Detroit homeowner shoots at suspected power thieves and gets arrested himself

[NHCGRPR45]

well the only area where i would have an issue is where to draw the line?

when could you kill someone over private property? only when confronted with a weapon?
or only when stealing something more than a 1,000 dollars? less than a 1,000? would the item have to be worth that amount at the time of theft or would the actual price of worth be the amount?? what about what if?? its to arbitrary to me. dealing death isn't the simple thing it sounds, anyone who says it is, is either stupid or a liar, or has mental issues, probably all 3 . taking life is a very complex thing, it changes the person who has done it forever. i am of course not talking about the sicko's who find murder fun. but the justified taking of life if there is such a thing, is a life changeing event.

i believe there are times when such a terrible thing must be done, defense of self or a loved one. and a very select few other circumstances for myself. war falls under defense of self also.

killing a person isn't like killing a deer, its vastly different its been ingrained in our up brining that to kill another person is wrong. we need only look at the first commandment thou shalt not kill. well i am pretty sure that its the first one, and yes i am well aware of all the things people say the bible says about not defending gods gift of human life is a sin, and i would agree only so far as it applies to me. i would and have defended my life only because i didn't want to be the dead body after the fight was over.

so MI law is for the most part fine for me, there are of course changes i would make but only to loosen the restrictions on owning firearms and maybe have some sort of mandated training for carring a pistol. no license need, just a safety course, with the cost of ammo being the only price paid, limit ammo to 50 rnds. so we didn't get to high a price on training. and limit course cost to 20 bucks.

and maybe being a full class 3 state instead of just machine guns, and a few other things, but nothing overly drastic like being allowed to own M1 tanks or AT-4 rockets.

 

[Jack House]

Thou shalt not kill is not the first commandment. It's the sixth, and actually states thou shalt not murder. After all, how many tribes did the Israelites slaughter to claim the promised land? They had a scorched earth policy and took no prisoners. This was justified for them, even after the 10 commandments.

As I have already stated, these two men did not endanger themselves only, they endangered everyone around them. Do you not remember those classes in school talking about the dangers of electricity?

I disagree that it's wrong to defend your property with deadly force, though clearly there is a limit. I mean you shouldn't just shoot someone for keying your car. But in this case, these men could have easily caused a large fire to start and burn up his house. I definitely think that defending your home from destruction is definitely one of those times when you can shoot first, ask questions later. Now this particular case, he should have warned them and demanded they ceased their activities before firing, but I wont condemn him for his actions. They choose to illegally come on to his property to commit a very dangerous crime that endangered the victim, his family, his home and his neighbors. They chose to put themselves into the situation, it's their fault and their fault alone that they were shot.

 

[NHCGRPR45]

Thou shalt not kill is not the first commandment. It's the sixth, and actually states thou shalt not murder. After all, how many tribes did the Israelites slaughter to claim the promised land? They had a scorched earth policy and took no prisoners. This was justified for them, even after the 10 commandments.

As I have already stated, these two men did not endanger themselves only, they endangered everyone around them. Do you not remember those classes in school talking about the dangers of electricity?

I disagree that it's wrong to defend your property with deadly force, though clearly there is a limit. I mean you shouldn't just shoot someone for keying your car. But in this case, these men could have easily caused a large fire to start and burn up his house. I definitely think that defending your home from destruction is definitely one of those times when you can shoot first, ask questions later. Now this particular case, he should have warned them and demanded they ceased their activities before firing, but I wont condemn him for his actions. They choose to illegally come on to his property to commit a very dangerous crime that endangered the victim, his family, his home and his neighbors. They chose to put themselves into the situation, it's their fault and their fault alone that they were shot.

we do agree that property should be defendable with lethal force, but we disagree as to maybe where that line lays.

i suppose i could live with a law that would allow it in a case by case way, but that leaves it way open to interpretation by the legal system, and i think we can also agree that would be a poor situation to be in when haveing an anti assigned to a persons case.

