So you say. Opinions may vary.
Actually, that side-discussion was started about your ilk, and then you injected yourself into it.
It demonstrates the saying: Throw a rock into a pack of dogs, and the one that yelps is the one you hit.
Ah. Much like the yelping stray that has now interjected itself into my conversation with Samm
It’s not my fault that you don’t like what people spotlight. And it’s not just in this thread. Or today. You seen to get into these battles every day.
The dumb ass came back.
Figure out what he saved the state in legal fees and prison housing costs, and split it with him 50/50
Good thing (for the dad) that this is in Fla. In lots of other states he would be facing charges – manufactured if necessary.
The homeowner, who has also not been identified, was questioned by police and returned to his home by mid-morning. He will not be charged as he was defending himself and his home, WSBTV reported.
Shouldn’t have been taken from his home.
No word on charges yet.
I just saw that article too.
We had a thread a long time ago about vigilante justice. One conclusion (among many) in that thread was that people simply don’t trust the police to act quickly enough in situations like this.
Personally, I think the owner was hasty in engaging the thief directly. But I also can understand his hastiness. I don’t agree with it, but I can understand it.
For all we know, he did call the police first. But when seconds count, the police are just minutes away … or in the case of a stolen car, hours away… perhaps days.
The owner was WRONG period.
He should not have followed the thief. He should have reported his information to the police and left it at that.
As to whether he is criminally liable depends on the facts, which are not complete.
Did the thief have a weapon?
Did he actually try to draw it?
Was the owners shot an act of legitimate self defense or not???
Because he was coming after the thief, self defense will be shaky at best, but again, we must await the full facts.
But if the guy had simply let the police do their job, the shooting situation would never have developed at all.
So even if the guy ultimately is not guilty of a criminal offense, he is still wrong for following the thief.
That’s what I mean by “I can understand it.”
I got that.
This is mostly where I land on this incident, at least given the limited info in the media so far. He was too quick to take matters into his own hands, especially by engaging with the thief.
I won’t say that merely following thief or tracking the vehicle was wrong. I might also have followed the tracking device to see where it led, but I would have been in contact with 911 in the process, and I would not have directly engaged with the guy in my car. From a distance, I would have reported the location and stayed at a distance.
But that’s me.
People are getting fed up with the way crime seems to be closer to them than it has been in the past, and the growing number of stories where official response is slow makes people less patient and more prone to self-protection.
Was the guy wrong in the written law?
I’d still buy him a beer and wish him happy hunting if I met him.
Are you sure? Where does the law says you can’t track down your own vehicle when it’s stolen, confront the thief and then defend yourself when they pull a gun on you?
A lot depends on specifics that I don’t think they’ve released. But it’s be “iffy”