Akron, Ohio man kills man breaking into house, charged with voluntary manslaughter.

[UK2K]

Ok ISH, I am torn on this issue.


Authorities say an Ohio homeowner who fatally shot a man he caught breaking into his house has been charged with voluntary manslaughter.

Twenty-one-year-old Akron resident David Hillis surrendered to police there Monday in the Aug. 7 killing of 25-year-old Marcus Glover.

Police say Glover and 37-year-old Terry Tart broke into Hillis' home and then fled when Hillis produced a handgun. Police say Hillis fired the fatal shot as he chased the pair.

"Self-defense is an affirmative defense but people have a duty to retreat when they're outside the home," Morgan said. "The only place they don't have a duty to retreat is inside the home."

Tart is charged with murder because the aggravated burglary was a "proximate cause" of Glover's death, according to court records.

Akron police said that Glover and Tart walked into the home about 2 p.m. and tried to rob Hillis and two others inside the home.

Hillis grabbed a gun and the duo ran.

Hillis ran outside and fired several shots. Glover was found dead two houses away. Tart escaped through a wooded area near the home. Two others inside Hillis' home were not injured.


Basically what happened was, two dumbasses thought they were hard and broke into this guy's house while he was sitting on the couch. They became very soft when the homeowner (trained in weapon handling) had a gun of his own. So, the two guys try to run. One makes it out of the house and into the woods behind his property line, the other makes it into the yard before taking a bullet to the dome piece.

Now I am happy that the guy had a gun to protect himself, I'd rather him be alive than 100 Terry Tart's or Glover.

But what do you think? Manslaughter for shooting someone on your property who just stuck a gun in your face? You eliminate the threat (so LE and the military are taught) and the threat was still very much there.

Then again, you can't chase someone down, tackle them, and execute them either.

Now I have two thoughts on the matter.

1) This story would be a whole lot different if he had shot the guy in the leg. You don't aim for the leg, but say he was hit in the leg. I don't think the homeowner is charged with anything. It sounds so much worse when you say 'he shot him in the head' as opposed to 'he shot him'.

2) As I pointed out, the threat was still there. But according to the police chief, in Ohio, when you are outside your home, you have to run for your life and only once INSIDE can you defend yourself..... Ok........ I think thats stupid but whatever.

Oh and dumbass Tart was released from prison a year ago after serving nine years for *shocker* two cases of armed robbery.

I leave you with this...

"If violent crime is to be curbed, it is only the intended victim who can do it. The felon does not fear the police, and he fears neither judge nor jury. Therefore, what he must be taught is to fear is his victim" - LtCol Jeff Cooper

[NBAplayoffs2001]

I guess LeBron wasn't lying when he said the city he grew up in was rough.

[JohnnySic]

He's guilty. If they were in his house, that's different. Once they're outside, he has to back off and let them go.

[NumberSix]

This story makes no sense. I've been told that guns can't be used for defensive purposes. Why did the burglars really decide to run away?

[warriorfan]

:sleeping

[Hit_Em]

What are the races of everyone involved in this situation before i give my opinion?

[UK2K]

He's guilty. If they were in his house, that's different. Once they're outside, he has to back off and let them go.

Even on his property?

See in Texas, if you are on someone else's property, you are fair game. Obviously, Ohio is different, and while I can see where they are coming from, but at the same time, do you have to run inside your door frame to be able to fire a shot?

'Hold on, wait! Let me get inside!'

What happens if you are carrying on your way to the mailbox and someone tries to rob you? Wait, must, get, inside.

[Hit_Em]

Even on his property?

See in Texas, if you are on someone else's property, you are fair game. Obviously, Ohio is different, and while I can see where they are coming from, but at the same time, do you have to run inside your door frame to be able to fire a shot?

'Hold on, wait! Let me get inside!'

What happens if you are carrying on your way to the mailbox and someone tries to rob you? Wait, must, get, inside.
what are their races!?

[UK2K]

what are their races!?

The homeowner was white, the dead suspect is black. Not sure about the guy who got away, but, I can deduce.

[UK2K]

Manslaughter seems appropriately but punishment should be very lax. i.e. 2 years max, plus community service. :confusedshrug: IDK...

Is it wrong that he shot them while they were on retreat? Yes. But I also can't really blame the shooter for how he reacted. When you and your family are being robbed and possibly getting hurt or killed, you're in the heat of the moment and reacting beyond self-defense is a good possibility. Anybody can easily go through that mind frame when they feel that their life and family's lives are in danger.

Right, he was charged with manslaughter because it was considered a 'crime of passion'. He got caught up in the moment.