 

[6L6GC]

The guy is clearly an idiot.

Anyone that is not a trained professional that is playing with a live wire will take care of themselves. I don't need a gun to give them a Darwin Award.

I was gonna say that but you beat me to it. He shouldda just gotten his camera and recorded it all and sent it to America's Funniest Home Video.

 

[PrayingForWar]

well the only area where i would have an issue is where to draw the line?

when could you kill someone over private property? only when confronted with a weapon?
or only when stealing something more than a 1,000 dollars? less than a 1,000? would the item have to be worth that amount at the time of theft or would the actual price of worth be the amount?? what about what if?? its to arbitrary to me. dealing death isn't the simple thing it sounds, anyone who says it is, is either stupid or a liar, or has mental issues, probably all 3 . taking life is a very complex thing, it changes the person who has done it forever. i am of course not talking about the sicko's who find murder fun. but the justified taking of life if there is such a thing, is a life changeing event.

i believe there are times when such a terrible thing must be done, defense of self or a loved one. and a very select few other circumstances for myself. war falls under defense of self also.

I think the law in Michigan draws the line too favorably for the criminal. It's ALWAYS up to the operator to pull the trigger. I might not have shot at those 2 idiots myself, I may have tried to hold them until responding officers arrived unless they escalated the issue. Unfortunately for people in MI, it seems their best option is to cower behind a barricade with a telephone and wait for police. In Texas we have more discretion, and the further away you get from moonbat cities, less criminals preying on the people. That's probably because our laws put no value on life, since it is priceless anyway. It's up to the person leading that life not to try stealing a quarter from the little old lady with a .38 and an attitude.

 

[NHCGRPR45]

well the guy stealing the quater could be justifiably shot,,:shocker:

 

[HankT]

...it goes to show that this is one of those huge distinctions between those who possess a handgun license and those who possess a CPL. Anyone who has a CPL license would’ve known you cannot use lethal force to protect property...

Oh, really? What about Tigh Croff?

http://www.mlive.com/news/detroit/index.ssf/2010/08/self-defense_or_second-degree.html

Self-defense or second-degree murder? Detroit homeowner's trial one of several blurring the line
August 09, 2010


Tigh Croff returned from his shift as a security guard in the early hours of Dec. 28 to find two men smashing windows and preparing to enter his home in Detroit's Jefferson-Chalmers neighborhood -- described by one resident as "a war zone."

Frustrated to witness what would have been the third break-in of the week at his home, Croff gave chase, eventually catching up to 53-year-old Herbert Silas several blocks away before fatally shooting him in the chest.

"He turned around and looked dumb. He had that 'mercy' look," Croff told police after the shooting, per Detroit Police Sgt. Gary Diaz. "I told him he was gonna die, and I shot him."

Croff was licensed to carry a concealed weapon and may have been cleared had he shot the burglar on his property, but prosecutors pushed for a second-degree murder charge, citing the fact the shooting occurred some distance from his house.

Croff's trial is set to open today before 36th District Court Judge Ronald Giles. As the Detroit Free Press points out, it's one of three upcoming Wayne County cases that blur the line between "citizen self-defense and free-fire vigilantism" as fed-up residents look to defend themselves and their neighborhoods...

He makes all of us lawful gun owner's look like trigger-happy yahoos.

There are several goofs with guns (with and without CPLs) out there who make responsible gun owners/carriers look bad...just read the news reports.

 

[Grapeshot]

Welcome back HankT - missed your style.
BTW - hope you emptied your PM box - it was maxed out.

The exception to the rule/norm does not determine the rule.

IMO the evidence is overwhelming that permit holders are by and large more honest and law abiding than virtually any other segment of society.

