CCW holder shoots fleeing robber, charged with murder

[Atypical Liberal]

http://www.wvmetronews.com/index.cfm?func=displayfullstory&storyid=47372

"Logan Police say David Abbot, 37, from Chapmanville had taken money from Jesus Canul, 26, of Logan (pictured above right) who had just cashed his paycheck at Wal-Mart.

Abbot threatened Canul with a sharp object, possibly scissors, during that robbery.

Once he took off with the money in the parking lot, reports indicate Canul, who has a concealed weapon permit, pulled out a gun and allegedly shot Abbot in the head. Abbot died at the Logan County Medical Center.

Canul claims he was acting in self defense, but Bennett says there are clear legal definitions for that."

So, if Canul had shot the perpetrator while he was being robbed, he'd be OK. But instead he shot him while the robber was running away with his paycheck, so he's facing a murder charge.

I say fuck that. David Abbot robbed a man's paycheck with a weapon. The world should be happy he got his head blown off for his efforts.

[Ian David]

1. Jesus shoots fleeing robber. n/t

[mike_c]

2. since the robbery victim was no longer in jeopardy...

...this was a revenge killing, not self defense. I hope they throw the book at him. He used a gun to exact revenge after the fact. That's murder. Paychecks are replaceable. Human life isn't-- nor is killing someone for simple theft "justice" by any means.

The OP does illustrate something that I've long said about some gun owners-- their fear is so great that they are not capable of applying realistic values to property, life, personal dignity, and so on. They would rather kill someone than suffer embarrassment or minor loss.

[Atypical Liberal]

8. Too bad he didn't live in Texas.

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PE/htm/PE.9.htm#9.42

He would have been fine.

Paychecks are replaceable. Human life isn't-- nor is killing someone for simple theft "justice" by any means.

The OP does illustrate something that I've long said about some gun owners-- their fear is so great that they are not capable of applying realistic values to property, life, personal dignity, and so on. They would rather kill someone than suffer embarrassment or minor loss.

You are making the assumption that Jesus, who was cashing his check at Walmart, considered the loss of his paycheck a "minor" loss. It could very well be that he wouldn't be able to pay his rent, or provide food for his family without that money.

But it doesn't really matter. The simple fact is I don't need to apply a "realistic" value to my property, nor to some thief's life. That is up to the thief to decide. If he decides it is worth risking his life over a couple of hundred dollars, that's on him, not me.

I value this Bic pen sitting on my desk more than the life of someone who would rob me for it. It's not about fear or embarrassment. It's about principle. The principle that what is mine is mine and no one has a right to take it from me, and I should have the right to stop anyone from stealing from me by any means necessary. Even if you've already stolen it and are running away with it.

[TreasonousBastard]

13. Perhaps more to the point is that...

it's not so much fear but he had this legal gun handy-- what's the point of having a gun if you can't use it? He couldn't get it out fast enough to stop the robbery, but he's damn well going to use it to get his money back and bring a little "justice" to this sorry world.

Presumably, he shot the robber in the back. OK, back of the head. How does one justify shooting in the back someone running away as self-defense? Would a "warning shot" intended to get the robber to stop be legal?

[TheWraith]

24. No, a warning shot would not be legal.

Nor, for that matter, would it be particularly safe in what I'm assuming is an urban environment.

[spin]

104. You can legally use a firearm to stop an attack if you honestly feel that ...

your life or heath is threatened.

You can not legally use your concealed weapon to stop an attacker once the attack is over as your health or life is no longer threatened. In fact if you chase the attacker with a handgun, he may be able to shoot you and claim self defense.

This may depend on the state in which you live.

Disclaimer: I am not an attorney nor do I play one on TV.

[SteveM]

30. Ah, the fear factor complete with psychological analysis...

Your post "does illustrate something that I've long said about some gun-controller/prohibitionists -- their fear is transferred to gun-owners."

While I might agree with you about the facts in this particular case, you have gone to great extents to construct a phony reality where one "...would rather kill someone than suffer embarrassment or minor loss." That doesn't really make sense, except in the minds of someone who is prejudiced and fearful.

[mike_c]

45. oh no-- I'll be the first to admit substantial prejudice....

If it were up to me, I'd make ownership of private firearms other than sporting guns so difficult that fewer than 10 percent of those who currently carry would have legitimate reason to continue. I firmly believe that this country would be a better place if 90 percent of the "personal defense" firearms were melted down and destroyed. Those guns fuel an epidemic of gun violence.

I note too that you utterly dodged the substance of my response, i.e. that this was a revenge killing to regain the murderer's sense of dignity after being the victim of a very petty crime.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

58. If that is what you believe...

...by all means, feel free to leave the country for somewhere else.

That is not going to happen in the United States, so if you stay here, please get used to disappointment.

[mike_c]

65. that is, in fact, our plan....

Kids are already in northern Europe. We retire in six or seven years. :hi:

[We_Have_A_Problem]

69. Good for you.

At least you have the decency to recognize that you have the right to leave if you don't like the way things are here.

[cleanhippie]

172. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

And be sure to surrender those passports. You don't want to be a hypocrite who leaves the country because he doesn't like it, but keeps his citizenship in order to secure the benefits he gets from it, right?

[SteveM]

67. This is why when the GOP says liberals are just as prejudiced as they are...

it is hard to defend liberals. And you brag about it. BTW, your "epidemic" is a conjured attempt (now discarded) by gun-banners to paste on a scientific-sounding rationale for standard prohibition politics.

No dodge. When this is investigated further, I'll make up my mind. With a mind so deeply prejudiced (by your admission), I cannot trust your judgment that this is a "revenge killing to regain the murderer's sense of dignity..."

You have a log of that revenge blood coursing through you.

[mike_c]

79. and if my analysis turns out to be correct, then what will you do...?

Will you alter your thinking in the face of evidence that guns are used irresponsibly, to inflict injustice after petty injury, to perpetuate violence, or to assuage loss of personal dignity by taking a life? After all, rational people do that-- they change their minds, and their behavior, when evidence suggests that their earlier attitudes were counterproductive, or just plain wrong-headed.

Since you've already accused me of ill-mannered psychoanalysis, let me continue. I suspect you will not change your thinking, even if my analysis of this murderer's motives turn out to be correct. I think you will simply ignore that circumstance, or pretend that it didn't happen. But what do you think? I'm asking, not so much because I want an answer-- I really don't care whether you answer or not-- rather, I'm asking in hopes that when the event happens, or at least just sometime in the near future, you'll ask yourself how you responded and whether your thinking changed, as is rational, or whether it simply hardened against change.

[SteveM]

95. Please don't speak to me of "rational people," ...

after you have admitted, nay celebrated, your prejudice.

I will wait for the facts in this incident. But I don't change a whole outlook on social policy (and neither should anyone) based on a single or even a few incidents.

"...hardened against change" Crystallizes your outlook.

[rl6214]

135. You got that backwards...

"I firmly believe that this country would be a better place if 90 percent of the "personal defense" firearms were melted down and destroyed. Those guns fuel an epidemic of gun violence."

