The Original Gay Porn Community - Free Gay Movies and Photos, Gay Porn Site Reviews and Adult Gay Forums

  • Welcome To Just Us Boys - The World's Largest Gay Message Board Community

    In order to comply with recent US Supreme Court rulings regarding adult content, we will be making changes in the future to require that you log into your account to view adult content on the site.
    If you do not have an account, please register.
    REGISTER HERE - 100% FREE / We Will Never Sell Your Info

    To register, turn off your VPN; you can re-enable the VPN after registration. You must maintain an active email address on your account: disposable email addresses cannot be used to register.

  • Hi Guest - Did you know?
    Hot Topics is a Safe for Work (SFW) forum.

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

  • Thread starter Thread starter peeonme
  • Start date Start date
I hate Yahoo. Won't touch it. Sorry.

Anyway, I suppose it would depend on how necessary the property is for the owner's survival.

If it's something just for recreational use, it's not really much of a concern.
 
Home invasion is the basis for shooting trespassers. There is no onus on the home owner, or even occupant, to determine or have to assume intent of an invader. Shoot to kill.

The thief fleeing with the goods is obviously not a threat to your person or welfare, so shooting for material reasons is generally verboten. Plus there are too many things outdoors which changes the dynamics. If you were standing in the drive with a gun drawn and the thief tried to run over you, you'd have a self-defense argument, but it's pretty dangerous to pull that.

Cops seem to do it when there is a dangerous felon, but even then, some jurisdictions strictly disallow it.
 
Much as I hate the thought of guns you do have to say that if the little scrote hadn't stolen the car he wouldn't have been shot
 
LeicsDom said:
Much as I hate the thought of guns you do have to say that if the little scrote hadn't stolen the car he wouldn't have been shot
Click to expand...

While that's the obvious logic, it's moot after the fact. I really dunno what to say as far as the legality of shooting him, he wasn't in danger and most importantly he ran the risk of not hitting his target and instead hitting some four year old girl riding her trike in the next yard, gun owners and their groupies always forget that bullets don't have names on them and it's pretty common for an innocent bystander to get hit. Ultimately I think using a firearm should only be permissable in self defense. If the boy had a gun this could've turned into a shootout then, again, the whole block is in danger. I think it was a stupid choice, still not sure if he should be penalized but he should definitely be reprimanded for using it outside of self-defense.

As for the sister, ummm where were you when your brother decided to go on a crime spree? Is that how yall were raised? It's pretty obnoxious for her to play like he's some sort of victim to anything but his own stupidity unless maybe he had some kinda mental illness.
 
peeonme said:
To what extent should one defend his property?
Click to expand...

Certainly no more than the law allows. I generally think lethal force should only be employed to protect persons – not property.

With regard to the failure to arrest or charge the fire lieutenant, we have to look to Illinois state law.

§ 7-3.  Use of force in defense of other property.
(a) A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate such other's trespass on or other tortious or criminal interference with either real property (other than a dwelling) or personal property, lawfully in his possession or in the possession of another who is a member of his immediate family or household or of a person whose property he has a legal duty to protect.  However, he is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the commission of a forcible felony. [Link]
Click to expand...

Sec. 2-8. "Forcible felony".
"Forcible felony" means treason, first degree murder, second degree murder, predatory criminal sexual assault of a child, aggravated criminal sexual assault, criminal sexual assault, robbery, burglary, residential burglary, aggravated arson, arson, aggravated kidnaping, kidnaping, aggravated battery resulting in great bodily harm or permanent disability or disfigurement and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual. [Link]
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
This should never have happened.

I am not one to shed a tear over a criminal getting killed while committing a violent crime that could leave both victims and passers-by physically injured or mentally traumatized.

But neither do I approve of ordinary citizens shooting guns in public as that can wound and traumatize innocent people too. Even in the case of an off-duty cop. He had been out of police mode for a while, and was unaccompanied by other cops. What if the crook was trying to get away with a hostage in the seat next to him? Or if he had cronies ready to shoot back from another angle? This could have ended not so well for the owner of this car.

If this had been my car, I would have just let them escape and called the (other) cops. I know my own license plates and can give a pretty accurate description of my own cars, thank you. Besides, how far away can one get with a stolen car anyway?
 
I guess I'll be the unpopular one here.

(1) 17 year old I'd not a "little boy", as that woman called him.

(2) He is 17 and already doing auto theft. How the hell was he raised and what will he do when he's older?

(3) The gun wasn't the only weapon in this event. A guy behind the wheel with a criminal intent is just as deadly as a guy holding a gun with criminal intent. More people die each year from car than gun.

(4) I have managed to live for 30some years without stealing a car. It is not that hard to not steal a car.
 
aristomaniac said:
I have managed to live for 30some years without stealing a car. It is not that hard to not steal a car.
Click to expand...

Well, what did you propose he do, work for it?

Shi-it. You just don't get it. Life is unfair, and when it is, you blame everything but sitting on your ass and not working. You ignore the other people out there working for minimum wage until they can catch a break, move up, go to school, whatever. Ignore those dumb bastards.

If you want something, you should have it.

And brag about it to your crew so they know what a man you are.
 
^^ I get people's struggle for justice. I really do. My family has faced discrimination before. We know what it is like.

But it is awfully hard to bring people over to your side if the face of victim of injustice is a criminal.
 
aristomaniac said:
^^ I get people's struggle for justice. I really do. My family has faced discrimination before. We know what it is like.

But it is awfully hard to bring people over to your side if the face of victim of injustice is a criminal.
Click to expand...

Other than his sister who said this is the face of injustice? It's not really fair to selectively cherrypick the worst examples to be "the face" of anything. Frankly if you wait til an idiot like this pops up to go "Look! See!" then you probably weren't with the movement in the first place in which case, just say that, don't try to make it seem like you were all on board and somebody else fucked it up.
 
aristomaniac said:
^^ I get people's struggle for justice. I really do. My family has faced discrimination before. We know what it is like.

But it is awfully hard to bring people over to your side if the face of victim of injustice is a criminal.
Click to expand...

That would be the case in Ferguson. Just because the police may be systemically unjust there, it didn't make Michael Brown a martyr or an exemplar. He was the suspect, he was guilty, and he was resisting arrest to the point of assaulting an officer and trying to take his gun. All for smokes. Some justice.

There are plenty of real cases that could and should ignite riots, but instead, the criminal is chosen as the war fighter.

And there are all sorts of poor people strugging in this country. That doesn't make one struggle any magical trump card over the others. All poor people have an uphill fight to get to security and stability, and that goes for people of every stripe.
 
I think it was a very stupid thing to do, as Zeno pointed out, there may have been other unknown factors in play.

Let him steal the damn car, that way you may not hit an innocent with a stray bullet.

This is why people have insurance on their cars.

Of course all this would be moot if the guy was living in Dodge, or just around the corner from the OK corral.............[-X
 
Last week In Toronto a young man (19) was run over then shot dead in the street
In front of many onlookers. The driver (17) was arrested a short time after. The shooter was arrested was arrested yesterday and charged with first degree murder. He is just 13 years old.
 
^Christ. That is horrific, so many young lives destroyed, all for the sake of stealing a car.
 
Yesterday three little girls, all under 9, were deliberately shot in a playground right in front of their home, two rushed to hospital. 21 y/I man arrested this morning.
 
medic1 said:
I think it was a very stupid thing to do, as Zeno pointed out, there may have been other unknown factors in play.

Let him steal the damn car, that way you may not hit an innocent with a stray bullet.

This is why people have insurance on their cars.

Of course all this would be moot if the guy was living in Dodge, or just around the corner from the OK corral.............[-X
Click to expand...

Well, whether you or I think a car is not worth it, the owner indeed has the choice. And, to be considered, if you live where there is constant crime like this, it may be a final resort to deter others from coming back and taking the next thing, and the next thing, and the next thing.

Talk to people who live in the midst of these hoodlums. See how besieged and beleaguered they feel.

And people carry insurance on their cars because replacement is so damned expensive. But, guess what? Most of us carry it against the odd chance we'll have a major accident. If you know someone will steal it, you know your rates will keep going up, you'll keep paying the deductible, which is quite something on replacing the car, and you'll keep pissing away that money you worked for.

How is that the right thing to do?

And it doesn't matter whether it's a 14 year old, a 20 year old, or a 40 year old. When you see your car driving away, you don't have time or need to do an age verification. Theft is theft. And Grand Theft Auto is both a game and a sport.
 
^ You will have no argument from me Jason. I can concur with ease on many of the points that you raised in your post. You also have to understand that there is, very much a "cultural" background to this.

Guns, although becoming more common here, are just not something you expect to see someone using on a car thief.

I can, and i do understand the frustration and anger that many people feel, when falling victim to such deeds.

I just think discharging a firearm at a fleeing car, in a public area, can have ramifications, that are both undesirable, and could leave one open to a lawsuit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top