 

[PrayingForWar]

well the guy stealing the quater could be justifiably shot,,:shocker:

I'm just more comfortable with the initial victim drawing the line, than an arbitrary line drawn by protected legislators who have little respect for the idea of an armed citizenry taking care of themselves. If an incident resulting in homicide comes up where the investigating official believes there is more to the story than self defense, let it go to the grand jury. The reality of the matter is that politics motivate some of our officials more than the pursuit of justice. That in itself is a crime.

 

[PrayingForWar]

Welcome back HankT - missed your style.
BTW - hope you emptied your PM box - it was maxed out.

The exception to the rule/norm does not determine the rule.

IMO the evidence is overwhelming that permit holders are by and large more honest and law abiding than virtually any other segment of society.

Too me having a permit gives a resisting victim no more moral high ground than a felon illegally possesing a weapon, who shoots an attacker. Laws drafted out of popular spin through media manipulation have led us to the point where a burglar can bash his way into your home in some states, and if you shoot him, you better;

1) have called police

2) have a permit

3) have had not means to escape

4) not used hollow points

5) never have been issued a parking ticket or anything more severe

6) have no association with anyone an ambitious prosecutor could use against you in order to paint you as an "extremist, racist, religious nut, or gun nut".

Passing all that you can still be sued in some states by the "family" who raised the oxygen thief who kicked down your back door and succumbed to the wounds you inflicted with your 12 gauge, while wielding a knife just inside your bedroom. Since you should have jumped out of your second story window instead of taking your mandatory trigger lock off the shotgun, finding the ammunition in another location in the dark, loading it, and eventually firing it, all while waiting for 911 to react.


People living in liberal states defy the theory of natural selection they declare to be scientific law.

 

[stainless1911]

good post

I say let the property owner determine what is worth defending. As soon as word gets around that you can be shot for peeking in your windows, keying your car, or stealing your garden hose, then my bet, is that such activity will quickly and dramatically decrease.

 

[NHCGRPR45]

I'm just more comfortable with the initial victim drawing the line, than an arbitrary line drawn by protected legislators who have little respect for the idea of an armed citizenry taking care of themselves. If an incident resulting in homicide comes up where the investigating official believes there is more to the story than self defense, let it go to the grand jury. The reality of the matter is that politics motivate some of our officials more than the pursuit of justice. That in itself is a crime.

yes, on this we agree!

 

[Grapeshot]

Too me having a permit gives a resisting victim no more moral high ground than a felon illegally possesing a weapon, who shoots an attacker. Laws drafted out of popular spin through media manipulation have led us to the point where a burglar can bash his way into your home in some states, and if you shoot him, you better;

Neither weapon nor permit determines the "moral high ground."

1) have called police After the fact, but is good practice.

2) have a permit Aint necessarily so.

3) have had not means to escape Not universally so.

4) not used hollow points Ibid

5) never have been issued a parking ticket or anything more severe Sigh

6) have no association with anyone an ambitious prosecutor could use against you in order to paint you as an "extremist, racist, religious nut, or gun nut". Good is better and better is best......and?

Passing all that you can still be sued in some states by the "family" who raised the oxygen thief who kicked down your back door and succumbed to the wounds you inflicted with your 12 gauge, while wielding a knife just inside your bedroom. Since you should have jumped out of your second story window instead of taking your mandatory trigger lock off the shotgun, finding the ammunition in another location in the dark, loading it, and eventually firing it, all while waiting for 911 to react. There is risk in driving too, but I'm still doing it, even though I am driving a 2 ton guided projectile.


People living in liberal states defy the theory of natural selection they declare to be scientific law.

There are good people living in all 50 states. Generalized rants are not a benefit IMO and do more harm than good. Better to take the same energy and use it to correct some of the negatives.

Other responses embedded above in bold black.

