in this case is the possibility of accidentally shooting nearby innocent people. Otherwise I have zero sympathy for criminals stealing other people hard earned property. If a criminal gets killed when doing crime so be it, at least disposing off his body is cheaper to taxpayers than keeping him in prison for years. If this incident had taken place in some remote farm area with no one else around to accidentally shoot I could only congratulate the old man for making life harder to criminals.

How much dollars should something be worth before an owner can shoot at people who're trying to steal it? 50.000$? 1.000$? 50$? 1$?

I'm going to say that it will depends on how rich the shooter is. Stealing 50k from Donald trump is less damaging than stealing a chicken from a dirt farmer in FamineDroughtistan

And I'm going to say that, unless someone's life is directly threatened by the thieves, the property owner is not justified in using deadly force to attempt to stop the theft. Ever. Shooting someone cannot possibly be construed as anything but using deadly force, since they've not yet built a firearm with a stun setting beyond "pistol-whipping."

I am, frankly, astonished that we have inbred, mouth-breathing internet tough guys on the board who value inanimate objects higher than human life.