Although I dont really agree with that, but

[Hit_Em]

The homeowner was white, the dead suspect is black. Not sure about the guy who got away, but, I can deduce.
no way you should be allowed to chase someone and shoot @ them even if they broke into your house.If they allow this no telling what people can get away with next.Say someone punches me and flees in their car and i chase them for 2 miles and shoot them.Should i not go to jail for that?


Cliff notes..THROW THE BOOK @ HIS WHITE AZZ!

[UK2K]

no way you should be allowed to chase someone and shoot @ them even if they broke into your house.If they allow this no telling what people can get away with next.Say someone punches me and flees in their car and i chase them for 2 miles and shoot them.Should i not go to jail for that?


Cliff notes..THROW THE BOOK @ HIS WHITE AZZ!
He shot him on his property. Just off his back porch.

[Patrick Chewing]

Community service, pay a fine, and probation. Case closed.


Jail ruins people's lives.

[NumberSix]

no way you should be allowed to chase someone and shoot @ them even if they broke into your house.If they allow this no telling what people can get away with next.Say someone punches me and flees in their car and i chase them for 2 miles and shoot them.Should i not go to jail for that?


Cliff notes..THROW THE BOOK @ HIS WHITE AZZ!
You have no way of knowing if this guy has a gun or not. If he does, when you stop chasing him, that gives him an opportunity to stop, take out his gun and fire or come back for revenge.

Sorry, but when you break into someone's home, your life has no value. I don't know if you're going to go get a weapon from your car or something. Sorry, but this criminals life is not worth the risk.

Police should be investigated for discrimination. They're clearly only charging this guy because they're afraid of the backlash/rioting because it's a white guy who was justified in killing a black criminal.

[DukeDelonte13]

the little news blurb answers the question correctly.

In Ohio you can't shoot a guy as he's running away off your property.

You are only allowed to shoot someone if they break into your home and there is immanent danger of deadly force or serious bodily harm, and even then, you still might be charged and have to sort it out into court.

There are no magic circumstances where you can just drop somebody and expect zero legal consequences.


He'll go through the process; he might get his case dismissed, he might be found not guilty at trial if he can prove the affirmative defense, he could be found guilty of the charge or of a lesser included charge, or he can cop out on a plea deal and be on probation for a while.


Right or wrong it's just reality.

[UK2K]

the little news blurb answers the question correctly.

In Ohio you can't shoot a guy as he's running away off your property.

You are only allowed to shoot someone if they break into your home and there is immanent danger of deadly force or serious bodily harm, and even then, you still might be charged and have to sort it out into court.

There are no magic circumstances where you can just drop somebody and expect zero legal consequences.


He'll go through the process; he might get his case dismissed, he might be found not guilty at trial if he can prove the affirmative defense, he could be found guilty of the charge or of a lesser included charge, or he can cop out on a plea deal and be on probation for a while.


Right or wrong it's just reality.

Texas. After sun down, better know who's yard you are in.

While I agree you shouldnt shoot a man running (even if he still does pose a threat) I think its completely stupid that you have to be INSIDE your door frame to defend yourself.

[Derka]

Community service, pay a fine, and probation. Case closed.

Agreed.

[warriorfan]

Texas. After sun down, better know who's yard you are in.

While I agree you shouldnt shoot a man running (even if he still does pose a threat) I think its completely stupid that you have to be INSIDE your door frame to defend yourself.

They probably don't want you to be patrolling around your front yard with a handgun.

[UK2K]

They probably don't want you to be patrolling around your front yard with a handgun.

Why not? Its your front yard.

Shouldnt have an issue as long as you dont cross onto it. Same rules apply for trespassing, correct?

But the law in Texas also states if you are in someone's BACKyard after sundown, you are fair game.

"I would blow your head off, if I was in my living room"
or
"Wait, let me run inside and then I can defend myself"

I mean, say you are taking your trash out and get jumped? Then what? Fight to get back to your front door?

[warriorfan]

Why not? Its your front yard.

Shouldnt have an issue as long as you dont cross onto it. Same rules apply for trespassing, correct?

But the law in Texas also states if you are in someone's BACKyard after sundown, you are fair game.

"I would blow your head off, if I was in my living room"
or
"Wait, let me run inside and then I can defend myself"

I mean, say you are taking your trash out and get jumped? Then what? Fight to get back to your front door?

It just might not be a safe thing to have people in their front yards popping shots off. No one knows if these people shooting have any training or care of what is going on. What happens when the self defender starts shooting off rounds and they fly into his neighbors house?

And in that extremely rare circumstance you gave of someone taking the trash out and getting jumped and then that person shooting the person who ambushed them...I'm pretty sure if they got charged and had a half decent lawyer who could portray the facts of what happened that they wouldn't be convicted of a crime.