It's the 10% that cause the problem, not the 90%. If it were the 90% there would be a whole lot more robberies, shootings and murders.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

42. I would prosecute but at lesser charges since it happened under duress.

[TheWraith]

146. I agree. The guy probably reacted in a confused panic.

The sudden adrenaline kick caused by attack can cause people to act without thinking. It's not legal, but I would say probation and community service is appropriate, not prison.

[safeinOhio]

3. Shoot to kill speeding drivers too,

after all they are breaking the fricking law and putting my life in danger. If you don't want to get shot, obey the law.


:sarcasm:

[MrDiaz]

43. If you truly

are trying to equate speeding, to someone defending what is rightfully his? This man had his paycheck robbed from him, I don't know about most of you guys here, but I live paycheck to paycheck, I need my money to make rent, and eat, and quite frankly whatever the hell I want to do with it, after all it is mine. If you TAKE something from me, I WILL GET IT BACK, regardless of what it is. Although in this particular situation, I would have shot him in the leg.

[safeinOhio]

46. speeders and drunks can take your life.

no life no pay check for the family. Just obey the law and no problem.

[MrDiaz]

94. so what

should of happened to the murdered man? Just let him go? Because i'm sure the cops wouldn't of got there in time considering he was already running away. By your line of thinking it is worth letting that criminal back on the street because he is not harming you while he is robbing you, right? I'm glad everyone doesn't think like you because if they did, there would be ALOT more thiefs. and the reason I say that is because they would know that there is nothing anyone could do about it if they did. Hence the REASON the American People can and should be aloud to defend themselves.

I love cops, but 9 times out of 10, they do not prevent crime... they just clean up the mess.

[TheWraith]

4. But, that's not possible!

I'm assured by people here that laws allowing for armed self defense are a license to shoot anyone, anywhere, any time, without reason, and get out of legal consequences free. I'm assured of this.

(Bonus points for anyone who can spot the reference.)

Frankly though, I can't really fault the police too much here. Canul was no longer under direct threat, so he had more options than a headshot.

[DrDan]

5. if Abbot had stolen a ball point pen from Canul, would you still defend the shooting and killing?

[Atypical Liberal]

10. Yup.

if Abbot had stolen a ball point pen from Canul, would you still defend the shooting and killing?

Yup. Armed robbery is armed robbery. If the thief values his life at the value of a ball point pen, who am I to argue with him?

What's mine is mine. I should have the right to stop people from stealing from me, even if they've already grabbed my stuff and are running away with it.

[DrDan]

12. I think the question is - do you have the right to kill people that have stolen from you

[Atypical Liberal]

16. Depends on the state.

Should people have the right to defend property from theft using deadly force? I believe that absolutely. Unfortunately it's not legal in all places. In some places, like Texas, it is.

[DrDan]

19. how about an answer from a moral perspective

[Atypical Liberal]

31. I already answered, but I'll answer again:

do you have the right to kill people that have stolen from you

I believe people have a moral right to defend private property with deadly force.

[Spoonman]

32. Explain the morals of the criminal. n/t

[DrDan]

34. the issue at hand is whether a killing is justified if one's property is stolen

[Spoonman]

44. "how about an answer from a moral perspective"

To quote you verbatim.

So I ask again, what part did the morals of the criminal play in this event?

[DrDan]

49. and the issue at hand is - is it right to "kill" to protect property

That is the question under consideration.

If you want to discuss the right to steal, please start a thread and I will be glad to jump in.

[Spoonman]

53. "is it right to "kill" to protect property"

YES, end of discussion.

[Atypical Liberal]

56. Absolutely. n/t

[Atypical Liberal]

54. Yes, deadly force is justified to defend property.

In many states, it is even legal. As it should be.

[bigmonkey]

59. So, if a person were to consider taxes to be theft, is deadly force justified? n/t

[PavePusher]

78. Well, the government is willing to use deadly force to make you pay.... n/t

[Atypical Liberal]

100. Taxes are not theft, so no.

Taxes are not theft. Taxes are the price we all pay to enjoy civilization.

[bigmonkey]

107. But you would support someone else's decision that they are, and to respond with deadly force?

You are, after all, leaving this decision in the gun-owner's hands.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

113. No...

...because it would mean also supporting his decision to ignore a legitimate law as justification for murder.

[bigmonkey]

119. Following the law seems not to be an issue for most "property is primary" folks.

That's what the OP started, the idea that "defending yourself" trumps everything, and the person "defending" gets to decide what that means. In this specific case, getting your recently-stolen cash back is a legitimate cause for killing someone outright, shooting them in the back, the law be damned.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

124. Not quite.

Most of the pro-gun side has stated, quite clearly, that in this case, the victim broke the law in his state by shooting the criminal.

However, in other states, his actions would have been 100% legal - most notably, Texas.

Following the law is a BIG issue for the vast majority of gun owners - I'd go so far as to say over 99% of them in fact.

You feel free to go ahead and intentionally misunderstand what has been said though. Don't let little things like facts disturb your faith.

[bigmonkey]

126. Your response is directed at elements of my statement that are not in evidence.

You may feel like some group that you think I'm in "always" says that gun owners consider the law to be of little import, but I said no such thing. The definition of "defense" is the issue I'm pointing at. Some people have such a wide interpretation of it that they essentially feel deadly force is justified whenever they feel threatened or even wronged. Laws in some states take a similar perspective. I consider that perspective morally repugnant, willful, and supremely selfish, but it isn't a perspective that I think "the vast majority of gun owners" have.

There's no call for the personal remarks.

[Atypical Liberal]

129. No.

I think it's pretty clear that taxation is not equivalent to armed robbery.

Further, people have recourse to taxation through representation.

[bigmonkey]

139. You think it's pretty clear.

Your perspective leaves it in the hands of the gun-bearer. What if that person thinks it's not so clear? After all, for many observing this thread, defending yourself from a deadly threat and getting some money back from someone who stole it from you are "pretty clearly" different.

[MicaelS]

35. From a "moral perspective"? Yes...

Since places in this county still do not adequate mass transit, people there depend on their personal vehicles to get them to and from work. If their car or truck is stolen, and they can't afford to replace it because of insufficient insurance or money, they face losing their job because they can't get to work. We're talking working class people here, not the wealthy.

Or, the case of the independent skilled tradesman.... plumber, electrician, carpenter, appliance repairman, etc. They have a work vehicle that they use to get from job to job. It has all their tools, and equipment. They could easily have $100,000 in vehicle and tools. If that vehicle is stolen, they can't work, they can't pay their bills, buy food for their family, or keep a roof over their heads.

What your really stating is that ordinary working class people should have to face being hungry or homeless just to preserve the life of a criminal.

Then I bet you wonder why more working class people don't vote Democratic. :sarcasm:

[DrDan]

37. is there any dollar value that does not justify taking a life?

I bet I know your answer to that.

[MicaelS]

38. The dollar value that keeps someone from being hungry or homeless. n/t

[DrDan]

39. so if the property is of inconsequential value, a killing is not justified

I think that is what you are saying

[MicaelS]

41. Who determines "inconsequential value", you?

Frankly I do not agree with your moral perspective or values. I don't want you, or those with your attitude, making laws that affect everyone. Your personal morality vis-a vis your own property or money is your concern, bit I do not trust you to make those decisions for me or others.

For me personally, I'm not going to kill someone for a little cash, which is all I carry these days. Or kill someone for a very small amount of property. But that's just me.

