'When has it ever become legal to shoot someone because they’re pulling off in your car?'

Who determines predatory parasites? You?

 

Is killing someone over a piece of gum lawful? A bike? A motorcycle? Who decides? 300M people?

 

Private citizens are not supposed to steal other people's cars either.

 

Which is why we have courts of law

 

We do in that we jail someone for stealing. You’d rather have capital punishment for stealing an iPad? Not really an eye for an eye now is it? What would your ‘god’ think?

 

And yet locations such as malls and banks, which engage in commercial businesses, have armed guards for the purpose of safeguarding the merchandise contained within. Indicating the united states does indeed believe that private property is of greater importance than the lives of individuals.

 

Then why does the second article state the suspect tried to run the individual over?

 

Why should the individual who has made the conscious decision to victimize someone else for their own personal benefit, be provided with any claim that they should not be killed by their intended victim in response for their actions?

 

What does that have to do with anything? Did I say you shouldn’t have a gun? The answer is no, I didn’t say that.

 

I've seen a lot of strange comment from pro gunners. Racism, anti intellectualism, conspiracy theories. However, I wasn't expecting someone to compare a life to a television box.

 

Oh no, on the spot, in the rush of adrenalin, you ARE the only judge, jury, and executioner. In that instant no law exists.

 

Firstly, the VPC lacks any credibility in relating "statistics" about DGUs just as it fails to account for homicides that have been prevented by unreported DGUs.

Secondly, no, I would not shoot someone who was stealing my property.

Finally, I do not know enough about the circumstances of the attempted auto theft to say whether the Fire Lieutenant should be charged but I don't see where humanity, as a whole, has suffered an overwhelming loss by the elimination of another car thief.

 

And a dumb car thief at that.

 

Yes, I fail to see how the global gene pool has been significantly harmed by by the loss of one dumb car thief.
I'll save my sympathy for a more deserving individual.

 

Yes, and death because of failure to defend one's self is permanent.

 

In some circumstances they are.

 

2 wrongs make a right to you? Killing people is right to you?
Says a lot about you.

 

How do you know its a conscious decision? The person could be under a great deal of stress and despair and not acting and thinking clearly.

Are we a nation of laws or not? Do we have a justice system to sort these issues out?
You want anarchy. Where would it stop? Shoot someone for cutting you off in a car? Oh wait, that just happened also, are you ok with killing a mom of 3 because she pissed off another driver?

 

And then the real law takes over and sorts it out.
Killing someone needs to be investigated and killing in a rush of adrenalin should be prosecuted.
Is killing someone due to excessive alcohol and a car ok. Afterall, they weren't in a proper mind.

 

And then the legal system is to arrest and let the justice system determine if the action was justified.
Not to do anything to the killer is wrong.

 

Yes, sometimes people deserve to die for their actions. What it says about me is that your favored criminal element shouldn't break into my house and try to steal my stuff.

What action would you take if a thief broke into your house and started taking your stuff? Would you attempt to physically stop the crime or would you just hide in the closet and call the authorities? What if it took the authorities 15 minutes to get there? Would you just stand there and watch as the thief loaded up your stuff and drove off?

 

It establishes that private property is legally held to a higher standard than a human life.

 

Pray tell why not? There are those in the united states who will not hesitate to murder another because they want what the other individual has. These people have less regard for a human life than they do a pair of shoes, a leather jacket, a game system, for any other commercial good that the owner possessed at the time. If such is the standard that is in play to motivate certain crimes, why should it not apply equally in defense of said property, when possession of property is an underlying motivation factor in the commission of a crime?

 

Now you resort to lying to make a point.
Where was anything I said about favoring the criminal element.

 

Such is not relevant.

In theory, however not in practice. Law enforcement officers in the united states routinely shoot individuals who have not even been accused of a crime, often because an order was not complied with to the satisfaction of the law enforcement officer, or because they were surprised by the presence of an individual they did not expect. Sometimes the use of deadly force is justified as the individual simply being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

The motor vehicle being stolen from the rightful owner while it is in their presence, is far different from simply being cut off in traffic.

It is not a matter of anarchy. It is a question of why protecting private property from theft does not justify the use of deadly force by a private individual acting in their own capacity, yet it is regarded as acceptable when it comes to private property being sold at a mall. Why can a security guard, who is not even close to being a law enforcement officer, shoot and kill a shoplifter who is merely taking merchandise, but a private individual cannot do the same when their property is being stolen?

Discussions pertaining to incidents deemed as road rage are not relevant when the discussion pertains to the theft of private property. Refrain from changing the subject.