Springfield XD Forum banner

1 - 20 of 45 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
778 Posts
I don't know the law in Iowa, but even if they allow deadly force to be used in defense of property (unlike Florida for example), that 18-year-old kid is still an idiot for deciding to shoot. Not only did he put lives in danger (including the suspects) over a car stereo, but also caused further damage to his vehicle by shooting it. What a damn moron.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
49 Posts
yea shooting down into the streets at your car is not a good idea.
i think i would be more inclined to shoot him with one of these
http://www.cabelas.com/information/Archery/BludgeonScrewInPoints.html

bow makes much less noise so the neighbor wouldent of have to get involved. and even though it wont kill him if hit with this out of a decent bow i bet it would be an experience he would never forget. could even try a trick shot .. bounce it off the road and hit him in the jewels or something.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
98 Posts
No he is going to get charged. I dont know of any state which allows the use of deadly force except in the case where one has the reasonable belief that thier life ( or anothers life) is in danger. being in your apt two stories up and shooting the guy taking off withyour car stereo doesnt qualify.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
778 Posts
therooster said:
the dumbass shouldnt have been trying to steal... then he might not have been shot.
I can understand the anger of being stolen from… it’s happened to me. But that logic just doesn’t fly. Should I be able to shoot you for speeding in your car? After all, you are breaking the law, right? You shouldn’t have been speeding!

Now, one might try to justify it by saying stealing a several hundred-dollar stereo (not really knowing the worth of his stereo) is worse than speeding… but there are thousands of laws that could be violated that are far worse than stealing a car stereo, and it would be ridiculous to say any of them are worth shooting someone over.

All I'm saying is don't give ammo to the anti-gun cause.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
370 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
****, beats me! personally i woulda have went down and kicked his ass. also if i decided to shoot (which I would not have) I would not have missed. i do think that he did risk other peoples lives and that is definately not cool. if i was on that grand jury i would refuse to file charges and being that alot of people around here think the same way i doubt charges will be filed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,667 Posts
Dotagious said:
therooster said:
the dumbass shouldnt have been trying to steal... then he might not have been shot.
I can understand the anger of being stolen from… it’s happened to me. But that logic just doesn’t fly. Should I be able to shoot you for speeding in your car? After all, you are breaking the law, right? You shouldn’t have been speeding!

Now, one might try to justify it by saying stealing a several hundred-dollar stereo (not really knowing the worth of his stereo) is worse than speeding… but there are thousands of laws that could be violated that are far worse than stealing a car stereo, and it would be ridiculous to say any of them are worth shooting someone over.
not me...

a vehicle is an extention of my home/personal property. there is a high likelyhood that the robber could obtain info from my vehicle that could threaten my family and i. (of course i do live in a great state that firmly believes i have the right to protect myself and my property)

in my own little world... i would drop him, but in reality... i dont know, there are too many variables to predict an outcome.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
778 Posts
therooster said:
Dotagious said:
therooster said:
the dumbass shouldnt have been trying to steal... then he might not have been shot.
I can understand the anger of being stolen from… it’s happened to me. But that logic just doesn’t fly. Should I be able to shoot you for speeding in your car? After all, you are breaking the law, right? You shouldn’t have been speeding!

Now, one might try to justify it by saying stealing a several hundred-dollar stereo (not really knowing the worth of his stereo) is worse than speeding… but there are thousands of laws that could be violated that are far worse than stealing a car stereo, and it would be ridiculous to say any of them are worth shooting someone over.
not me...

a vehicle is an extention of my home/personal property. there is a high likelyhood that the robber could obtain info from my vehicle that could threaten my family and i. (of course i do live in a great state that firmly believes i have the right to protect myself and my property)

in my own little world... i would drop him, but in reality... i dont know there, are too many variables to predict an outcome.
I only speak in terms of reality... and the outcome would probably be jail.