[UK2K]

It just might not be a safe thing to have people in their front yards popping shots off. No one knows if these people shooting have any training or care of what is going on. What happens when the self defender starts shooting off rounds and they fly into his neighbors house?

And in that extremely rare circumstance you gave of someone taking the trash out and getting jumped and then that person shooting the person who ambushed them...I'm pretty sure if they got charged and had a half decent lawyer who could portray the facts of what happened that they wouldn't be convicted of a crime.
Any time you fire a gun, you are responsible for where the bullet ends up. I always here the same excuse 'bullets will go everywhere' but I have never heard of an incident where an innocent bystander was shot except one incident in NY where a innocent bystander was shot by a cop and drive bys.

It just doesnt happen all that often in real life.

[NumberSix]

Any time you fire a gun, you are responsible for where the bullet ends up. I always here the same excuse 'bullets will go everywhere' but I have never heard of an incident where an innocent bystander was shot except one incident in NY where a innocent bystander was shot by a cop and drive bys.

It just doesnt happen all that often in real life.
Not actually true.

If a person commits a crime that forces you to defend yourself with a gun, if someone accidentally gets hit, the criminal is charged with murder, not the person lawfully defending themselves with the gun.

[KnittingRyu]

He chased him for through two yards and killed him? Yeah, the charge looks right.

[UK2K]

He chased him for through two yards and killed him? Yeah, the charge looks right.
Where did you read that?

I read he shot him in his backyard, just off the porch.

[warriorfan]

Regardless of who's fault it is, bullets will still be flying into houses. I'm pretty sure the door way of your house part of the law is a safety measure to prevent this from happening.

[KNOW1EDGE]

If the robber was running away, no longer on your property, and you shoot and kill him you are guilty of something, idk what it is, but your guilty.

Shooter just wanted to be cool and let off a few rounds for no reason. It's gonna land him in jail.

No reason to fire tour gun as the threat was over

[NumberSix]

If the robber was running away, no longer on your property, and you shoot and kill him you are guilty of something, idk what it is, but your guilty.

Shooter just wanted to be cool and let off a few rounds for no reason. It's gonna land him in jail.

No reason to fire tour gun as the threat was over
And you know that the threat was over?

[warriorfan]

And you know that the threat was over?

What if the guy got away and the next day you saw him at the supermarket, should you pull out your concealed carry and shoot him down? Can you know that the threat was over?

[UK2K]

If the robber was running away, no longer on your property, and you shoot and kill him you are guilty of something, idk what it is, but your guilty.

Shooter just wanted to be cool and let off a few rounds for no reason. It's gonna land him in jail.

No reason to fire tour gun as the threat was over

I read he was on his property. In his backyard. I have yet to see anyone tell me differently.

That's why I posted the article in the first place. Its his yard. And some guy in his yard just put a gun in his face. Except he was faster than the loser 3x felon, so hes alive.

[UK2K]

What if the guy got away and the next day you saw him at the supermarket, should you pull out your concealed carry and shoot him down? Can you know that the threat was over?

I would think you could pull out your CC and hold him at gunpoint until officers arrived.

And I would think if he made a move at you, you could shoot him.

[KevinNYC]

But what do you think? Manslaughter for shooting someone on your property who just stuck a gun in your face? You eliminate the threat (so LE and the military are taught) and the threat was still very much there.
Where does it say the perp stuck a gun in his face? Where does it say it was on the victim's property. The shooter was on his property but the perps were two houses down in the story I read.

Manslaughter is a totally appropriate charge.

You can use force to defend yourself, but this person is not Law Enforcement and is not the military.


You can't chase after fleeing criminals just to shoot them.

[KevinNYC]

This happened recently (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/02/12/montana-homeowner-prison-killing-teen-trespasser/23309195/)
A Montana homeowner was sentenced Thursday to 70 years in prison for the shotgun slaying of a German exchange student he found trespassing in his garage late one night last spring.

Markus Kaarma, 30, of Missoula, won't be eligible for parole for at least 20 years. A jury in December found him guilty of deliberate homicide in the April 27 shooting death of 17-year-old Diren Dede, of Hamburg, Germany.

Jurors rejected Kaarma's argument that he shot in self-defense under the so-called Castle doctrine because his home had been burglarized previously. Dede was unarmed, and three witnesses testified at the trial that Kaarma had spoken about shooting someone.

[KevinNYC]

But the law in Texas also states if you are in someone's BACKyard after sundown, you are fair game.

Where does it say that?

