Man kills thief, accomplice charged with murder.

[RoboTimbo]

I'm not aware of how the statute is worded in this case.

According to the article, Florida is a no-retreat state. The SUV was driving towards him. He was under no obligation to retreat so it became a shooting matter.

 

[Holler Hoojer]

That case strikes me as pushing the envelope on the no retreat law. The grove owner was not overtly in danger and there doesn't seem to have been a violent felony underway. I don't particularly care for no retreat laws to start with, but in this case there doesn't seem justification even under Florida law.

I believe we have a natural right (you aetheists might call that a God-given right ) to defend our lives, including preemptive killing if need be. But, I can't find any natural right for killing car thieves.

 

[Autolite]

They did it before. It was very effective, wasn't it? Crime went down to almost nil, didn't it?

There will always be a certain percentage of the populace for which no deterrent will be effective enough. This is of course why there will always be crime.

I remember reading about a guy on death row in Texas who murdered a convenience store clerk during a robbery. I believe the take was something like 20 bucks.

I find it nearly inconceivable that someone would risk the death penalty for the amount of money in the till of a 7/11. However, just because there are people who are inclined to do just that, it is still no reason for the deterrents to not be in place...

 

[Lonewulf]

There will always be a certain percentage of the populace for which no deterrent will be effective enough. This is of course why there will always be crime.

I remember reading about a guy on death row in Texas who murdered a convenience store clerk during a robbery. I believe the take was something like 20 bucks.

I find it nearly inconceivable that someone would risk the death penalty for the amount of money in the till of a 7/11. However, just because there are people who are inclined to do just that, it is still no reason for the deterrents to not be in place...

You still haven't answered my question.

If deterrence is the only reason to do anything, in spite of the rationality or logic of the sentence, why not lop off thieves' hands?

Until you stop evading answering this question, I can only assume that you don't have one.

 

[Lonewulf]

(you aetheists might call that a God-given right ).

Yeah, poke the "aetheists" in this forum. That'll get you far and totally won't cause a derail...

 

[Lonewulf]

BTW, what do you drive???

Believe me, it wouldn't be worth it.

 

[Autolite]

According to the article, Florida is a no-retreat state. The SUV was driving towards him. He was under no obligation to retreat so it became a shooting matter.

I have no sympathy for the thieves. A smart car thief would have bought a bus ticket to Canada and carried out the deed there. Not only are there no 'no-retreat' laws in Canada, but under the same circumstances, the RCMP would have jailed the owner for unnecessarily impeding traffic...

 

[Autolite]

You still haven't answered my question.
If deterrence is the only reason to do anything, in spite of the rationality or logic of the sentence, why not lop off thieves' hands?

It would slow down license plate production in the penitentiary. I'd settle for them losing a few fingers though...

 

[rwguinn]

here we see the absolute worst of the liberal mindset
Why punish anybody?
All they did was to go out, take something that was not theirs, and attempt to keep it by threat of violence against the owner of that something. (You did note that they drove AT the guy with a shotgun?)
Anytime someone is killed or injured during the commission of a felony, that person would NOT HAVE DIED or been injured had the felons not CHOSEN TO COMMIT the felony.
Just as Ted Bundy's victims would not have died had he not chosen to kill them.

Let's remove all obstacles to full recovery by these victims: Take guns from the citizens, and make sure that no deterrents AT all exist (since we can't prove that they work at all), and whatever we do, make sure there are no consequences for illegal actions! Let even remove the word "illegal" from our language. They can be undocumented victims!

 

[rwguinn]

You still haven't answered my question.

If deterrence is the only reason to do anything, in spite of the rationality or logic of the sentence, why not lop off thieves' hands?

Until you stop evading answering this question, I can only assume that you don't have one.

Because that is the stupidest ting I have ever read on this forum (CT included).
It is childish, petty, and assinine--and you know it.

 

[Lonewulf]

here we see the absolute worst of the liberal mindset

"Mommy! There's liberals under the bed!"

Nonono, someone can't just disagree with you. They have to do so because they're LIBRULOL! There's only black and white, and you're the white! Totally not a childish way of seeing things...