[DrDan]

51. nor am I

I can understand your position should it involve money that is the difference between a family starving or not. That is a similar to stealing to put food on a starving family's table.

I cannot understand the point other posters take in stating that they would kill should the stolen item be nothing more than an "ink pen".

[DrDan]

88. interesting that you do not trust someone who places the value of a human life over property

oh well - to each his own

[MicaelS]

162. Read what I wrote...

I said I don't trust you to make that decision for me or others. And I don't.

[DrDan]

167. I did - and as I said

you trust the judgement more of someone who values property over human life.

You also obviously trust those who proclaim themselves as judge, jury and executioner rather than those elected/selected to do so.

Interesting perspective. But certainly not rare in this forum. Thanksfully I live among those who value human life.

[MicaelS]

171. You miss some very important points...

Those "elected/selected to do so" are the very ones who have passed and enforce the laws in this country that permit the use of deadly force. These people are acting in this manner because "We the People" have elected them to do so. The Castle Doctrine Law revision to the use of deadly force that was passed in Texas was passed by an OVERWHELMING margin in the Texas Legislature (Senate - Yeas 30, Nays 0 / House - Yeas 133, Nays 13, one present not voting.) That is a 92% approval.

If the Appeals Courts of the United States and the SCOTUS were of the opinion that the use of deadly force, specifically Castle Doctrine Laws, were Unconstitutional, the laws that permit the use of deadly force and Castle Doctrine would have been overturned. Since they have not, it is clear that the current laws that permit the use of deadly force are Constitutional, and SPECIFICALLY DO NOT violate the 5th Amendment.

As of the 28th of May, 2010, 31 States have some form of Castle Doctrine and/or Stand Your Ground Law. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine

You do not like the use of deadly force, that is clear. You object to it on moral grounds that is your personal belief. But use of deadly force, (even to protect property in certain states), is not illegal.

And you obviously do not trust ordinary people in this country. Then I bet you wonder why more ordinary people don't vote Democratic.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

61. I'm not the one placing a value on a life...

...the criminal is. He is betting that his life is worth more to me than my property. Sucks for him if he is wrong.

[DrDan]

64. you pull a trigger and take someone's life - you have made yourself the

judge, jury and executioner.

You are determining the value of that life - and whether you have the right to extinguish it.

Rationalize it any way you like - but you are the one setting the value. Someone steals a pen, you decide to take their life - then you clearly have decided that pen is more valuable than the life.

Very clear cut.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

70. Simple question:

Who initiated the exchange?

If I initiate the exchange, then I am setting the value higher than the criminal's life.

HOWEVER, if the criminal initiates the exchange, then the criminal is setting the value of my property.

By using force to stop him, I'm just telling him that I reject his offer and place a higher value on my stuff than he does.

Rationalize it anyway YOU like, but it is the criminal causing the confrontation. ANYTHING that happens to him after he chooses to commit the crime is his problem and his alone.

That, my friend, is very clear cut and has centuries of legal precedent to support it.

[DrDan]

72. more "gun logic" - "mess with me at your risk"

If you have a gun pointed at someone - you are making the decision as to whether that life is worth more or less than the property that person took. You are not being forced to pull that trigger. You are deciding whether to or not.

Very simple.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

73. That is not what I said.

I said, the decision of what his life is worth is the criminal's to make.

He chooses to initiate an illegal transfer of property and is betting that I will place a higher value on his life than on my property.

If i let him know that he underestimated the value of my property, I am simply upholding my part of the attempted illegal transfer of property.

The criminal decides to commit the crime, he does so knowing the risks. Not my problem if he ends up dead in the process. I'm truly sorry you cannot understand this.

[DrDan]

75. and you are deciding to pull the trigger knowing full well you are taking a life

for a piece of property.

You are not being forced to pull that trigger - it is a conscious decision.

Sorry you cannot understand this simple logic.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

84. Wrong again.

I am pulling the trigger knowing full well that I intend to stop the criminal from taking my property. If he ends up dead, that is an unfortunate (for him) side effect.


It is a well established legal concept that any consequences to the criminal as a result of his criminal act are HIS fault. I don't know why you cannot understand that.

You break into a home and cut yourself on the window, its not the homeowners fault.

You break into an office building and slip on the freshly waxed floor, good luck with that PI lawsuit.

You get yourself shot in the commission of a crime and live, the one who shot you is NOT responsible for your medical bills.

You get yourself shot in the commission of a crime, and the one who shot you did not commit murder.

[Atypical Liberal]

109. EXACTLY.

more "gun logic" - "mess with me at your risk"

This is precisely the thoughts that would-be criminals need to bear in mind when contemplating things like armed robbery.

[Spoonman]

66. Well stated! n/t

[We_Have_A_Problem]

71. Thank you n/t

[Atypical Liberal]

102. Of course there is.

is there any dollar value that does not justify taking a life?

Look. Would I kill someone over a pen? Probably not. This is simply a reductio ad absurdum.

If some property is worth killing over, then all property must be worth killing over. It is not logical to expect anyone to do mathematics on the spot during the commission of a crime to decide whether or not their property is worth using deadly force to protect or not.

It should be legal to defend your property with deadly force. My house, my car, my paycheck. And if I can use deadly force to defend those things, then the sole arbiter of which property I feel it is necessary to defend is me.

Today I might decide that I don't need to fight to protect my bicycle. Tomorrow my circumstances might be different. It should be up to me to decide the appropriate response to protect my property, no matter how trivial, from theft.

[one-eyed fat man]

98. How much moral standing is a thief worth?

I, for one, do not like thieves. Fifty to one odds, the late, lamented, David Abbot was trying to scour up the cash to get some more oxycodone rather than feed his starving coal miner children.

Nope, he saw a guy with cash, threatened to stab him with scissors and got himself shot for his trouble.

Does it cross the line between self-defense and manslaughter? For most states, probably. Is one more petty criminal who is no longer a recidivism problem a deficit to society?

Some behaviors are inherently high risk, stealing from people, particularly an in your face confrontational method like armed robbery, is certainly one of them.

Mr. Abbott clearly knew when he undertook the robbery that the victim would likely need convincing, so let him know he was willing to stab him for the money. The clear implication is he held the victim's life as less valuable than the victim's paycheck. He gambled his life, and he lost. Turnabout is fair play; it would take an awful lot evidence to the contrary to make me think he got more than what he deserved.

[Atypical Liberal]

106. "The clear implication is he held the victim's life as less valuable than the victim's paycheck. "

The clear implication is he held the victim's life as less valuable than the victim's paycheck. "

Exactly. Obviously the THIEF didn't value his victim's life more than a paycheck - why should the victim?

[We_Have_A_Problem]

140. The value of a thief

is considerably less than that of used toilet paper.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

196. The question really is....

...do you have the right to defend yourself and your property.

Remember, the goal is not to kill but to stop the crime/criminal. A frequent side effect of getting shot is you end up dead, but that is not the intent.

Yes, intent does matter. That's why we treat 1st Degree Murder very different from accidental vehicular homicide.

[iverglas]

209. aargh, deleted

I was reading this, not meaning to reply to it and kick the damned thread up!

[PavePusher]

40. Are you offering to reimburse Canul for his stolen money? n/t

[DrDan]

55. I have no idea what that has to do with the issue being discussed

[PavePusher]

77. Well, if you don't want people shooting criminals who attempt to abscond...

with their salary, i.e. means of living/survival, surely you should offer to compensate the victims for their loss, so they can make it to their next paycheck.

Or, they can continue to try to stop the theives taking their food/rent/medical money.\

Your moral choice, surely...

[DrDan]

80. no middle ground - hmmmmm

either reimburse the lost property or take a life.

Interesting logic.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

87. The "middle ground" is...

Keep your hands off of shit that doesn't belong to you.

Is that really so hard for you to grasp?

[PavePusher]

122. The thief/robber is free to drop the money at any time.

If it's the money to pay for a cancer treatment in my family, he is probably going to be fired upon.

C'est la vie, n'est pas?

[DrDan]

169. if that were the case, I would defend your action

[We_Have_A_Problem]

185. Interesting....

So you're saying IF the property is of a certain value, you're OK with the use of deadly force to protect it.

Hm...


Sounds to me like you want to force the legitimate owner of the property to ascertain if the property at risk would meet your arbitrary standard of acceptable value before he defends it or himself.

[DrDan]

189. that example stated a specific use for that money - cancer treatment

so that is a "life-saving" situation that goes beyond simple property.

That is the difference.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

193. So in your mind...

...that is an acceptable reason...

Ok - what if someone needs his car to get to his cancer treatments? Is that acceptable?

What if he needs his car to get to his job so he can save the money for potential future cancer treatments? Is that OK with you?

In short, what you're basically saying is, if certain property is earmarked for certain acceptable purposes, and ONLY those purposes, you can justify a narrow exception in your mind to make the action permissible, without considering that you're forcing the victim to not only figure out if the criminal intends to do him harm, but also if he intends to take something which fits into your narrow scope of acceptable property.

Yeah - lets make this as difficult as possible for the victim - maybe if he's lucky, the criminal will patiently wait while the victim sorts it out.

[slackmaster]

83. Are we talking about a 14-karat gold-filled Cross pen here, or just a plain 19-cent Bic?

One represents much more of its owner's life than the other does.

:hide:

[DrDan]

89. to some here, it makes no difference

[Enrique]

6. what if he saw him the next day on the street?

could he shoot him then? Why not? What about a year later? You're the guy that stole my paycheck! Prepare to die!

The prosecutor might decide to drop it in this case, or the jury might let him off. But they have to at least look into it. He shot someone dead, after all.

[Atypical Liberal]

11. A little absurd.

what if he saw him the next day on the street? could he shoot him then? Why not? What about a year later? You're the guy that stole my paycheck! Prepare to die!

But it would depend on the circumstances.

If it were up to me, and I saw him the next day on the street holding my money in his hands, then if I were king of the world I'd have no problem using deadly force, or at least the threat of it, to recover my money.

But this sort of thing is never going to happen. Catching someone in the act of committing armed robbery and acting is not the same thing as encountering the criminal on the street a day or year later.

[petronius]

17. Why not? We could call it the "Inigo Montoya" defense...

;)

(Caveat: this post is 100% not serious.)

[Union Scribe]

163. In your hypothetical, is the criminal still threatening people with a deadly weapon?

A lot of you seem to conveniently leave that out of the "poor robber" narrative.

[rocktivity]

7. Responsible Gun Ownership 101: A perp running away from you is no longer presenting a deadly threat

Only cops are allowed to get away with that.

:headbang:
rocktivity

[RaleighNCDUer]

9. You defend this?

This is why I worry - when somebody who is such a partisan for proliferation of guns does not understand the meaning of 'self defense'.

[Atypical Liberal]

14. Defense of property.

You defend this? This is why I worry - when somebody who is such a partisan for proliferation of guns does not understand the meaning of 'self defense'.

Because I also believe in the use of deadly force to protect property.

Here is a man who was cashing his paycheck at Walmart. If he's doing his banking at Walmart, it's highly likely that Jesus is living paycheck to paycheck. That means he and his family might not be eating this week. Or paying the rent. Or car payment. Or the utility bills.

I'm quite content with shooting the armed robber over Jesus' paycheck.

[DrDan]

18. ahhhh - but you said up-thread that you support the killing even if it had been an ink pen

and you keep saying "shooting" when it was actually a "killing".

Don't forget someone lost a life.

[Atypical Liberal]

25. Yup.

ahhhh - but you said up-thread that you support the killing even if it had been an ink pen

Yes, I support the deadly use of force to defend property. Even ink pens. If someone feels their life is worth an ink pen, who am I to argue with them?

and you keep saying "shooting" when it was actually a "killing".

Either way works for me.

[DrDan]

29. thanks - and appreciate the honesty in admitting that your property is more

valuable to you than another's life

[Atypical Liberal]

33. But remember, I'm not setting the value.

thanks - and appreciate the honesty in admitting that your property is more valuable to you than another's life

As the character Buster says in the movie "Gettysburg", "There's many a man alive of no more worth than a dead dog, believe me."

There is nothing special about human life, and we all set the value of our own lives by our own actions. Some of us are worthy, and others are worthless.

If a thief wants to set the value of his life to that of some piece of property, that's on him, not on me.

[DrDan]

36. YOU are setting the value of his life as taking it is in your hands

and we know that it is worth less than any of your property.

[Atypical Liberal]

47. If a thief values his life more than my stuff...

...then he shouldn't take my stuff.

The thief is setting the value of his life.

[DrDan]

50. if you are the decider as to whether a life is taken - you are setting the value

pretty darned clear-cut

[Atypical Liberal]

60. If they are the decider as to whether to risk their life - they are setting the value.

And you are right, it is pretty darned clear-cut.

Some people decide their life is worth risking by throwing it out of an airplane to skydive. If they die, this is not the fault of the guy flying the airplane - he simply obliged the person in his activity.

If you knowingly undertake an illegal activity where your life is on the line, like, say, armed robbery, then that is a choice that you decide to make all by yourself.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

62. If you willingly...

...take a risk you know could cause your death, then YOU are deciding the value of your life.

A criminal who chooses to take the risk of robbing someone, knowing he could be killed, has decided that what he wishes to steal is more valuable than his own life. He makes that choice before he commits the crime.

The victim, in defending himself, simply lets the thief know that he had placed far too high a value on his own life.

Some people are simply worthless and defective. Simple as that.

[Spoonman]

74. Where have I heard that argument before, hmmmmmm

Oh yeah, from the pro-life right wing fuck nuts!

[DrDan]

81. how absurd

[Spoonman]

92. Not absurd at all

YOU brought into play the "moral" argument.

That same argument is used time and time again by the pro-life crowd under the same pretense of "terminating life".

Although Roe v Wade was decided based on the 9th amendment, many pro-choice advocates argue that banning of abortions would violate the 13th amendment as it relates to involuntary servitude.

Involuntary Servitude

– compulsory service or labor against his or her will. This also includes the condition in which people are compelled to work against their will by a "climate of fear" evoked by the use of force, the threat of force, or the threat of legal coercion (i.e., suffer legal consequences unless compliant with demands made upon them) which is sufficient to compel service against a person's will. The first U.S. Supreme Court case to uphold the ban against involuntary servitude was Bailey v. Alabama

Labor is defined as work of economic or financial value. Unfree labor (i.e., labor not willingly given), is obtained in a number of ways:

- causing or threatening to cause serious harm to any person;
- physically restraining or threatening to physically restrain another person;
- abusing or threatening to abuse the law or legal process;
- blackmail;
- causing or threatening to cause financial harm to any person

Is abortion "moral"?

According to you, it is if you are a "liberal".

But you only want to use morals when it's advantageous to your stance. (ever hear the word hypocrite?)

I guess your measure of "liberal enough" only stretches so far.......

Then again, maybe this is just too deep a concept for you to grasp.

[DrDan]

143. more personal insults -so typical of here

[cleanhippie]

174. You seem to be confusing having one's ideas exposed as hypocritical BS with personal insult.

Thats unfortunate, because the person who cannot tell the difference will never learn anything.

[DrDan]

181. you mean like this:

"Then again, maybe this is just too deep a concept for you to grasp."

Is that the exposing you are referring to?

[cleanhippie]

182. No, I mean this:

more personal insults -so typical of here

[DrDan]

183. and you have an example demonstrating that point, now don't you

I can certainly provide more.

[cleanhippie]

186. Yes, the example is your last response to someone explaining how your ideas were wrong, which you

then called a personal insult.

You may not agree with (and I am not taking sides on that debate) what the poster had to say about your ideas, but you claimed the response was a personal insult. It wasn't. That's all I am talking about here.

[DrDan]

187. telling someone they are not bright enough to comprehend their post

is "explaining how your ideas were wrong".

It is an insult.

[cleanhippie]

191. No one said you were not bright enough.

The post you are taking offense to, "Then again, maybe this is just too deep a concept for you to grasp.", is someones personal opinion.


Had they stated "you are not bright enough to grasp this concept", THAT would have been a personal insult.


See the difference?

[We_Have_A_Problem]

179. I didnt see any personal insults....

...perhaps you could enlighten us? After all, we're all just knuckle-dragging troglodytes who are obsessed with our guns...

[DrDan]

180. well . . . here's one example

"Then again, maybe this is just too deep a concept for you to grasp."

[cleanhippie]

188. Uh, Dan, thats an opinion. Had the poster stated something like...

"you are to dense to grasp this concept", THAT would be an insult.

Can you see the difference? Posting opinions is not an insult, name calling is.

[DrDan]

190. an insult - but, I would expect nothing less than denial here

[cleanhippie]

192. I guess I will just end with a repeat of what I stated earlier...

Thats unfortunate, because the person who cannot tell the difference (between insult and opinion) will never learn anything.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

197. Not an insult.

You may be offended by the implication, but there is no insult.

The concept really may be too deep for you to grasp.

[cleanhippie]

173. I think you hit it perfectly with that statement.

If a thief wants to set the value of his life to that of some piece of property, that's on him, not on me.



:applause:

[RaleighNCDUer]

20. So, if I scratched the paint on your car, you'd feel justified in shooting me

because fixing it would cost you the equivalent of a paycheck?

Hey, you're just defending your property!

Jesus Fucking Christ.

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Atypical Liberal]

152. It depends on the situation.

So, if I scratched the paint on your car, you'd feel justified in shooting me because fixing it would cost you the equivalent of a paycheck?

Hey, you're just defending your property!

It would depend on the situation. If you scratched my car by accident by bumping my car with your car door in a parking lot, obviously not.

But if you were actively engaged in vandalizing my car, maybe so.

In one case, we have an accident. In another case, we have criminal activity likely to cost me hundreds or even thousands of dollars.

[gejohnston]

161. no

not even close. Neither are pens be it a $5K Mont Blanc or an 89¢ Bic. The point is ripping off what the guy needs to survive. His couple of hundred bucks is not the same as Donald Trump's couple of hundred bucks.

[cleanhippie]

175. Is the car scratcher trying to steal the paint?

Or is it vandalism?


Hey, you're just making false equivalencies!

Jesus Fucking Christ.

[TreasonousBastard]

21. You may be content with that, but the law isn't, and...

most reasonable people would have a problem with that, too.

[Atypical Liberal]

27. Depends on where you live.

In some states, the law is quite content with that.

[DWC]

15. "If and when it ever gets to a grand jury..."

At no point in the link does it indicate Abbott "took off".

At no point in the link does it indicate that a threat did not still exist.

There is virtually no chance an indictment will be issued.

Caunl will face some serious inconvenience but, since charges were brought, will be provided a public defender thus eliminating legal fees.

Semper Fi,

[DrDan]

22. "Once he took off with the money . . . "

[Spoonman]

28. Even money bet

The Grand Jury will no bill him!
Thus proving the majority of americans are fed up too, and support the right to defense of life and property.

I'll drink a toast to them if they let him free!

I for one am fed up with criminals and criminal behavior.

Fuck em'!

I you try to take my paycheck, or any possession of mine for that matter, you'll see the business end of my Kimber Pro-Carry II chambered in .45 acp.
(Your eyes better see faster than 1,192 feet per second!)

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

82. 185gr +P rounds? That's pretty quick for a forty five...

And, for the record, in the right lighting conditions and at the right angle, you CAN see a 45 slug flying through the air. Typically a 45 is only about 850fps... if you get a black/dark background and good lighting the bullet looks like a little blur zipping downrange to the shooter and bystanders. It's pretty cool when you get to seeing it.

[Spoonman]

97. Self defense hand loads

165gr JHP, Federal match primer, 7.6 gr Power pistol.

Less recoil than the typical 185 - 230 grain loads, so you can re-aquire the target MUCHO faster.

[ileus]

133. 165g 45's I need to get some of those for mine.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

147. Have you tested for penetration?

I read an article awhile back that reccomended heavier bullet variants in defense pistols versus lighter +P variants because the extra velocity and greater hollowpoint cup can cause a bullet to expand too rapidly - limiting penetration. It did say that alot of the reduced weight loads were good for compact and subcompact barrel lengths where a short barrel may not be able to get the bullet going fast enough for complete reliable expansion. It was actually an interesting read with alot of data and ballistics testing to back it up. Made me switch from 115gr+P+ (9mm) to 147+P HST and then from 230gr+P HST to regular 230gr HST (45acp).

Although, I'm pretty sure a full power .45 of just about any weight will dole out some very bad days for anyone on the receiving end. As they say, "A 9mm might expand... but a .45 never gets any smaller."

[Name removed]

96. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Spoonman]

108. Don't mistake confidence for boasting,

it has been the downfall of many a person.
I never thought at 6' 1" that a 5' 6" tall guy could whoop my ass that bad!

If you are ever assaulted, boast to the criminal about how you don't need a gun to protect yourself. I'll send the flowers to the hospital, or funeral home.

[Hoyt]

110. Posting about how you are going to pull your gun and shoot an unarmed man -- ain't "confidence."

[We_Have_A_Problem]

112. That was not what he said.

Nice try at misrepresenting him though. Of course, misrepresentation, misdirection and outright falsehoods are about all you have in the way of an argument.

[Hoyt]

115. That's what this thread is about, and our friend says you die if you take something from him.

Sounds like the guy cooling his heels in jail. Maybe the two should talk.

[Spoonman]

117. Maybe you should talk to some victims of violent crime

Maybe you should be a victim yourself.

Maybe you might actually gain some insight into the real world if either one happened!

[Hoyt]

125. I have been a victim of some CCWass pulling a gun on me (more than once) -- handled it w/o one too.

Although I no longer hang with em -- mainly because most are right wing jerks -- I've known more than my share of permitted gun toters. Most of them shouldn't have been allowed to own guns, much less carry one or two in public.

Maybe you ought to quit feeling sorry for yourself and stop waiting/practicing for the next time you get a chance to shoot someone.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

136. If someone really pulled a gun on you

and you did not legally deserve it, please by all means, direct us to the arrest record.

Otherwise, please keep your anecdotes to something at least marginally plausible.

[Hoyt]

145. Like I said, I took care of it myself each time. You don't like being reminded of why guns aren't

necessary, just confine yourself to reading the posts of the minority of folks who think like you (or, don't think).

[We_Have_A_Problem]

149. I have no problem with someone who believes....

...they are unnecessary for him. I have a problem with those who want to say they are unnecessary for all.

I also don't believe much of what you say since so much of what you've posted is pure fabrication.

[oneshooter]

160. So YOU were the judge, jury and punishment! How uncivilized, fisticuffs in the middle of the street

Why not call the Police , make a complaint, and let them handle it. Thats their job ain't it.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[rl6214]

164. If it's the minority of folks

Why do the majorityh of folks keep electing representatives that vote down gun control measures? Come on, answer the question.

[Hoyt]

166. Simple, the majority of folks don't know what today's gunners are like. They need to be reminded

that the loughners of the world get their weapons and interest in guns from those manufactured and marketed to folks walking around on the streets with the dang things. Then, they need to understand that those with caches/hoards of weapons are preparing to shoot people during disasters, political unrest (mostly TBag types, but there are some here as well). Chit, there's a whole thread here where the gunners discussed their choices of weapons for hurricane Irene.

[cleanhippie]

178. What's "chit"?

:rofl:

[cleanhippie]

177. The verdict is in on your claim...

[Name removed]

154. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[cleanhippie]

176. When? Where? Proof? You are making that up out of whole cloth. A total fabrication.

[Spoonman]

116. WTF! - "shoot an unarmed man"

Please feel free to show EVERY exactly where I stated that.

If you are unable to demonstrate that as a factual statement, I will expect an appropriate apology.(I doubt you have the honor or balls enough to do it!)

[Spoonman]

121. Hey Hoyt, find those balls yet?

I'm still waiting on my apology!

[Hoyt]

128. People who say they're gonna shoot anyone who takes something from them, deserve no apology.

I can't think of anything I have in terms of property that I'd kill someone over. You need to leave your guns at home.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

137. Just because you cannot...

...do not think the rest of us have such small imaginations.

[Hoyt]

142. Imagination? LMAO. Paranoia and callousness more like it.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

150. There is neither.

There is nothing callous about deciding my life and my property are worth more than the life or health of a thief. Nothing paranoid about it either.

If someone is attempting to take something from me I do not wish him to have, I will use every means at my disposal to prevent the theft - up to and including lethal force.

By all means, point out the paranoia.

[rl6214]

165. I guess this would be OK for you

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4980301&mesg_id=4981048

[Spoonman]

207. The apology was for YOUR blantant lie

[Spoonman]

118. Dishonest sack of shit?

Is that an appropriate term used for someone who make blatantly false statements?

[Hoyt]

130. Might be if someone made a false statement, but you are the one bragging about shooting someone with

a 45 if they take something for you.

So no false statement made by me in response to your tough gunner BS in post #28 above, "I you try to take my paycheck, or any possession of mine for that matter, you'll see the business end of my Kimber Pro-Carry II chambered in .45 acp. (Your eyes better see faster than 1,192 feet per second!)."

[Spoonman]

208. You really expect us to believe you are that ignorant?

You claimed that I stated I would shoot an unarmed man, period.

A completely false and inflammatory statement on your part, and nothing more than anti puss-wad horse shit.
So typical, but not tolerated.

Please feel free to crawl back into the slimy little hole from whence you came.

[Atypical Liberal]

23. eyewittness account

“I saw the guy grab him from behind the neck and he said ‘I’ll give you a ride,’ so I thought he was his friend, but the guy was digging in Jesse’s back pocket all the time and he had his arm around him and all I could see was something shiny and I thought it was a knife,” Sells said. “Jesse was digging in his front pocket at the time and when Jesse got his gun out and put it up to his neck, he said ‘You better back up, you better back up.’ The guy dug a couple more seconds until he got his wallet out and then he tried to take off and that’s when Jesse shot him — when he took off running.

“I guess he was going to give the guy a chance to back up, but when he got his wallet and was going on with the process, that’s when Jesse shot him. He was maybe eight to 10 feet away. I thought he missed him because the guy kept running all the way into Walmart. Apparently, he didn’t.”

http://www.loganbanner.com/pages/full_story/push?article-Bail+set+at+-40K+for+Jesus+Canul%20&id=15270019&instance=home_news_lead

[rocktivity]

68. "...That’s when Jesse shot him — when he took off running...He was maybe eight to 10 feet away..."

Logan Chief of Police E.K. Harper said Abbot was shot in the back and the bullet went through his lung and lodged in his chest. He said the reports that Canul shot Abbot in the head are untrue and that Abbot had a head wound from a fight earlier that weekend.

Jesse, you have a problem.

:headbang:
rocktivity

[ileus]

138. Reads like a good shooting to me...

[jmg257]

141. You better get yourself a good lawyer then. Being charged with murder don't seem fun. nt

[RaleighNCDUer]

205. So shooting someone in the back as they are running away

is a 'good shooting' to you.

I shudder to think what a 'bad shooting' might be.

[Hoyt]

48. Another shooting by a gun carrier with a permit. They tell us it doesn't happen, but it does.

And, it will happen more and more as today's gunners are successful in proliferating gun sales and guns in public.

I understand the guy being upset and mad having his paycheck stolen, but I don't understand shooting someone in the back as apparently happened here. If it didn't happen that way, I hope the jury, or DA find fairly.

Gunners who support this kind of thing (again assuming it was a shooting in the back) will hopefully find their toting privileges restricted in the future as the 96% who don't tote get fed up.

[Atypical Liberal]

52. No, you are told it doesn't happen OFTEN.

No one has ever said CCW permit holders are not involved in crime, even firearm-related crime.

Simply that it does not happen very often, and that people with CCW permits are less likely to be involved in such crimes than people without them.

[Hoyt]

86. But not less likely than the 90% or so who could get a permit, but realize it's not necessary

or good for society.

[Atypical Liberal]

99. Wrong. They are still safer compared to those 90% who could get a permit

But not less likely than the 90% or so who could get a permit, but realize it's not necessary or good for society.

Wrong. CCW permit holders are less likely to be involved in any kind of crime than those who do not have a CCW permit - even those who could get one but choose not to.

CCW permit holders are more law abiding than everyone else, eligible to have a CCW permit or not.

[Hoyt]

111. No, that is not true. Those who could pass a background check are just as law abiding, yet

they know that packing guns in public ain't right. You need to look a little closer at your stats. You also ought to look at all the holes in the reporting system that lets gun crimes by permit holders go unrecorded or without proper discipline.