From a recent article
[QUOTE]

[Joyner82reload]

Death sentence for this racist white ass! #Blacklivesmatter #JusticeforMarcus #Hewasagoodkidwithabrightfuture(insert 6th grade picture here)

Also just curious for any pseudo-lawyers present, I was robbed at gunpoint 2 years ago over a cell phone by a rando when I was jumping off my car. Let's say I have a gun in my car(licensed), is it illegal for me to shoot him as he's walking away, while he's still armed with his back towards me, to recover my stolen property?

[dude77]

so they broke into his place and tried to rob him at gunpoint ? .. give him a medal .. he put down someone who just tried to rob him at gunpoint .. lowlife piece of shit .. nothing is gained by putting this guy in jail .. he was minding his own business in his house ..

lol@that other case with the german student .. we're putting away homeowners for life for defending their property .. criminals have way too many 'rights' .. fkn madness

[NumberSix]

Where does it say the perp stuck a gun in his face? Where does it say it was on the victim's property. The shooter was on his property but the perps were two houses down in the story I read.

Manslaughter is a totally appropriate charge.

You can use force to defend yourself, but this person is not Law Enforcement and is not the military.


You can't chase after fleeing criminals just to shoot them.
Perhaps after getting shot, he was able to walk a small distance before finally collapsing.

[Hit_Em]

so they broke into his place and tried to rob him at gunpoint ? .. give him a medal .. he put down someone who just tried to rob him at gunpoint .. lowlife piece of shit .. nothing is gained by putting this guy in jail .. he was minding his own business in his house ..

lol@that other case with the german student .. we're putting away homeowners for life for defending their property .. criminals have way too many 'rights' .. fkn madness
What if one of those stray bullets he was shooting carelessly at the fleeing burglar hit a dog would he deserve to go to jail then?

#Petlivesmattermorethanhumanstowhitepeople
#notthedog
#labradorslivesmatter

[I<3NBA]

it's not self defense if you give chase and shoot them (would show if they were shot in the back)
although, it isn't right to jail him. these criminals deserve to be put down. so i say community service is fine. let him shoot some more criminals as community service.

[NumberSix]

Death sentence for this racist white ass! #Blacklivesmatter #JusticeforMarcus #Hewasagoodkidwithabrightfuture(insert 6th grade picture here)

Also just curious for any pseudo-lawyers present, I was robbed at gunpoint 2 years ago over a cell phone by a rando when I was jumping off my car. Let's say I have a gun in my car(licensed), is it illegal for me to shoot him as he's walking away, while he's still armed with his back towards me, to recover my stolen property?
I'm sure it varies state to state. It should be completely legal. Why the hell should an upstanding citizen be required to let a dangerous criminal walk away with his property? Especially something like a cell phone that could contain all kinds of personal information. This lunatic could show up at your house or your kids school.

I wouldn't be surprised if it's illegal in every blue state though. They tend to favor criminals over law abiding citizens.

[UK2K]

Where does it say the perp stuck a gun in his face? Where does it say it was on the victim's property. The shooter was on his property but the perps were two houses down in the story I read.

Manslaughter is a totally appropriate charge.

You can use force to defend yourself, but this person is not Law Enforcement and is not the military.


You can't chase after fleeing criminals just to shoot them.

"Hillis ran outside and fired several shots. Glover was found dead two houses away. Tart escaped through a wooded area near the home. Two others inside Hillis' home were not injured."

http://www.cleveland.com/akron/index.ssf/2015/08/akron_man_charged_in_shooting.html

"Hillis was in his home with two other people when two burglars broke in. The burglars held him at gunpoint but Hillis pulled out his own gun and the criminals fled.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2015/08/18/ohio-man-charged-with-manslaughter-for-shooting-burglar/#ixzz3k6vjRRht"

Anything else?

[UK2K]

Where does it say that?

From a recent article

The first is if someone is committing trespass or interference with your property and you must reasonably use deadly force to prevent arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime or criminal mischief during the nighttime. If someone is unlawfully on your property and attempting to commit any of these crimes, you will gain the legal justification for using deadly force.


Depends what your definition of criminal mischief is. The basis of the law is that, at night time, you cannot determine whether or not the intruder(s) are armed themselves.

Now obviously if someone is strolling across your backyard at 9pm, and you shoot them, you are going to need to explain why.

But if someone is in your backyard knocking shit around at 3am, you are going to walk.

[KevinNYC]

"Hillis was in his home with two other people when two burglars broke in. The burglars held him at gunpoint but Hillis pulled out his own gun and the criminals fled.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2015/08/18/ohio-man-charged-with-manslaughter-for-shooting-burglar/#ixzz3k6vjRRht"

They may have edited that article because it no longer says that. That's pretty common with newspapers publishing on the web. It now says this.


