Man shoots, kills teen who was robbing him

[Wu Wei]

I was robbed in Amsterdam once. I decided not to stab him in the throat when I saw how scared he was and the vision on what I was about to do passed through my mind. I closed the blade and mentally locked up from that point on. We wrestled around a bit, I know I could have thrown him easily IF I had been able to think/act after deciding not to use lethal force. He ripped my front pocket open and as I held him off with one hand and scooped up my passport he drew one of those snap-off utility knives. Then I gave him my pocket cash and he ran off, more scared than I was. I know that lethal force is not to be taken lightly, and I am glad I don't have to live with that on my conscience for the rest of my life. That said, I think an honest citizen being robbed should make that decision for themselves without being sent to jail if they decide to use lethal force. The fact that I knew the guy was a street urchin/illegal immigrant and his level of fear was a HUGE factor that would not hold up in a court of law. If he was bigger than me or had a different look in his eye I might not have hesitated. If I had decided he was a threat no jury or judge would be able to accurately judge my actions. I think it is shameful how we re-victimize victims. If the vegetable stand owner shot the man I expect he had a reason. If not he at least has to live with the killing on his mind from this day out, and I KNOW that is no small thing. I am still affected by my little robbery and it was nothing compared to what that man went through. Someone taking your property is a form of attack, if not physically at least mentally, and the mental stuff cannot be escaped. I respect our elders and honest citizens above criticising/judging them for how they reacted to being robbed or attacked. I'm sounding like a broken record, I'm done. It just upsets me to hear "No theft justifies lethal force" when theft is so closely related to an attack. I could have got my throat slit after deciding against lethal force, so I am very vocal about people right to be proactive in their defense. I'm not saying next time I would kill the guy, but I reserve the right to follow my gut. Hindsight is 20/20, armchair quarterbacking is easy..

[cadejo69]

Originally Posted by big kitchens

If the story we read is correct then the shooter is guilty. I don't believe in killing a man over theft. If you feel your life is threatened then that's another story. If a man breaks in my house I feel my life is threatened no matter what his intention were. But at a fruit stand on th back of a truck, It's murder.

I hope that old man does not get people like you on the jury...Would the 16 yr old been charged with murder if the old guy died of a heart attack. I don't judge the old man actions only he knows how he percieved the threat. Murder... I think not.

[jdavionic]

I wonder if the "dad" feels any guilt. He should. His illustrious parenting led this kid down the path that got him killed. If he didn't get capped by this guy, he'd likely gotten it from someone else in commission of another crime. In this case, the "dad" is more responsible for killing his son than the guy who pulled the trigger. The worthless turd of a dad has the audacity to blame a man for defending his property.

[Majk]

Originally Posted by bd

Where are you gonna draw the line at being able to kill someone over personal property?

Since we don't have this option, by law, in NC....can some of you guys in states that allow deadly force for protection of property tell us if there's some sort of guidelines?

How much cash value are you willing to lose before you take someone's life?

Are you going to pull the trigger on someone stealing your paper from your paperbox or what?

Have you already got a dollar value in mind?

"Hold on there buddy, let me see if you have enough of my stuff to meet the minimum for me to kill you......."

Do you think you're prepared to live the rest of your lives knowing you killed someone over a $300 stereo?

Is a $300 stereo worth the many thousands of dollars in legal fees?

It's something you need to think about before it happens - not in the heat of the moment.

Saddle up cowboys.

bd

Yes to all of those questions. I've been broken into too many times. Next time it'll be on the news. On the flip side, at what point do we let them keep going to, rape but no penetration? Statutory rape, no fear for life there? I'd smoke a boy if he did that to my girl.

It's all a personal desicion to each of us. We determin eehat we think is valuable and we think when we feel endagered.

[mike1972]

Seen this on GT.... As far as I am concerned, he got what he deserved.... Spare me any retoric about criminal rights & having mercy on punks... I dont go for that.

[Majk]

Originally Posted by dave_in_delaware

To respond to a recent post:

That said, I wouldn't kill anyone over any item of property (like the $300 stereo). If robbers are carrying stuff out of my house when I get home, I'm not drawing my gun unless one of them is going to obviously attack me, or is drawing their gun first. Then it's called self defense.

Part of the responsibility of a concealed carry permit, or just owning a firearm, is to have the brains inside your head enough to know when the use of DEADLY force is JUSTIFIED. And also to know when and how to determine whether a gun must be drawn in the first place (i.e. can you just walk away? or talk to the person?)...

Yeah, if someone directly threatens my life or my family, and I fear for my/their life, then you can be sure I'll be drawing my gun and stopping the threat. But you don't shoot someone just because they're a thief. You have no right to do that if your life isn't in danger. You might hold them at gunpoint, but you don't shoot them. And if they turn and run away, you have to let them go, or else we're talking murder and not self defense.

In this particular thread, we're talking about an edited article from the paper. I'm sure it has been written from the sympathy side of the victim's father. We don't really know the details, especially what the kid did to make the guy draw his gun at all.

Just curious if these people are robbing you so they can buy more meth. And one of those meth heads goes and kills someone for their belongings for more meth.

Theft is NOT A NON PERSONAL CRIME. Plain and simple. You will feel violated for along time to come. Then lets see how you react the next time somebody wants something of yours.

[screamin eagle]

Originally Posted by cadejo69

I hope that old man does not get people like you on the jury...Would the 16 yr old been charged with murder if the old guy died of a heart attack. I don't judge the old man actions only he knows how he percieved the threat. Murder... I think not.

NC has the "Felony Murder Rule".......basically if anyone dies for any reason during the commission of a felony the perp can be charged with 2nd degree murder.

FWIW I'm with most of you on this. People would be a lot more careful if they knew everyone was carrying a gun and could use it to defend themselves and their property.

[gsh341]

Here's my 2 cents.

Someone comes up to me and says give me your wallet, cash, stereo, watch, whatever... I will say no and try to disengage.

If they wish to continue this course of action they will have to threaten me. I will again say no while still trying to disengage.

At the point where they say "Give it to me or else." or some other such remark, I can safely say he has threatened me with "great bodily harm" or death. That is the point at which I can legally use lethal force. Of course drawing my weapon and pointing it at them may halt the confrontation right there. If not, they get shot until they are no longer a threat.

If they surrender and I can call the police, I will. If they run, I will give their description to the police, but I will let them run.

In a snatch and grab scenario, I will notify the cops, but will NOT SHOOT!!! I may pursue, depending on the situation, But, I will not shoot unless provoked into it.

If they are dumb enough to threaten me while trying to rob me, they deserve what they get.

If the kid grabbed the cash and ran, the older man was wrong.

If the kid threatened the man, the gentleman was right to shoot.

I may be mistaken, but this will keep you out of the clink in every state that allows Concealed Carry. Let me know if I am wrong.

[mike1972]

Originally Posted by gsh341

Here's my 2 cents.

Someone comes up to me and says give me your wallet, cash, stereo, watch, whatever... I will say no and try to disengage.

If they wish to continue this course of action they will have to threaten me. I will again say no while still trying to disengage.

At the point where they say "Give it to me or else." or some other such remark, I can safely say he has threatened me with "great bodily harm" or death. That is the point at which I can legally use lethal force. Of course drawing my weapon and pointing it at them may halt the confrontation right there. If not, they get shot until they are no longer a threat.

If they surrender and I can call the police, I will. If they run, I will give their description to the police, but I will let them run.

In a snatch and grab scenario, I will notify the cops, but will NOT SHOOT!!! I may pursue, depending on the situation, But, I will not shoot unless provoked into it.

If they are dumb enough to threaten me while trying to rob me, they deserve what they get.

If the kid grabbed the cash and ran, the older man was wrong.

If the kid threatened the man, the gentleman was right to shoot.

I may be mistaken, but this will keep you out of the clink in every state that allows Concealed Carry. Let me know if I am wrong.

You hit it right on the head with that post... Only thing I think needs changed is being able to shoot em even if its just a snatch & grab.... Yeah, Yeah, I know, its illegal & probably immoral but if we were allowed to shoot some punk just for trying to steal then they wouldnt be so apt to do it... As long as they cant be shot for "just stealing" they will continue to steal.... Start shootin em & the stealing stops.... Along with every other face to face criminal activity they want to participate in

Flame suit on.... We all know that reponsible gun owners arent waiting for a chance to shoot some punk, so a law like what you find in Texas doesnt mean that we would be running around shooting little punks for every discretion they might engage in... As far as not shooting em because they are young & dont know the difference between right & wrong, I say this... If they were raised properly & had respect for fellow humans, they wouldnt engage in this type of activity... Reguardless of thier situation... That young poor disadvantaged boy will grow up to be a violent criminal predator because of the simple fact that he wasnt shot/ injured/ maimed for trying it the first time...

Wait.... perhaps I am wrong.... Maybe its the PARENTS that need shot, for raising such little peices of SH!T. Thin the heard.

[Mercmar]

As far as I'm concerned, the ONLY difference in a young parasite and an old parasite is age.