[Spoonman]

120. How about posting some credible sources to support these assertions?

So far all I see is the ramblings of someone known for making false statements.

What's another term for that..... o' yeah, a chronic liar!

[Atypical Liberal]

127. Incorrect. When compared against THE ENTIRE REST OF THE POPULATION.

No, that is not true. Those who could pass a background check are just as law abiding, yet they know that packing guns in public ain't right. You need to look a little closer at your stats.

No, the stats are quite clearly on my side. When you look at the conviction rate for CCW permit holders and compare them to all the rest of the population, CCW permit holders are less likely to be involved in crime.

You also ought to look at all the holes in the reporting system that lets gun crimes by permit holders go unrecorded or without proper discipline.

I think we should stick to actual data instead of speculation.

[Spoonman]

63. "it will happen more and more"

as today's gunners are successful in proliferating gun sales and guns in public.

Given the overwhelming facts that contradict your statement, and given the fact that you have been presented said facts from numerous credible sources on numerous occasions, it must be asked.

Is this delusional state of mind the result of:

A. a serious accident
B. the side effects of medications
C. the lack of medication

[Hoyt]

85. I disagree, the more toters, the more shootings by toters. Further rate will likely increase

because more and more marginal gunners will be permitted. If you don't believe that, I suggest you take your test and seek professional help.

How many guns do you have to strap to your body before going to a restaurant, public park, or wherever?

BTW: What "overwhelming facts" are you posting about.

[Spoonman]

93. "What "overwhelming facts" are you posting about."

Pointless to re-post, until you pull your head out of .................. the sand.

How many guns do you have to strap to your body before going to a restaurant, public park, or wherever?

One!
I have drawn it 3 times total and fired it once (in self defense) since 1997.

Stopped an armed robbery inside a gated condo complex (knife to a gun fight).
Stopped an assault in a restaurant parking lot (2 men beating the hell out of a woman).
Kept myself from being shot by a drunk driver that pulled a shotgun out after he ran into me!

[rl6214]

156. He was being assaulted so it's not just

"another shooting by a gun carrier with a permit".

Are you going to label every defensive gun use as "another shooting by a gun carrier with a permit"?

How about a woman being assaulted, would that be just "another shooting by a gun carrier with a permit"?

[one-eyed fat man]

199. I would argue that

The crime was still in progress when the victim fired. The robber grabbed the victim from behind, poked a knife in his back and took the victim's wallet from his pocket. The victim was shouting a warning and drawing his weapon.

The thief may have been trying to get away, but in some jurisdictions Fleeing felon rule applies. In Common law, the Fleeing Felon Rule permits the use of force, including deadly force, against an individual who is suspected of a felony and is in clear flight. Force may be used by the victim, bystanders, or police officers.

Indeed, it has been said that the social policy of the common law in this matter was not only to threaten dangerous felons and hence deter them, but was also to induce them to "surrender peaceably" if they dared commit inherently dangerous felonies, rather than allow them to "escape trial for their crimes."

Seems like a reasonable policy to me. If you commit an armed robbery with a weapon, in public, in broad daylight, someone ought to cut you down like the dog that you are rather than allow you to escape. Applicable Kentucky law specifically grants such force to law enforcement.

503.090 Use of physical force in law enforcement.
(1) The use of physical force by a defendant upon another person is justifiable when the defendant, acting under official authority, is making or assisting in making an arrest, and he:
(a) Believes that such force is necessary to effect the arrest;
(b) Makes known the purpose of the arrest or believes that it is otherwise known or cannot reasonably be made known to the person to be arrested; and
(c) Believes the arrest to be lawful.
(2) The use of deadly physical force by a defendant upon another person is justifiable under subsection (1) only when:
(a) The defendant, in effecting the arrest, is authorized to act as a peace officer; and
(b) The arrest is for a felony involving the use or threatened use of physical force likely to cause death or serious physical injury; and
(c) The defendant believes that the person to be arrested is likely to endanger human life unless apprehended without delay.
(3) The use of physical force, including deadly physical force, by a defendant upon another person is justifiable when the defendant is preventing the escape of an arrested person and when the force could justifiably have been used to effect the arrest under which the person is in custody, except that a guard or other person authorized to act as a peace officer is justified in using any force, including deadly force, which he believes to be necessary to prevent the escape of a person from jail, prison, or other institution for the detention of persons charged with or convicted of a crime.

[tularetom]

57. I feel for the guy

I might have even done the same thing under the circumstances.

But it ain't self defense. It may not be murder either, but it sure as hell isn't self defense to shoot somebody who is running away.

[rocktivity]

76. DING DING DING! Tularetom, you're our grand prize winner!

It may not be murder...but it sure as hell isn't self defense...

I think murder is overcharging. I'd go for first-degree manslaughter (killing someone in the course of deliberately trying to hurt him) and permanent loss of his gun permit.

:headbang:
rocktivity

[Glassunion]

90. I disagree with you on this one.

My personal belief is that I would only use deadly force if there was an immanent threat to my life or bodily harm.

I personally do not feel that deadly force should be used to protect property.

[Loki]

91. The man got what he wanted

he wanted an opportunity to shoot someone and kill them. Now he and all the CCLs are bitching because he will be charged with murder. Wow, can't have it both ways guys. Burglary in this country even committed with a weapon where no harm was caused, does not rise to the level of a death sentence. Unless, we go back and change every law and every punishment for every crime committed, by every person, no matter what the cause, or the age or sex or extenuating circumstances or DNA evidence, any person with a CCl and a gun can be police officer, judge, jury and executioner. I thought we evolved past that wild west mentality and entered into the civilized world.

[X_Digger]

101. Burglary is not robbery..

Robbery involves the use of force (or threat thereof) to elicit compliance.

If a person credibly threatens grievous bodily harm, deadly force is warranted. That doesn't have to include weapons. Disparity of force can lead an elderly, infirm, or smaller person to reasonably believe that harm is imminent, even when an attacker has nothing more than hands and feet.

[Hoyt]

114. Yea, sure, shooting some guy in the back who only has hands/feet doesn't sound like self-defense.

Of course, for some here it's, "the point of a gun was the only law they understood."

[X_Digger]

134. Perhaps you might re-read the post I replied to and try a reply that actually makes sense..

Or you could just keep spewing things unrelated to the posts you reply to.

[Hoyt]

158. I did read your post and the one you responded to. You were wrong.

Shooting a person fleeing in the back ain't justified in this case, even if it's a little lady (well, I side with her in the case of rape or something like that).

[X_Digger]

159. Where the fuck did I say shooting someone in the back, dear?

The post I responded to misused burglary, when robbery was the question at hand.

Do try and keep up, yes?

[one-eyed fat man]

103. DNA evidence????

What extenuating circumstance? What confusion? He did not shoot the wrong guy. Robbery is not generally one of those crimes where it take a lot to figure out. If some dude holds a knife to your throat and says, "You're coming with me..." you will probably be accurate in your assessment that a crime is being committed. It may not even take you more than one or two sessions with your therapist to figure who the victim is.

Are you saying he should have just given up his check? Will you just meekly go wherever someone wants to abduct you? If the crime in question is rape, do you just "give them what they want and hope that you enjoy it?

Civilized people do not commit armed robbery. If they get themselves killed while doing it they got what was coming to them. His threat might be, "Your money or your life." As long as he is willing to kill me for my money, I am justified in killing him to keep it.

He started it....

If he didn't want to get shot, he should have picked another line of "work."

[jmg257]

144. "You're coming with me..." Sounds more like a kidnapping at that point.

Shooter was covered both ways - right up until the perp ran away.

[rl6214]

157. That's just dishonest BS

"The man got what he wanted
Posted by Loki
he wanted an opportunity to shoot someone and kill them."

If you've got some proof of this, maybe a blog post or something he said of facebook, then by all means, give it to the authorities and he will get what he deserves, otherwise you are just full of it.

[rrneck]

105. What a coincidence.

I am right now waiting for a tow truck because my pickup has quit on me. I cannot afford to have the truck repaired much less replace it. Until I can fix it myself I will have zero income and a half dozen disappointed customers. My schedule for the next month just went in the toilet.

You present a difficult scenario. While I disagree that deadly force can be used against theft under any circumstances since to do so would be punitive in the extreme. Theft of property indispensable to survival would present powerful mitigating circumstances in the use of deadly force.

Most of the bankruptcies in this country are the result of medical expenses. How much of the distinction can we make between the destruction of a life because of an assault and the destruction of a life because of the loss of a means to make a living?

James Shipler wrote an interesting book on the subject.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0375708219/ref=mp_s_a_1?qid=1314820602&sr=8-1

The Working Poor examines the "forgotten America" where "millions live in the shadow of prosperity, in the twilight between poverty and well-being." These are citizens for whom the American Dream is out of reach despite their willingness to work hard. Struggling to simply survive, they live so close to the edge of poverty that a minor obstacle, such as a car breakdown or a temporary illness, can lead to a downward financial spiral that can prove impossible to reverse. David Shipler interviewed many such working people for this book and his profiles offer an intimate look at what it is like to be trapped in a cycle of dead-end jobs without benefits or opportunities for advancement. He shows how some negotiate a broken welfare system that is designed to help yet often does not, while others proudly refuse any sort of government assistance, even to their detriment. Still others have no idea that help is available at all. others proudly refuse any sort of government assistance, even to their detriment."

People who consider themselves liberals would do well to consider the stakes that people have to face every day before they issue their moral judgements. And if the environment and our economy continue the downward slide many of us predict they may get first hand experience with the reality that the people they are supposed to care so much about.

But for my part, even considering the kind of day I've had I couldn't shoot somebody running away with my stuff.

[jmg257]

123. You gonna be carrying guns for self-defense, you better know the fucking laws.

And you and the other clowns who do so should stop posting how you will blow eveyone's head off without justification. And how low you value human life. Good luck trying to defend against all these dumb-ass quotes of yours (made on a public forum for all to see forever) in a court of law when you actually do blaze away at some one.


It's fucking embarrasing to be even remotely associated with such idiotic irresponsible gun owners.

Shooter committed a homicide. NO justification? Then he gets what he deserves for being an ass, being irresponsible, and not knowing the law.

[ileus]

131. Hopefully he'll draw a friendly jury...

[rl6214]

132. Gotta disagree with you on this one

As the guy is fleeing, shooting him in the head was wrong. The threat was gone, no longer in fear of his life.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

148. I think a decent lawyer could at least spin off a plea bargain...

You have a man fleeing the scene of a felony armed with some kind of weapon (by accounts of the crime) who is approaching a business establishment where more potential victims of felony assault or robbery may be loacated. Perhaps the shooter "feared for the life of others"... as using lethal force in defense of others' lives is justified so long as the victims themselves were justified in using it.

I'll bet the guy some sort of probation-only or minimal sentance plea bargain (if formal charges are taken to trial at all).

[Common Sense Party]

151. Nope. You shoot a punk in the back who's running away...

...that makes YOU the punk. Sorry, but that's how I see it. It's no longer self-defense when the guy is moving AWAY from you. You are no longer in danger.

[TPaine7]

153. I strongly disagree. Shooting a thief in the back is murder, though not first degree.

Exceptions are very rare, and this isn't one.

This is a place where the "judge, jury and executioner" charge sticks.

[Endangered Specie]

155. One wonders why he didnt draw and fire before handing the money over

[Euromutt]

168. Ugh. Legally straightforward, morally a bit trickier

Legally, Mr. Canul is completely in the wrong: he shot Abbot when Abbot no longer presented an imminent threat to Canul's life and limb. That makes it some form of unjustifiable homicide.

On the other hand, as other posters have noted, given that we're talking about Mr. Canul's paycheck here, he may no longer have been at risk of losing his life but he was most assuredly about to lose (an installment of) his living. Very possibly, we're talking about the money he needed to pay the rent, his utility and medical bills, and feed his family for the next week or month. And let's not kid ourselves, if Canul had let Abbot get away, the chances of the police apprehending Abbot before he'd blown the lot on booze, meth and/or hookers would have been vanishingly small. In short, Canul very probably did the one thing he could to prevent losing his weekly or monthly income.

And while we're at it, let's be honest and acknowledge there is more than merely a whiff of hypocrisy when the state tells its citizens they can't use deadly force to prevent loss of property, and then issues licenses to armed private security guards. After all, what other purpose does a security guard serve than to protect property? So evidently, lethal force is permissible to protect property, provided you're an individual or corporation that has plenty of it to begin with. It's even more egregious in the case of "may issue" jurisdictions which consider the fact that a person needs to transport large amount of cash or valuables to meet the "proper need" for a CCW permit.

[PavePusher]

170. Note that no Anti has offered to reimburse Mr. Canul or other victims of robbery.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=456527&mesg_id=456580

Very telling...

[DrDan]

184. I think the telling part is how many "regulars" here are lining up

to be behind that trigger.

Now that is telling.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

194. Sure is.

Tells you that most of us are sick and tired of criminal behavior and we really don't give a damn about them anymore. People are funny like that.

[PavePusher]

198. I have not seen you offer up your check-book to the victims of robbery.

Why is that?

[DrDan]

200. there is no lack of folks here willing to pull the trigger, is there

[We_Have_A_Problem]

201. Nope

Not as long as there are people willing to violate the rights of good law abiding people.

I know i know, you don't really give a damn about the victim - only about the poor criminal who had his promising career as a property reapportionment specialist cut short.

[Common Sense Party]

202. I think it more telling that MORE of us "regular" "toters" are AGAINST

this shooting, and that you fail to recognize that.

That is truly telling.

[jmg257]

195. "Canul very probably did the one thing he could to prevent losing his weekly or monthly income."

Smart move.

Wonder how much THAT is going to cost him.

[Euromutt]

206. Decisions born of desperation are rarely wise

It's easy to study this incident from a position of detachment and say that Canul was stupid to do what he did, but I have the luxury that I am extremely unlikely to find myself in his position of watching some goon trying to run off with his paycheck. And as a result, I'm reluctant to pass judgement.

[Starboard Tack]

203. Sounds like righteous case of murder

He pulled the gun after the thief started to run away. That's premeditated intentional homicide with malice aforethought. Thankfully, it didn't happen in Texas, where that kind of killing is condoned.

[Name removed]

204. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.