Akron police said that Glover and Tart walked into the home about 2 p.m. and tried to rob Hillis and two others inside the home.

Hillis grabbed a gun and the duo ran.

Hillis ran outside and fired several shots. Glover was found dead two houses away. Tart escaped through a wooded area near the home. Two others inside Hillis' home were not injured.

[UK2K]

They may have edited that article because it no longer says that. That's pretty common with newspapers publishing on the web. It now says this.

"Police say Glover and Tart forced their way into Hillis’ home and threatened Hillis at gunpoint."

http://fox17online.com/2015/08/19/akron-police-man-who-shot-burglar-charged-with-voluntary-manslaughter/

August 19th.

To be honest, though, it really has no bearing on the 'crime' the homeowner is being charged with.

[KevinNYC]

Even on his property?

See in Texas, if you are on someone else's property, you are fair game. Obviously, Ohio is different, and while I can see where they are coming from, but at the same time, do you have to run inside your door frame to be able to fire a shot?

'Hold on, wait! Let me get inside!'

What happens if you are carrying on your way to the mailbox and someone tries to rob you? Wait, must, get, inside.
Texas. After sun down, better know who's yard you are in.

Why not? Its your front yard.

Shouldnt have an issue as long as you dont cross onto it. Same rules apply for trespassing, correct?

But the law in Texas also states if you are in someone's BACKyard after sundown, you are fair game.

"I would blow your head off, if I was in my living room"
or
"Wait, let me run inside and then I can defend myself"

I mean, say you are taking your trash out and get jumped? Then what? Fight to get back to your front door?

Texas law seems to be far narrower than the examples you are giving above
http://www.texaslawshield.com/castle-doctrine/ The heading for the part you quote below is
What if a Trespasser Starts Committing Other Property Crimes?

The first is if someone is committing trespass or interference with your property and you must reasonably use deadly force to prevent arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime or criminal mischief during the nighttime. If someone is unlawfully on your property and attempting to commit any of these crimes, you will gain the legal justification for using deadly force.

Depends what your definition of criminal mischief is. The basis of the law is that, at night time, you cannot determine whether or not the intruder(s) are armed themselves.

Now obviously if someone is strolling across your backyard at 9pm, and you shoot them, you are going to need to explain why.

But if someone is in your backyard knocking shit around at 3am, you are going to walk.

The section of that page headed What About People Who are Only Trespassers? makes it quite clear that you can't use deadly force simply because someone is in your yard. Day or Night.
Make sure that you do not fall victim to the common misconception that the Castle Doctrine gives you carte blanche to use deadly force merely because someone is on your property. It does not. Many people think that the law allows you to use deadly force against a mere trespasser. In fact, Texas law says the exact opposite. Texas Penal Code allows you to use force, not deadly force, that is reasonably necessary to prevent or terminate another’s trespass on your land.

You still have a legal right to exclude or remove trespassers from your land; however you are limited to only using non-deadly force to do so. The use of force can have many different manifestations, from physical confrontation to displaying a weapon.

Here's the part that explain which circumstances you can use deadly force at home in Texas and they only apply within your "habitiation," not just "on your property'


under certain circumstances, Texas law presumes you acted reasonably and justifiably if you use force or deadly force to defend yourself against an intruder who enters your occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment. What are the circumstances that will give you this important legal presumption? The first is where an individual unlawfully and with force, enters or attempts to enter your occupied habitation, vehicle or place of business or employment. The second situation is if an individual unlawfully and with force, removes or attempts to remove you from your occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment. If you are ever confronted with either of these situations, Texas law will presume that you acted reasonably and were justified in using force or deadly force. ....



With regard to using force or deadly force to defend your “castle,” the Texas Penal Code specifically uses the word “habitation,” not the words “building” or “property.” Texas has a very limited definition of what qualifies as a person’s habitation. The “Castle Doctrine” does not cover your entire piece of property. The legal term “habitation” is defined ...as “a structure or vehicle adapted for the overnight accommodation of persons; and includes each separately secured or occupied portion of the structure or vehicle; and each structure appurtenant to or connected with the structure or vehicle.” This means structures that are detached from where you sleep at night are not considered to be your habitation. For example, Texas law does not consider your detached garage, shed, and/or barn part of your habitation. However, if your garage, front or back porch is connected to the structure containing your sleeping quarters (as exists in many suburban communities), it is considered part of your habitation as defined by the Texas Penal Code.

[KevinNYC]

In the example, you gave of being in your yard and getting into an argument and then someone jumps you,....you don't have to run back inside your door.

You can used the same amount of justified-force in self defense that you can use on the sidewalk or on Rodeo Drive. You can still legally defend yourself.

However, inside your house, (particularly in Texas) the circumstances to justify deadly force are expanded. However, being in your house doesn't make you 007 and give you a license to kill.

[Nick Young]

If some phuck breaks in to another person's house, they deserve what they get.

This is one of the few laws Texas has right.

[KevinNYC]

I'm sure it varies state to state. It should be completely legal. Why the hell should an upstanding citizen be required to let a dangerous criminal walk away with his property? Especially something like a cell phone that could contain all kinds of personal information. This lunatic could show up at your house or your kids school.

I wouldn't be surprised if it's illegal in every blue state though. They tend to favor criminals over law abiding citizens.
Showing a gun is a use of force. You can use force, you can't use deadly force, i.e. shooting him in the back and fishing your wallet out of his pocket afterwards.

We don't allow citizens to use deadly force to resolve non-threatening situations.

[KevinNYC]

Perhaps after getting shot, he was able to walk a small distance before finally collapsing.
Possible. If so, there probably would be a blood trail that supports the shooter.

The story I read said the cops found him dead two houses down. Absence other evidence, the cops made the correct decision arresting the shooter.

[UK2K]

Texas law seems to be far narrower than the examples you are giving above
http://www.texaslawshield.com/castle-doctrine/ The heading for the part you quote below is
What if a Trespasser Starts Committing Other Property Crimes?


The section of that page headed What About People Who are Only Trespassers? makes it quite clear that you can't use deadly force simply because someone is in your yard. Day or Night.

Here's the part that explain which circumstances you can use deadly force at home in Texas and they only apply within your "habitiation," not just "on your property'

Well if you sit by your fence line and throw $10,000 on the ground and shoot everyone who walks onto your property, you are probably going to get charged.

A certain degree of common sense is needed in order to have these discussions.

As for the red parts in your last post, criminal mischief is a very broad term. Hence, why I said, if you are in someones backyard after sundown, you are fair game.

[sundizz]

I definitely am in the minority but I think that there are certain crimes that are "you had your chance with society" and it's now done. Regardless of how they ended up that way (poor, no parents, etc). I'm all down for prevention, but have no empathy for forgiveness (of these sorts of crimes).

Death penalty (by a firing squad) for rape, armed home robbery, contract killings, embezzlement of more than $1,000,000 (public companies), etc.

We are way too lax with our criminals and way too hard on people that are just caught up in the wrong situation (usually people dealing/doing drugs due to lack of education/options etc).

Sparta.

[UK2K]

I definitely am in the minority but I think that there are certain crimes that are "you had your chance with society" and it's now done. Regardless of how they ended up that way (poor, no parents, etc). I'm all down for prevention, but have no empathy for forgiveness (of these sorts of crimes).

Death penalty (by a firing squad) for rape, armed home robbery, contract killings, embezzlement of more than $1,000,000 (public companies), etc.

We are way too lax with our criminals and way too hard on people that are just caught up in the wrong situation (usually people dealing/doing drugs due to lack of education/options etc).

Sparta.

Agree with this 100%.

The punishment for armed robbery, rape, etc. needs to be doubled while the punishment for petty drug possession needs to be done away with.

But again, I will point out...

"If violent crime is to be curbed, it is only the intended victim who can do it. The felon does not fear the police, and he fears neither judge nor jury. Therefore, what he must be taught is to fear is his victim" - LtCol Jeff Cooper

Most people willing to commit those types of crimes need to be off the street entirely. I don't care if its your first or fifth time. The guy who got killed served 9 years for the SAME ****ING CRIME HE WAS COMMITTING again.

He obviously didn't learn his lesson the first time. The homeowner did everyone a favor.

[ISHGoat]

By current interpretations of the law, I believe he should spend some serious time in prison. In what world is shooting someone running away from your house considered self defense? What sensible person would reason that, in the situation of a burglar FLEEING, his life is in such danger that he must use lethal force?

Now if we are to debate whether that specific "castle doctrine" law in Ohio is justified or not, that would be another topic for another day.

In my opinion, which is MY interpretation of the law, he should spend at least 5-10 years in prison.

Being inside or outside his house is trivial in this situation to me. If the guy was on his front porch and the bad guy was running at him, I say he has a right to use lethal force to defend himself. He doesnt have to retreat to within his doorframe before popping off some shots.

However, I believe that in no circumstance is it justified to shoot someone retreating from your property, unless he has kidnapped your baby son on his shoulders or something.

[GOBB]

5-10 years? Nah. He shouldn't face any hard time. I think the charge is fair given the scum bag was retreating and you pursued them. The home owner was emotional to have two punks enter his safe haven and felt violated (gun in face). I get after reading DukeDelonte how the law works there. But I don't feel the punishment should be harsh.

[SunsN07BookIt]

My gf's brother in law chased 2 guys out into the street that were burglarizing his garage. He had a little .22 rifle with an extended clip with him. As they got into the car he unloaded on them. He killed one guy and paralyzed the other from the waist down. He was never charged with anything. Three things helped him out though. He was only 16, his dad had high standing in the community and the guy he killed had a warrant out for rape(which is why he was trying to make some quick cash).

It's going to be a hard sell to the jury for this DA to get a conviction.

[Joyner82reload]

Showing a gun is a use of force. You can use force, you can't use deadly force, i.e. shooting him in the back and fishing your wallet out of his pocket afterwards.

We don't allow citizens to use deadly force to resolve non-threatening situations.

LOL @ this garbage. So the guy can rob you at gunpoint and your only response, if you have a weapon, is to threaten him with your own gun(which will probably lead to a shootout and your potential death) or just let him go? For which it is very unlikely he will be caught seeing as I have no immediate way of alerting the police and he probably has at least 20 minutes to get away?(the guy that robbed me wasn't caught despite giving a composite sketch to the police, albeit his dumbass is probably dead at this point seeing as he was robbing people over a cell phone)

[KevinNYC]

LOL @ this garbage. So the guy can rob you at gunpoint and your only response, if you have a weapon, is to threaten him with your own gun(which will probably lead to a shootout and your potential death) or just let him go? For which it is very unlikely he will be caught seeing as I have no immediate way of alerting the police and he probably has at least 20 minutes to get away?(the guy that robbed me wasn't caught despite giving a composite sketch to the police, albeit his dumbass is probably dead at this point seeing as he was robbing people over a cell phone)
Do you want to spout shit? Or do you want to know know more about the way the law actually works.

And I was wasn't responding to you. I was responding to the reply to you, which was much more generic situation.
It should be completely legal. Why the hell should an upstanding citizen be required to let a dangerous criminal walk away with his property?

[KNOW1EDGE]

Showing a gun is a use of force. You can use force, you can't use deadly force, i.e. shooting him in the back and fishing your wallet out of his pocket afterwards.

We don't allow citizens to use deadly force to resolve non-threatening situations.

Well I think everybody in America would agree, when people break into our homes that is considered a threatening situation. I wouldn't feel comfortable with people breaking into my home with my family present, that's threatening.

And you are taught in gun safety classes to only pull your gun if your going to use it. You don't pull your gun, aim it at a robber and wait to see if they are going to shoot. Lmfao

[KevinNYC]

Well I think everybody in America would agree, when people break into our homes that is considered a threatening situation. I wouldn't feel comfortable with people breaking into my home with my family present, that's threatening.

And we are discussing different situations. This was outside the home.

You can't kill someone just because they have your stuff and you want it back and not expect some legal trouble.

This is NY Law.


S 35.25 Justification; use of physical force to prevent or terminate
larceny or criminal mischief.
A person may use physical force, other than deadly physical force,
upon another person when and to the extent that he or she reasonably
believes such to be necessary to prevent or terminate what he or she
reasonably believes to be the commission or attempted commission by such
other person of larceny or of criminal mischief with respect to property
other than premises.

You can use deadly force in self defense if the situation escalates. But, the standard is not, he committed a crime, I can do what I want.

[NumberSix]

And we are discussing different situations. This was outside the home.

You can't kill someone just because they have your stuff and you want it back and not expect some legal trouble.

This is NY Law.



You can use deadly force in self defense if the situation escalates. But, the standard is not, he committed a crime, I can do what I want.
Exactly as I said. Blue states favor the criminal over the victim. The laws are stacked against the victim to protect the criminal.

If some piece of trash robs you at gun point, the victim should be able to do whatever it takes to retrieve his own property. But of course, the left has absolutely no respect for property rights.

Here's your position. The victim should be forced to either....

A. Let the criminal walk away with the stolen property.
B. Say "freeze" and take his chances that the criminal won't turn around and shoot him.

What happens if the criminal just says "fcuk you pal, you can't shoot me in the back"? How do you get your property back? We all know the answer to that. You don't. We know what you lefties really think. It's basically "just let him keep it. Is it really worth killing someone over"?

You're putting all the restraints on the victim, not the criminal.

[dude77]

Exactly as I said. Blue states favor the criminal over the victim. The laws are stacked against the victim to protect the criminal.

If some piece of trash robs you at gun point, the victim should be able to do whatever it takes to retrieve his own property. But of course, the left has absolutely no respect for property rights.

Here's your position. The victim should be forced to either....

A. Let the criminal walk away with the stolen property.
B. Say "freeze" and take his chances that the criminal won't turn around and shoot him.

What happens if the criminal just says "fcuk you pal, you can't shoot me in the back"? How do you get your property back? We all know the answer to that. You don't. We know what you lefties really think. It's basically "just let him keep it. Is it really worth killing someone over"?

You're putting all the restraints on the victim, not the criminal.

:applause:

there was a case I read awhile back about a burglary which happened in south florida .. the resident saw this guy breaking into his car .. the burglar took off with his radio I believe .. the guy ran him down and stabbed him to death .. he was let off .. that's exactly how it should be .. you wanna rob and threaten people with guns ? go ahead but beware you're putting your life at risk .. the onus is on you not to do this ..

instead we have idiots making laws to protect these people telling them the opposite 'hey you wanna rob someone at gunpoint, go ahead .. just make sure you get away from them because if you do you're scott free .. they can't do anything to you' .. we have a bunch of neutered fggts running shit

[Droid101]

If some piece of trash robs you at gun point, the victim should be able to do whatever it takes to retrieve his own property.

I wasn't aware that armed robbery was punished by the death penalty. :confusedshrug:

[NumberSix]

I wasn't aware that armed robbery was punished by the death penalty. :confusedshrug:
Straw man

[KNOW1EDGE]

Straw man

Very nice deflection tactic. :cheers:

[oarabbus]

I think the argument has gotten off hand but if someone B&E into your house you should be able to shoot them in self defense. I don't blame the guy in the story

[NugzFan]

He's guilty. If they were in his house, that's different. Once they're outside, he has to back off and let them go.

awful logic

[KevinNYC]

Exactly as I said. Blue states favor the criminal over the victim. The laws are stacked against the victim to protect the criminal.

If some piece of trash robs you at gun point, the victim should be able to do whatever it takes to retrieve his own property. But of course, the left has absolutely no respect for property rights.

Here's your position. The victim should be forced to either....

A. Let the criminal walk away with the stolen property.
B. Say "freeze" and take his chances that the criminal won't turn around and shoot him.

What happens if the criminal just says "fcuk you pal, you can't shoot me in the back"? How do you get your property back? We all know the answer to that. You don't. We know what you lefties really think. It's basically "just let him keep it. Is it really worth killing someone over"?

You're putting all the restraints on the victim, not the criminal.

The laws concerning justified force are pretty similar all over the country. You can't start with deadly force. I cited NY law so you could see how the language was written. If you really think "the left" has written the laws in this country, you further out of touch than I thought.

I don't know if you realize this, but we don't have the state kill people for the crime of armed robbery after a trial. You think we should have citizens running around doing it?

[Patrick Chewing]

I wasn't aware that armed robbery was punished by the death penalty. :confusedshrug:

If at the moment I'm being robbed my life is in danger, then yes, you can blast away.

If I was strong arm robbed a minute ago and the guy is down the block but still within the sites on my weapon, and I fire...then yes, that is murder.

[KevinNYC]

I think the argument has gotten off hand but if someone B&E into your house you should be able to shoot them in self defense. I don't blame the guy in the story


The issue for the guy in the story was by the time he shot it wasn't self defense.

[NumberSix]

The laws concerning justified force are pretty similar all over the country. You can't start with deadly force. I cited NY law so you could see how the language was written. If you really think "the left" has written the laws in this country, you further out of touch than I thought.

I don't know if you realize this, but we don't have the state kill people for the crime of armed robbery after a trial. You think we should have citizens running around doing it?
This same stupid straw man again. :facepalm

The state doesn't kill people for rape either. But you're fully withing your right to kill someone who is trying to rape you. It's not a "death penalty" :hammerhead:

Maybe my view is "extreme" but if you get robbed at gun point, you have every right to take back your own property by force and you have every reason to believe that the criminal will use his gun when you try to take your property by force.

[KevinNYC]

Maybe my view is "extreme" but if you get robbed at gun point, you have every right to take back your own property by force and you have every reason to believe that the criminal will use his gun when you try to take your property by force.

Who the **** cares about your views? Your view is not the law.

What state do you live in?

The use of force is usually justified, the use of deadly force is allowed in only certain conditions. And the law for the use of deadly force is different from say Florida to Texas to Michigan.

And your rape example is a strawman, you have the right to defend yourself with deadly force from a rape. But after the commission of the rape, you would have to justify murdering your attacker.

[chazzy]

I'm sure it varies state to state. It should be completely legal. Why the hell should an upstanding citizen be required to let a dangerous criminal walk away with his property? Especially something like a cell phone that could contain all kinds of personal information.
:oldlol: