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

LEOs have been granted that authority in certain circumstances.
Civilians have not, except in self defense, and even then there is an investigation.

 

You need me to tell you why a human life is more important than a television? I haven't been asked that before!

 

That’s one interpretation.

 

You obviously favor the lives of the criminal element over my possession of my TV. You said so yourself.

Again, I will ask you directly: 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?

Just to find some common ground, do you believe that a citizen should ever be able to resort to taking someone's life?

 

You obviously are prone to making up stuff.

It would depend on the size or number of people doing the robbing.
But in reality, my life would not be worth trying to stop them, I don't know if they are armed. And I won't kill anyone over physical stuff.

Self defense is the only reason one may need to use deadly force. And then a full investigation by law enforcement should take place to see if it truly was self defense.

Will these answers stop you from false projections? Or is that your posting style?

 

Well, let's make sure I am not making false projections:

Which do you favor over the other:

The lives of the criminal element - or - my possession of my TV?

I am sure that your answer will conform to my statement of:
"You obviously favor the lives of the criminal element over my possession of my TV."
So is the above statement a false projection or is it a fact?

 

Not a television specifically, but privately owned property in general. Why should the life of the criminal individual, who has made the conscious decision to victimize another for their own benefit, be held to a higher standard of protection than the private property of the intended victim? The criminal individual has already made the conclusion that they are going to violate the rights of another, so why do they deserve to have their lives protected by the law?

 

Here if somebody rings the doorbell and asks to use the landline you can't kill them.

But if they break in to use the landline you can kill them no questions asked.

 

I think it depends what they're stealing. If someone broke into the display at a jewelry store and started running off with some extremely high value item, it might be appropriate.

But you have no problem with someone who has been hired as a police officer doing so.

 

Would a court of law in the US ever sentence a person to death for stealing a car? I don't think so. But you think as a private citizen that you should be able to deprive someone of their life without due process of law (despite what the Fifth Amendment says) for stealing a car. Perhaps you prefer anarchy over living in a civilized society.

 

Considering we jail those who steal I would say we absolutely don’t hold criminals to a higher standard of protection.
Why is the penalty for theft, jail and not the death penalty???

 

And how often do they shoot to kill?

What you are doing is assuming that the shooter was a " good guy with a gun".

He might be a serial killer getting kicks off shooting kids and using his car as bait

He might have known the kid and set him up. "Look move the car for me and I will pay you"

There are lots of scenarios where the truth is not what it first appears

 

The Chicago Tribune article does not say anything about the thief trying to run over the legal owner.

How are they devoid of credibility? The VPC has collected more data about killings committed by those with concealed weapons permits than anyone else. So based on the best information we have access to most killings committed by those with concealed weapons permits are not legally justifiable.

 

Was he a car thief? We only have the shooters word for that

Could be he set the kid up

 

That you have to ask that only informs me how little you value life. Is that a common outcome amongst pro-gunners? Might explain a few things...

 

Some of us are actually rational people

 

Yes, that is possible. If so, I hope that the lieutenant is tried & convicted.

 

Law enforcement officers regularly deprive individuals of their lives without due process of law. Individuals do not even need to be accused of doing anything wrong in order to be deprived on their lives without due process of law. Why should private citizens be held to a higher standard of review than law enforcement officers?

 

That is what is being questioned.

 

That was actually a rhetorical question. Yikes

 

How often does it need to be done?

Then what is being claimed by yourself, is that those who are employed as security guards by malls and other commercial businesses may actually be serial killers?

 

This article, however, does indeed speak about such occurring.

http://chicago.homicidewatch.org/20...ant-who-claims-it-was-self-defense/index.html

The fatal shooting of 17-year-old Charles K. Macklin was ruled a homicide, but the off-duty Chicago Fire Department lieutenant who shot the boy claims it was a matter of self-defense.


The lieutenant told police he shot the teenage boy who tried to steal his car last Monday in the West Side Austin neighborhood, authorities said.


About 9:30 a.m., the 45-year-old lieutenant left his vehicle running in the 1400 block of North Lockwood, when the boy got inside and tried to drive off, according to Chicago Police and Fire Department officials.


The lieutenant fired his weapon at the teen, who was trying to run him over with the vehicle, authorities said.

This discussion has been had before. Josh Sugarman, founder of the violence policy center, advocating deliberately engaging in intellectual dishonesty to mislead the public on the matter of firearms such as the AR-15, praying upon their lack of knowledge about what firearms are and are not fully-automatic, in order to build public support for greater firearm-related restrictions.

And yet they only include a few stated in the united states, not every state where concealed carry if legal. Explain why. Why are they counting cases they admit as pending, as being an example of not legally justified, when pending means that the accused is still legally regarded as being innocent?

 

The sister admitted that her brother was engaged in the theft of the motor vehicle.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...led-carry-shooting-victim-20180523-story.html

Walker, 20, has organized protests, started a Facebook page and launched a hashtag on Twitter. She says she hasn’t given up hope of getting justice for her brother.


She believes her brother was found guilty by one man with a gun. Walker said her brother should be alive to stand before a judge and take responsibility for his actions.

“When has it ever become legal to shoot someone because they’re pulling off in your car?” she asked. “Even if (Macklin) did that, if he did steal the car. You’ve got insurance — let him go to jail. I would’ve rather had to get a call to go bail him out of jail than to get a phone call that he’s dead.”

In asking the question in the manner that it was presented, it is an admission of guilt.

 

It is an outlook far more commonplace than is being admitted to by yourself. In the united states, as in other nations, there are individuals in society who will not hesitate to murder another person in cold blood, motivated solely and exclusively by the fact that the person has something in their possession that they wish for themselves. It could be an electronic device, a pair of shoes, or even a wristwatch, it does not matter to them. All that matters to them is that someone has something they want, and they are going to take it for themselves.

It is an outlook common even among politicians. Their constituents hold no more value to them than any commodity available at the local convenience or big box store.

 

Sorry, but everyone I deal withbelieves that a life is worth more than an inanimate object. Perhaps you need to move in different circles?