 

[NHCGRPR45]

good post

I say let the property owner determine what is worth defending. As soon as word gets around that you can be shot for peeking in your windows, keying your car, or stealing your garden hose, then my bet, is that such activity will quickly and dramatically decrease.

funny you should say that.

this happened to me kinda,,,,

my mom has one of those cement white ducks, the kind you can dress up that you have in a garden, anyway i was just home from the army on leave and noticed the duck in another residents front yard!:banghead: same stupid outfit and all in the front yard of his trailer! he has taken her garbage can also! previously,,,

well this guy is a not nice person at all, and not so bright either and i figured he stole it like the garbage can, so i pick it up and carry it home, less than 400 feet, i get there and here the guy is with my mom.

his wife is following me saying she will call her husband to shoot me the whole time i am carring the stupid looking duck home! so when it all gets settled out he went and bought the duck dressed it up exactly the same way! to annoy my mom, and he had just given her the heads up that he has the same kind of duck! so he can gloat!!!!

yes its pretty classically stupid but getting shot over it would have been adding insult to injury! i didn't know he was that petty, but i did know he was an idiot for stealing the garbage can with our name stenciled on the side......so i put 2 and 2 together and got 6. this is where MI law "helps out the criminal",,,,,:shocker:

me, they actually got a 2 cops out to handle the situation. the officers told me to not take donald for any unautorized walks anymore, and left. but not before taking my information and complaint of assault against the wife, she said she would have shot me if her gun "had the bullets,,,,,"

he has since taken a hose, a rake, 2 pooper scoopers and the garbage can again!! i just go down and reappropriate the missing goods, but i haven't been harrased for reverse stealing again. we have a saying in the army, may be military wide but here it goes "theres only 1 thief in the army, everyone else is just trying to get his s**t back"


so our laws aren't all bad,,,,,,,:lol:

 

[stainless1911]

That story reminds me of home

 

[HankT]

Welcome back HankT - missed your style.
BTW - hope you emptied your PM box - it was maxed out.

The exception to the rule/norm does not determine the rule.

IMO the evidence is overwhelming that permit holders are by and large more honest and law abiding than virtually any other segment of society.

I agree that permit/license holders are more honest and law abiding than the general population and other groups too.

The problem is that as this subgroup gets larger, there is the likelihood that the mean level of honesty/law abidingness will decrease. And certainly, the low end of the range will. That's bad news for us, I think.

BTW, congrats on becoming a 10K OCDO poster. Only Doug/Master Doug (with 8868+2384) has more. . .

Send me an e-mail direct if you get a chance, GS.

 

[NHCGRPR45]

That story reminds me of home

you stealing my garbage can??:banghead:

:lol:

 

[stainless1911]

Nope, but someone got mine. If it isn't bolted down, its fair game around here.

Once, someone decided to take some of the rocks that were around the yard, and roll them down the street. I took all those rocks to my moms and decorated her yard with them instead. Looks better over there anyhow. I picked those rocks off the side of the road one by one for a couple years, I don't want them stolen, or tossed through a window.

Rock theives. Hmm, it was either those dang rock and rollers, or the stoners.

 

[Jack House]

Nope, but someone got mine. If it isn't bolted down, its fair game around here.

Once, someone decided to take some of the rocks that were around the yard, and roll them down the street. I took all those rocks to my moms and decorated her yard with them instead. Looks better over there anyhow. I picked those rocks off the side of the road one by one for a couple years, I don't want them stolen, or tossed through a window.

Rock theives. Hmm, it was either those dang rock and rollers, or the stoners.

Careful, they will rock you.

 

[PrayingForWar]

There are good people living in all 50 states. Generalized rants are not a benefit IMO and do more harm than good. Better to take the same energy and use it to correct some of the negatives.

Other responses embedded above in bold black.

I wasn't being critical of the people in any state, I was deriding the laws of the handful of states where people have been prosecuted for the issues I raised. Even in AZ a man went to prison (later pardoned I believe) after shooting an agressive homeless man who attacked him. The DA made a huge fuss over his use of a 10mm Glock with Silvertip HP ammo. I don't see what harm I've caused with that rant, and I do try to correct negatives. Fortunately here in TX we don't have as many moonbats as NY, so not as much energy is required.