So pretty much, this is why I tuned you out; because there's no possible way that anything following could be worth regarding to anyone with intelligence or without a black and white viewpoint.

 

[Autolite]

Let's remove all obstacles to full recovery by these victims: Take guns from the citizens, and make sure that no deterrents AT all exist (since we can't prove that they work at all), and whatever we do, make sure there are no consequences for illegal actions! Let even remove the word "illegal" from our language. They can be undocumented victims!

You're from Canada, aren't you???

 

[Lonewulf]

Because that is the stupidest ting I have ever read on this forum (CT included).

You haven't been reading much of this forum, then, I take it.

It is childish, petty, and assinine--and you know it.

And charging someone for murder when he didn't kill someone is as well.

But I wasn't the one that made out deterrence to be the only reason. If you were capable of reading, you would notice this. I notice that you are not.

Like I said; if deterrence were the only reason, and there was no logical or rational reason to do something, then... blah blah blah.

I know; logic isn't your strong point. Don't worry, I won't strain your brain. I'll just go my LIBRULOL way, and let you wonderful conservatives refuse to accept anything like personal responsibility.

And if you want to read childish posts, I suggest you read your own. Hint: Whenever you say "YOU LIBERALS!" when someone disagrees with you, that's one example.

 

[quixotecoyote]

here we see the absolute worst of the liberal mindset
Why punish anybody?
All they did was to go out, take something that was not theirs, and attempt to keep it by threat of violence against the owner of that something. (You did note that they drove AT the guy with a shotgun?)
Anytime someone is killed or injured during the commission of a felony, that person would NOT HAVE DIED or been injured had the felons not CHOSEN TO COMMIT the felony.
Just as Ted Bundy's victims would not have died had he not chosen to kill them.

Let's remove all obstacles to full recovery by these victims: Take guns from the citizens, and make sure that no deterrents AT all exist (since we can't prove that they work at all), and whatever we do, make sure there are no consequences for illegal actions! Let even remove the word "illegal" from our language. They can be undocumented victims!

Nice rant, but since no one disagrees with punishing them for felony theft, and I'd guess most would agree on an assault charge for actions toward the property owner, it misses the mark by a wide margin.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Man and woman steal car. Car owner fires on them. Woman dies.

Result: Man charged with grand theft and the responsibility of her death? Even assuming the owner is absolved of any criminal charges based on my state's laws, how exactly does that responsibility bounce onto the car thief?

 

[Lonewulf]

Nice rant, but since no one disagrees with punishing them for felony theft, and I'd guess most would agree on an assault charge for actions toward the property owner, it misses the mark by a wide margin.

You were actually able to read that rant without rolling your eyes into the back of your head like I did, eh?

Rather amusing, wasn't it?

 

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

Man and woman steal car. Car owner fires on them. Woman dies.

Result: Man charged with grand theft and the responsibility of her death? Even assuming the owner is absolved of any criminal charges based on my state's laws, how exactly does that responsibility bounce onto the car thief?

I tried to point this out several posts ago, but I think one could make the argument that because he was driving the car, he caused her death. The owner confronted them with a gun. Instead of stopping and surrendering, he tried to take off. That is what prompted the owner to shoot. As the driver, his actions were therefore what caused her death.

I think in either case, murder is extreme. I think you could argue for manslaughter or negligent homicide though.

 

[Lonewulf]

Meh, I still think it's stretching. Would you really call it "attempted suicide" or "suicide" if he was alone and tried to escape? And how can you prove that she didn't tell him to flee the scene?

I will admit, though, you make a case that's harder to argue against than most people in this thread.

 

[Drudgewire]

I think in either case, murder is extreme. I think you could argue for manslaughter or negligent homicide though.

And that's likely what he'll wind up pleading down to.

 

[quixotecoyote]

I tried to point this out several posts ago, but I think one could make the argument that because he was driving the car, he caused her death. The owner confronted them with a gun. Instead of stopping and surrendering, he tried to take off. That is what prompted the owner to shoot. As the driver, his actions were therefore what caused her death.

That's not a bad argument, but I don't think it's the legal rationale for the charges. Even if it was, you're correct when you say:

I think in either case, murder is extreme. I think you could argue for manslaughter or negligent homicide though.