As for the information you speak of... in most states, anyone can write down your license plate and go to the DMV and obtain that information for a small fee. He could also look at the number on the parking space and match it with your unit... or could simply sit back and wait for you considering he knows you either (a) live there or (b) frequent that location. Furthermore, in most states, there needs to exist imminent danger.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
98 Posts
you do not have the legal right to use deadly force becasue the individual may pose a threat to you at a later date. the threat to you has to be immeadiate and imminent.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
607 Posts
In Texas it is legal to use deadly force to protect your property under reasonable circumstances (Penal Code: Title 2, Chapter 9, para. 41 & 42). However, this particular act is certainly questionable. As mentioned above, a car stereo is definitely not worth the hassle he's in for.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,078 Posts
I see an attempted murder and assault with a deadly weapon charge on the horizon. Any DA worth his salt would prosecute to the full extent just to prevent copycats, I know I would. Defense of property is one thing, but this is way too one sided and too large a disparity of force. Guys like this give the rest of gun owners a bad name. If they do not nail this guy to a wall i will be very disappointed with the justice system. I do not support criminal rights (namely the ones that violate the rights of the victims and coddle the criminal) but think there are degrees of appropriate response and this goes way over the line.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
833 Posts
I wonder how this situation would have played out had it been a private home with a lil bit of land around it. Shooting from a second floor apartment building is never a wise move. The story seems very short, mentions a Semi-auto riffle but nothing more, least they did not say assult weapon, I kinda get the felling this is not the first time this guys car has been broken into in the same spot bet he was frustrated. And the guy 100% deserved to get shot, who knows next week he could be robbing people at gun piont. When it comes to personal property I will do what it takes to protect it, I worked hard for it, its mine, why should some A-hole be able to destroy half my truck because its just a stero. I work hard to provide a safe home, and safe vechciles and like things for my family if I don't have a right to safe garud those things then I should just stop going to work now, cause I work to get money to provide for my family, if some A-hole could breack into my house and steal my stuff becuase its just stuff I should just stop working now. I don't care if its a quater sititng on the hood of my truck, its mine, if you cross onto my property to get it be prepared to be stopped. Okay rant off, as someone whos dealted with many breack ins when I was a child and had sevral vechciles basically destroyed by breack ins, I hate when people say well its just stuff, at leats your okay, yes it is just stuff but it my stuff that I had to work some crappy job to get. I got to work to provide for my family, not help the theifs have an easier life, becuase they don't want to go to work.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
449 Posts
What about shotgun shells loaded with rock salt? If you shot someone with that, would it be considered assault? Assuming you were defending your property, not just randomly shooting them, I mean.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
36 Posts
Here is my solution. This is all just fantasy of course... :wink:

If I was a CCW permit holder...I would strap on my perfectly legal XD40, and go down to the car to confront him. More than likely, being the criminal peice of **** that he is, the suspect will be carrying an ILLEGAL WEAPON. Whether it be a gun or a knife, doesn't really matter. After confronting him, more than likely he will draw his weapon on you. There ya go...immediate and imminant danger to your life! :wink: Although, you're never in any real danger, because these peice of **** low lives couldn't hit the broad side of Monica Lewinski from 5 yards. Meanwhile, before your even done having that thought, you've already drawn your piece, put 2 rounds between his eyes, and re-holstered your weapon. 8)

Again. This is just what would happen if we all lived in a perfect world. I cant even get a CCW permit in the great state of minnesota.

That was my shameless attempt at comedy...flame on! hahahahaha
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
347 Posts
Dragoon44 said:
you do not have the legal right to use deadly force becasue the individual may pose a threat to you at a later date. the threat to you has to be immeadiate and imminent.

That may be the law in your area, but it's not a fundamental law of nature. Several years ago here in Texas some guy unloaded his SKS on some teenagers stealing his hubcaps. Killed at least one of them. He was charged, as I recall, but found innocent.



§ 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is
justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or
tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the
other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the
deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of
arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the
nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing
immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated
robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the
property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or
recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to
protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or
another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
98 Posts
That may be the law in your area, but it's not a fundamental law of nature. Several years ago here in Texas some guy unloaded his SKS on some teenagers stealing his hubcaps. Killed at least one of them. He was charged, as I recall, but found innocent.
even in Texas you will not be tried according to the law of nature you will be tried according to the laws of texas. secondly the statement still stands even in texas. there is no provision that I have found in the Texas statute that authorizes the use of deadly force against someone because they MIGHT pose a threat to you sometime in the future.
 
1 - 20 of 45 Posts
Top