• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Getaway driver arrested for murder.

Aepervius said:
The most puzzling aspect of that story to me has always been the fact that when you commit a crime, and somebody kill your accomplice you are under penalty of first degree murder. A quirk of the US system as far as I can tell. One should only be accused of crime they started, and the killing of her accomplice is a separate issue under the responsibility of the person shooting IMO.
Click to expand...

Then idea is to discourage "getaway drivers" I'd say ...
 
Beady said:
About seven hours ago, I graduated from our city's Citizens Police Academy. One of the sessions involved putting us through Shoot/Don't Shoot scenarios ...
Click to expand...

I'm a VERY good target shooter, I've shot in dozens of IPSC matches and I can accurately hit targets VERY quickly, but I do this basically for fun, a weekend outside in the sun.

I have zero confidence I could do any of these things in a high stress situation against knife wielding criminals.
 
They thought the home was unoccupied.

TulsaWorld said:
Rodriguez also said she knew that the Peters family had money and expensive belongings, which led her to select their home to burglarize, Mahoney said.

Investigators determined that Rodriguez and her three accomplices had broken into a spare room in the home earlier in the day and then returned later to search the rest of the house, Mahoney said.
Click to expand...


http://m.tulsaworld.com/communities...cle_af785419-15d9-5945-b18a-27e5dadb99ce.html
 
TragicMonkey said:
Your hypothetical is inapt because the homeowner's son in this case did not commit a crime. Self defence is not a crime.
Click to expand...

Exactly!

AND he was trig to STOP the criminals NOT kill them ... shooting at 'centre of body mass' is standard practice to STOP attackers.
 
Vixen said:
You guys sleep with one of these by your bed? :eye-poppi
Click to expand...

So your main concern is what the rifle LOOKS like??

A oiled walnut stock with the same for a fore grip, smaller magazine and no carrying handle etc ... could be the exact same rifle.
 
William Parcher said:
They were wearing gloves so that may offer some protection for a glass door punch with brass knuckles. I'm speculating of course.
Click to expand...

Since the 1970's all sliding patio doors are made from tempered glass that breaks into those little cubes, the danger of being cut is minimal.
 
luchog said:
No, that is not self-defense; since they are the ones committing the burglary/home-invasion.
Click to expand...


I've always wondered when that stops. At what point, if any, can the prospective criminal once more defend themselves legitimately?
 
Yeggster said:
Since the 1970's all sliding patio doors are made from tempered glass that breaks into those little cubes, the danger of being cut is minimal.
Click to expand...

Go throw a brick at one, when you get back from the hospital for a brick to the face, ask yourself if you would have been able to somehow produce more force punching it with brass knuckles.

Assuming no brain damage your answer is going to be no.

Brass knuckles are a weapon, I have dozens of combat oriented knives that can be used for multiple things, brass knuckles have one use.
 
3point14 said:
I've always wondered when that stops. At what point, if any, can the prospective criminal once more defend themselves legitimately?
Click to expand...

If the force used against him or her is disproportionate, I think. So if someone is stealing newspapers from a stand and you try to stab him, I think he'd be within his rights to defend himself.

Not if he breaks into your home, however, as you have no way to ascertain his intentions.
 
sadhatter said:
Go throw a brick at one, when you get back from the hospital for a brick to the face, ask yourself if you would have been able to somehow produce more force punching it with brass knuckles.

Assuming no brain damage your answer is going to be no.

Brass knuckles are a weapon, I have dozens of combat oriented knives that can be used for multiple things, brass knuckles have one use.
Click to expand...

I was just posting about the glass not defending the brass knuckles.

I've broken hundreds of pains of tempered glass (to save the aluminum for recycle), force is not the key, it's using something pointy.

I've bounced a sledge hammer off tempered glass so we agree there ...

I still think brass knuckles could break tempered glass with some speed and a bit of luck ... (I doubt that's what they were used for in this case though so we also agree there also)
 
Argumemnon said:
If the force used against him or her is disproportionate, I think. So if someone is stealing newspapers from a stand and you try to stab him, I think he'd be within his rights to defend himself ...
Click to expand...

This is a good example ... I was previously wondering if a criminal had ANY right of self defence ... but this example makes it obvious they would at least under some circumstances.
 
Argumemnon said:
If the force used against him or her is disproportionate, I think. So if someone is stealing newspapers from a stand and you try to stab him, I think he'd be within his rights to defend himself.

Not if he breaks into your home, however, as you have no way to ascertain his intentions.
Click to expand...


But if he breaks into your home and carries your stuff outside, can you shoot him then?

If carries your stuff outside, into a van and starts driving home, can you shoot him then?

When he's unloading your stuff into his garage, can you shoot him then?

That evening, when he nips out to the shop for some milk, can you shoot him then?


When does his right to defend himself (against the victim of his crime) return?
 
3point14 said:
But if he breaks into your home and carries your stuff outside, can you shoot him then?
Click to expand...

You're asking for my personal opinion? I think that force depends on the crime being committed. Lethal force should only be allowed when there is a reasonable expectation of threat to the life of someone by the criminal. So no, if he's stealing your tv you can't shoot him. You sure can tackle him and punch him the gut, I guess.

That evening, when he nips out to the shop for some milk, can you shoot him then?
Click to expand...

I don't understand why you're piling up those ridiculous scenarios. Breaking into someone's home can be reasonably interpreted as a threat to those inside, can it not?
 
Argumemnon said:
You're asking for my personal opinion?
Click to expand...

it's more of a general musing to the assembled thinkers.

I think that force depends on the crime being committed. Lethal force should only be allowed when there is a reasonable expectation of threat to the life of someone by the criminal. So no, if he's stealing your tv you can't shoot him. You sure can tackle him and punch him the gut, I guess.



I don't understand why you're piling up those ridiculous scenarios. Breaking into someone's home can be reasonably interpreted as a threat to those inside, can it not?
Click to expand...


I don't think it's ridiculous to asses when one can reasonably shoot another person. there must be a line after which the crime has been completed and one cannot assault the criminal.

I am aware of cases in the US where people have gone away to get their gun and shot a fleeing criminal and not been prosecuted.

so, if it's reasonable and allowable to follow a criminal down the road and shoot them but not reasonable and allowable to shoot them in the head the following day, when does the victim stop being able to assault the criminal with impunity.

I don't think this is a ridiculous question at all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom