Perhaps a better way to protect property is to buy insurance rather than a gun. I have suffered at the hands of burglars, fortunately I was not home at the time, so all that was taken was stuff and nobody was hurt. Stuff can be replaced. Tom, you are not invited into my home to take my computer, clearly that would void my insurance, but if you were to commit such an act against my stated desire, I'd be able to get a new one.

One thing I can't abide is a fellow American that believes his/her country to be superior without checking out what other countries do with regard to the subject they are talking about, case in point Citizen's arrest. Gary you should read more and talk less. Citizen's arrest is not a right in the U.S. (North Carolina does not permit it and it does not show up in the Constitution or the Amendments). Both Canada and the U.K do permit Citizen's arrest.

Oh and Robert, it might be that bad in the part of America where Gary lives, but there are other parts where it is not. The NYPD do not show up only for drug crimes, rapes and murders, they'll be there if you need them for other things.

By the way - you are correct there is no "citizens arrest" provision in NC but you are legally allowed to "detain" those who you witness commit
(1) A felony,
(2) A breach of the peace,
(3) A crime involving physical injury to another person, or
(4) A crime involving theft or destruction of property

North Carolina General Statute. 15A-404 Detention of offenders by private persons.

So you can sit on someones chest while you are waiting for the cops, but you can't arrest them.

I can't get really annoyed at the guy who shot the teen.

Please don't poke grizzly bears with a short stick. If he takes your head off should I be upset with the bear?

I can't find a single time in history that it has been safe to steal from folks. Some have always violently opposed it. Seems that enough thieves have been killed that someone might draw the conclusion it's not a safe thing to do.

---

Man - a creature made at the end of the week's work when God was tired. - Mark Twain

More on gun ownership and why it is important to sefety:

"Some of our biggest political fallacies come from accepting words as evidence of realities. ...[For example,] 'gun control' laws do not control guns. The District of Columbia's very strong laws against gun ownership have done nothing to stop the high murder rate in Washington. New York had very strong gun control laws decades before London did. But the murder rate in New York has been some multiple of that in London for more than two centuries, regardless of which city had the stronger gun control laws at a given time. Back in 1954, when there were no restrictions on owning shotguns in England and there were far more owners of pistols then than there were decades later, there were only 12 cases of armed robbery in London. By the 1990s, after stringent gun controls laws were imposed, there were well over a thousand armed robberies a year in London. In the late 1990s, after an almost total ban on handguns in England, gun crimes went up another ten percent. The reason -- too obvious to be accepted by the intelligentsia -- is that law-abiding people became more defenseless against criminals who ignored the law and kept their guns." --Hoover Institution economist Thomas Sowell

"Again, the bottom line is the shooter had no place being out in the streets to take the law into his own hands."

As opposed to - the victim had no place being out in the streets stealing from others at 3 am in the morning?

Who caused the shooter to be outside at 3 am in a confrontation?

Is it okay to steal from people? Is it okay to provoke others to violence?

Do I have your word you will do nothing if I steal your stuff? How many times can I steal from you before you get upset? Once, twice, three times?

Will you be mad at me for taking your car? Your furniture? Your medicine? According to your reasoning I should be allowed to clean you out every time you accumulate something without worrying about your reaction to it. Because you are going to call the cops on me. They will show up after a while and let you fill out some forms. Maybe they will loan you a pencil since I already took yours.

By the way how new is your computer? I have a friend that will give me a few bucks for one, no questions asked.

Taking my stuff is not punishable by death.
I might very well beat the living crap out of you if I found you in my house, but I would not end your life.

Some idiot going into the street like Yosemite Sam is not a hero.

More on gun ownership and why it is important to sefety:

"Some of our biggest political fallacies come from accepting words as evidence of realities. ...[For example,] 'gun control' laws do not control guns. The District of Columbia's very strong laws against gun ownership have done nothing to stop the high murder rate in Washington. New York had very strong gun control laws decades before London did. But the murder rate in New York has been some multiple of that in London for more than two centuries, regardless of which city had the stronger gun control laws at a given time. Back in 1954, when there were no restrictions on owning shotguns in England and there were far more owners of pistols then than there were decades later, there were only 12 cases of armed robbery in London. By the 1990s, after stringent gun controls laws were imposed, there were well over a thousand armed robberies a year in London. In the late 1990s, after an almost total ban on handguns in England, gun crimes went up another ten percent. The reason -- too obvious to be accepted by the intelligentsia -- is that law-abiding people became more defenseless against criminals who ignored the law and kept their guns." --Hoover Institution economist Thomas Sowell

Indeed, and in the UK where the law-abiding cannot protect themselves there were 59 firearm related killings in the most recent year for which there is data (thx BBC), compared to over 16,000 firearm murders in the US in 2004 (thx DOJ). I wonder if the intelligentsia have an answer for that.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

"Again, the bottom line is the shooter had no place being out in the streets to take the law into his own hands."

As opposed to - the victim had no place being out in the streets stealing from others at 3 am in the morning?

Who caused the shooter to be outside at 3 am in a confrontation?

Is it okay to steal from people? Is it okay to provoke others to violence?

Do I have your word you will do nothing if I steal your stuff? How many times can I steal from you before you get upset? Once, twice, three times?

Will you be mad at me for taking your car? Your furniture? Your medicine? According to your reasoning I should be allowed to clean you out every time you accumulate something without worrying about your reaction to it. Because you are going to call the cops on me. They will show up after a while and let you fill out some forms. Maybe they will loan you a pencil since I already took yours.

By the way how new is your computer? I have a friend that will give me a few bucks for one, no questions asked.

Taking my stuff is not punishable by death.
I might very well beat the living crap out of you if I found you in my house, but I would not end your life.

Some idiot going into the street like Yosemite Sam is not a hero.

You have just proved my point Robert, you are another that would not take having your stuff stolen without violent opposition, and that is a perfectly normal, expected response.

As you state you would seek only to "beat the crap" out of someone. You could just as easily wind up dead. The thief could wind up dead, and you would be a murderer under Canadian law.

So I am not going to condemn the shooter in this case, nor am I calling him a hero. If he had simply wanted to kill someone he could have come out shooting, apparently he didn't. He was in a confrontation, and whether fear or anger caused him to pull the trigger no one will ever know.

But I do not have any sympathy for the thieves at all, and lay everything that happened at their feet.

As I said before, don't poke the Grizzly Bear with a short stick. What you are asking is for us to cage the bear after he has took someone's head off. Will that be a lesson to all Grizzly Bears not to take peoples heads off? No. Will putting this guy in jail prevent another thief getting shot?

Why aren't you equally angry at this kids parents?

---

Man - a creature made at the end of the week's work when God was tired. - Mark Twain

More on gun ownership and why it is important to sefety:

"Some of our biggest political fallacies come from accepting words as evidence of realities. ...[For example,] 'gun control' laws do not control guns. The District of Columbia's very strong laws against gun ownership have done nothing to stop the high murder rate in Washington. New York had very strong gun control laws decades before London did. But the murder rate in New York has been some multiple of that in London for more than two centuries, regardless of which city had the stronger gun control laws at a given time. Back in 1954, when there were no restrictions on owning shotguns in England and there were far more owners of pistols then than there were decades later, there were only 12 cases of armed robbery in London. By the 1990s, after stringent gun controls laws were imposed, there were well over a thousand armed robberies a year in London. In the late 1990s, after an almost total ban on handguns in England, gun crimes went up another ten percent. The reason -- too obvious to be accepted by the intelligentsia -- is that law-abiding people became more defenseless against criminals who ignored the law and kept their guns." --Hoover Institution economist Thomas Sowell

Indeed, and in the UK where the law-abiding cannot protect themselves there were 59 firearm related killings in the most recent year for which there is data (thx BBC), compared to over 16,000 firearm murders in the US in 2004 (thx DOJ). I wonder if the intelligentsia have an answer for that.

There are other contributing factors that increase the gun murder rate. I do not think the guns themselves cause crime. Owning a gun does not make you want to kill people. (I know, you could probably argue this point) On the other hand gangs, high unemployment and a rampant drug problem might be three examples.

You have just proved my point Robert, you are another that would not take having your stuff stolen without violent opposition, and that is a perfectly normal, expected response.

As you state you would seek only to "beat the crap" out of someone. You could just as easily wind up dead. The thief could wind up dead, and you would be a murderer under Canadian law.

So I am not going to condemn the shooter in this case, nor am I calling him a hero. If he had simply wanted to kill someone he could have come out shooting, apparently he didn't. He was in a confrontation, and whether fear or anger caused him to pull the trigger no one will ever know.

But I do not have any sympathy for the thieves at all, and lay everything that happened at their feet.

As I said before, don't poke the Grizzly Bear with a short stick. What you are asking is for us to cage the bear after he has took someone's head off. Will that be a lesson to all Grizzly Bears not to take peoples heads off? No. Will putting this guy in jail prevent another thief getting shot?

Why aren't you equally angry at this kids parents?

I don't see how your point is proven by my response Tom.
Putting my knuckles into someone's face is nothing close to shooting them.

There's a vast difference between force and deadly force and the use of a gun in a confrontation over the contents of a neighbor's car is cowardly and uncalled for.

Why aren't you equally angry at this kids parents?

After all the things you've posted about the deadbeats in your own family are you really sure that we should start blaming family members for the deeds of others in their gene pool?

Is it true that you are to blame for your drunken, pot smoking, cheque bouncing, child molesting brothers?

Even though you've told us all about them in a previous thread and have expressed great anger in regard to their actions, can I ask you this?

Do they deserve to die?

Would you be so pro-shooter if one of the people ripped off by your brother's forgery schemes felt entitled to shoot him dead in the street?

How about the parents of the child molestation victim?
Should they be allowed to hand out capital punishment for what they believe is a wrong against their family?

Where's the line Tom?

More on gun ownership and why it is important to sefety:

"Some of our biggest political fallacies come from accepting words as evidence of realities. ...[For example,] 'gun control' laws do not control guns. The District of Columbia's very strong laws against gun ownership have done nothing to stop the high murder rate in Washington. New York had very strong gun control laws decades before London did. But the murder rate in New York has been some multiple of that in London for more than two centuries, regardless of which city had the stronger gun control laws at a given time. Back in 1954, when there were no restrictions on owning shotguns in England and there were far more owners of pistols then than there were decades later, there were only 12 cases of armed robbery in London. By the 1990s, after stringent gun controls laws were imposed, there were well over a thousand armed robberies a year in London. In the late 1990s, after an almost total ban on handguns in England, gun crimes went up another ten percent. The reason -- too obvious to be accepted by the intelligentsia -- is that law-abiding people became more defenseless against criminals who ignored the law and kept their guns." --Hoover Institution economist Thomas Sowell

Indeed, and in the UK where the law-abiding cannot protect themselves there were 59 firearm related killings in the most recent year for which there is data (thx BBC), compared to over 16,000 firearm murders in the US in 2004 (thx DOJ). I wonder if the intelligentsia have an answer for that.

There are other contributing factors that increase the gun murder rate. I do not think the guns themselves cause crime. Owning a gun does not make you want to kill people. (I know, you could probably argue this point) On the other hand gangs, high unemployment and a rampant drug problem might be three examples.

The easy access of weapons to irresponsible people is a problem. Perhaps if people spent a few weeks learning about their weapons they'd decrease the chance of killing their own family members and perhaps the folks that purchase weapons for gang members would decrease.

I will fall back on the Canadian issue and say poopoo to thje NRA supporters. The NRA is nothing but gun nuts that insist on having weapons regardless of the need for them. Canadians have more weapons and less deaths. I want an NRA member to explain how this is. Perhaps if the NRA would make a point of training people in responsible weapon ownership instead of spending millions on the weapon lobby we might actually get to a point where fewer people find it necessary to use a weapon on another person.

Whats a bit amusing is the amazing amount of money spent on the pro-weapon lobby and how little the same folks are willing to spend on local police forces.

Please note I do not call a weapon a gun. guns are for fun. rifles, pistols, and shotguns are weapons. weapons are used to kill things. unfortunately, some weapons designed for hunting are used on people. Handguns have one purpose and that is to shoot other people.

/edit Thanks for posting about Thomas Sowell. He's a wonderful source of ultra conservative view points

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

After all the things you've posted about the deadbeats in your own family are you really sure that we should start blaming family members for the deeds of others in their gene pool?

Is it true that you are to blame for your drunken, pot smoking, cheque bouncing, child molesting brothers?

Even though you've told us all about them in a previous thread and have expressed great anger in regard to their actions, can I ask you this?

Do they deserve to die?

Would you be so pro-shooter if one of the people ripped off by your brother's forgery schemes felt entitled to shoot him dead in the street?

How about the parents of the child molestation victim?
Should they be allowed to hand out capital punishment for what they believe is a wrong against their family?

Where's the line Tom?

Robert - as I said before, your intent to punch somebody in the nose for stealing from you could turn into a fight for your life. Then what?

As to this kids family, I figure it's exactly like one or both of my brother's. They are too busy getting high to pay any attention to what their kids are doing at 3 in the morning.

I see no indication that the shooter was judging and then executing someone, thereby giving the kid the "death sentence".

All I see is someone who ran out into the night and got in way over his head. Somebody that apparently is much like you.

If you punch a thief and he falls and busts his skull, should we put you in jail for murder?

---

Man - a creature made at the end of the week's work when God was tired. - Mark Twain

That twist in the logic stream was beautiful Tom. This guy is not like me.

When kids were breaking into my neighbor's car directly across the street from me, I did NOT grab a weapon and go after them.
I yelled to "get out of there or I'll put the dogs on you, and when the dogs are done with you I'll phone the police."

The kids left.

No one died.

The only time I mentioned beating someone was in reference to encountering them in my own home.

I did not leave the sanctity and safety of my home to seek a confrontation on someone else's property.

That twist in the logic stream was beautiful Tom. This guy is not like me.

I yelled to "get out of there or I'll put the dogs on you, and when the dogs are done with you I'll phone the police."

In many places Robert, you would have broken the law by that shout. You threatened report them to the police if they didn't do something. This usually comes under the terrorism section. You make not like it, but Tom is right, you are just like the shooter.

Your refusal to answer Tom about if your punch ended up with the alleged criminal in your house dead if you should be prosecuted for murder proves this one has landed to close to home for you. Don't like the murder line, well how about he sees you and runs for the door but you are faster and catch him. Should you be charged with assault and battery?

Perhaps you should sort through your thoughts and see if you can find a consistent thread. When you express this much anger it may be because you have two mutually exclusive core beliefs and they are fighting each other.

---

You guys are cracking me up.

Everyone has the right to defend themselves and their property.
However, everyone does not have the right to take to the streets, gun in hand, to seek out evildoers.

You are really stretching the limits of credibility to equate my position that agrees with the right to protect one's self in one's own home with some deluded crazy self-righteous gun packin' vigilante who takes to the streets under cover of darkness to hand out instant justice as he sees fit.

What the hell are we talking about? It sounds like this guy thinks he's Batman.

The difference between the two scenerios is quite evident.
In my scenerio, the problem came looking for me in my own home.
In the other scenerio, the shooter went outside his home and property, after arming himself, and sought out the confrontation himself.

Everyone has the right to defend themselves and their property.
However, everyone does not have the right to take to the streets, gun in hand, to seek out evildoers.

Robert, are you defending your property or are you defending society's moral code not to take other persons things? First and foremost not all societies have the concept of ownership. So it isn't universal. Moral codes are universal, but their terms are not. Isn't that what you really are defending, your moral code?

So you are saying that only the person who is being violated may act to defend their right under the moral code of the society. Is that correct?(You won't like where this takes you if you answer yes!)

You are really stretching the limits of credibility to equate my position that agrees with the right to protect one's self in one's own home with some deluded crazy self-righteous gun packin' vigilante who takes to the streets under cover of darkness to hand out instant justice as he sees fit.

Can you think of any more loaded hyperbolas to toss in there? The more you can the more you disprove your point.

What the hell are we talking about? It sounds like this guy thinks he's Batman.

Again with the hyperbola.

The difference between the two scenerios is quite evident.

You yelled out the window a terrorist threat, he walked up with a terrorist threat in hand. Big Difference!

In my scenerio, the problem came looking for me in my own home.

No. We are talking about what said you did, not what you might do.

Unless you do want to talk about the burglar now laying dead from your hands.

---

Gary
I'm not being a jerk here...but I have no idea as to what this last post of yours means or says.

to keep this short, Robert is right and you are left.

Quite often it's not the criminals fault. It's his parents fault.

This may apply to some extent in this case as it relates to a teenager, but I am soooo tired of hearing this and other excuses for lawless behavior. Bottom line, personal responsibility. At some point the individual MUST be responsible for their own actions, regardless of whether the head cheerleader in high school refused to date them, or Mommy was mean, or their itsy-bitsy self-esteem was crushed because they had pimples. Tough! Grow up! Anything else it just whining drivel.

I don't care why a rattlesnake strikes or a mad dog bites, the appropriate response is the same in either case immediate action to remove the threat. And that is bearing in mind that those animals REALLY do have an excuse, which humans do not.

---

Jay L
"Dogs wear collars, wolves do not. I am a wolf. You can shoot me, trap me, poison me, or even set my brother the dog on me, but you cannot pat my damn head unless I say so. " -JWL '95"-

Quite often it's not the criminals fault. It's his parents fault.

This may apply to some extent in this case as it relates to a teenager, but I am soooo tired of hearing this and other excuses for lawless behavior. Bottom line, personal responsibility. At some point the individual MUST be responsible for their own actions, regardless of whether the head cheerleader in high school refused to date them, or Mommy was mean, or their itsy-bitsy self-esteem was crushed because they had pimples. Tough! Grow up! Anything else it just whining drivel.

I don't care why a rattlesnake strikes or a mad dog bites, the appropriate response is the same in either case immediate action to remove the threat. And that is bearing in mind that those animals REALLY do have an excuse, which humans do not.

This is why we have different courts and sentencing systems for adult and juvenials (spelling?)

There is a point where the parents are not to blame and I'm of the opinion that the kid who was shot was past that point.

Whatever

The issue is whether he deserved a death penalty for breaking into a car.

assumed breaking into car, no he did not deserved that and that guy should have called police, that is why they are getting paid.

British law on Citizen's Arrest
Private gun ownership should be one of the hardest things possible to achieve. It should never be a "right" and certainly is not permitted under the US Constitution unless you bend one phrase so far as to persuade the law enforcement process that this is the case.
US citizens who live by the gun have an appalling tendency both to deal death and to die by the gun. How many more have to die in this way before the truth hits you with magnum force?

---