View Full Version : AP Enterprise: Deaths loom over self-defense laws
http://apnews.myway.com//article/20081205/D94SHJS00.html
AP Enterprise: Deaths loom over self-defense laws
Dec 5, 7:05 AM (ET)
By SHELIA BYRD
JACKSON, Miss. (AP) - A convenience store clerk chased down a man and shot him dead over a case of beer this summer and was charged with murder. A week later, a clerk at another Jackson convenience store followed and fatally shot a man he said tried to rob him, and authorities let him go without charges.
Police say the robber in the second case was armed, while the man accused of stealing beer was not.
Just the same, the legal plights of the two clerks highlight the uncertain impact of National Rifle Association-backed laws sweeping the nation that make it easier to justify shooting in self-defense.
In 2006, Mississippi adopted its version of the so-called castle doctrine, which lifts requirements that individuals first try to flee before using deadly force to counter a threat in their homes, vehicles or, in Mississippi's case, at work.
Gun rights advocates who have helped pass the law in 23 states since 2003 say it removes an unfair legal penalty for people exercising a constitutional right in a life-or-death emergency, though some police and prosecutors are skeptical of self-defense claims under the law.
An Associated Press review found a growing number of cases but no clear trend yet in how the law is applied or how cases will be resolved in court.
All a defendant has to do is establish a threat, and usually the other witness is dead. That shifts the burden to prosecutors and police investigators, who have to gather evidence to show beyond a reasonable doubt that deadly force wasn't justified, according to a report released this summer by the National District Attorneys Association.
"It's very difficult to prove a negative," said Steven Jansen, president of the NDAA. "It might be a little too early to get the overall effect through the court process because we're just seeing the cases enter the court and finding out how the judges are going to rule."
Sarbrinder Pannu, the first clerk, alleged that James Hawthorne grabbed beer from a cooler and left without paying for it. Police Lt. Jeffery Scott said Pannu followed Hawthorne outside the store and shot him twice.
Surinder Singh, president of the Jackson Indian Storeowners Association and a spokesman for Pannu, said Mississippi's law gives you the right to protect your property.
"For them, it's a case of beer. For us, it's our property," Singh said. "That person didn't have respect for his life. He put his life against one case of beer."
Police and prosecutors disagreed and charged Pannu with murder and shooting into an occupied vehicle. Pannu has not entered a plea and has declined to be interviewed.
About a week after Hawthorne was killed, a clerk at another Jackson convenience store chased and fatally shot a clown mask-wearing robber outside the store after he stole cash from the register. The clerk wasn't charged.
Police didn't release the clerk's name because he wasn't charged. As with Hawthorne's shooting, the case will be presented to a grand jury, though police said the second clerk was justified because he felt a clear and present danger.
"The first thing about it is that you want to fairly apply the law," said Scott, who helped investigate both shootings and pointed out that the second robber was armed. "The problem is that there's an exception to every rule."
Castle doctrine laws drew national attention when Joe Horn of Pasadena, Texas, shot and killed two men in November 2007 after he saw them crawling out of the windows of a neighbor's house, carrying bags of the neighbor's possessions. Horn claimed the shooting was justified by Texas' law, and a grand jury declined to indict him.
Cases this year have included a man in San Antonio who shot and killed an intruder who climbed through his bedroom window and a Lexington, Ky., man who shot through his house's front door, killing a man who had been beating on it. No charges were filed in either case.
A woman in Missouri, which enacted its castle doctrine last year, could still face charges for shooting her former boyfriend after he came through the window of her home. A coroner's jury in Adair County ruled that Jackie Gleason committed a felony when she killed Rogelio Johnson in May. Prosecutors said the jury might not have understood the law and have asked the state attorney general to review whether to file formal charges.
The law's rapid rollout across nearly half the nation is largely the result of lobbying by the NRA. Most of the state laws, including Mississippi's, are patterned after Florida's.
Michael Edmondson, who works in the state attorney's office in Palm Beach County, said castle-doctrine claims have increased since the law took effect three years ago.
"You would rarely see a case prior to the change of the statute here in Florida," Edmondson said. "I can recollect a half dozen cases in the last year or so. Some successful. Some not."
Andrew Arulanandam, director of public affairs for the NRA, dismissed concerns about the law being misused or misinterpreted, saying all cases are reviewed by law enforcement authorities.
The laws have become popular in a country that's grown increasingly anxious, said Mat Heck, prosecuting attorney for Montgomery County in Ohio, where a castle doctrine law went into effect in September.
"There really is a change in perception of public safety after 9/11," Heck said. "Citizens are just anxious. They fear attacks, not only from the terrorists abroad, but from residents here in our own country."
A lack of confidence in the justice system and the perception that defendants' rights overshadow victims' are other reasons cited in the NDAA report.
Heck said his state's law pertains to a person's home and car, and is only applied when someone has unlawfully entered.
"We tried to make it somewhat restrictive so it wasn't like the old wild, wild West," Heck said.
Pannu is free on $50,000 bond and has returned to work at the store, where jugs of candy clutter the cashier's counter and pictures of Pannu standing with $1,000 winners of scratch-off games are posted on the bulletproof barrier that separated him from Hawthorne on Aug. 17.
"The real debate is 'Can you kill a man for shoplifting?'" said Dennis Sweet, a Jackson attorney representing Hawthorne's family in a lawsuit against Pannu and A&H Food Mart.
"The guy was in his truck leaving," Sweet said. "He posed no danger."
"The real debate is 'Can you kill a man for shoplifting?'" said Dennis Sweet, a Jackson attorney representing Hawthorne's family in a lawsuit against Pannu and A&H Food Mart.
"The guy was in his truck leaving," Sweet said. "He posed no danger."
There is your answer!
Buckaroo
Jay Cunningham
12-05-08, 09:27
I highly recommend training with someone like John Farnam for his insight into the legalities of what is and what is not a good shoot. While I do not agree with everything he teaches about gun handling nor some of his theories on shot placement, his lectures on mindset, awareness, threat avoidance and what to do after a shoot are worth the price of the course.
Guys I work with (who know me reasonably well and know that I shoot a lot) always make mistaken assumptions about how I might react to a situation. When a news story pops up in which some moron shoots someone because they were standing in their yard, they are surprised (over and over again) when I say that it was a bad shoot.
One of the great things about professional training is learning when not to shoot someone.
The Katar,
I recently did my AZ CCW and the instructor is a judge Pro Tem, Attorney and reserve deputy (or officer) and he presented the class from a lawyers point of view. It was very enlightening to say the least and was much different from the courses I had attended prviously taught by LEO's.
Does anyone actually have a problem, morally, with a thief being shot, under ANY circumstances?
I don't.
If more theives got shot while plying their trade, there would soon be less thieves in the world.
Deadly force is a last resort and should not be used to avenge the loss of property. It should only be used to stop grave physical harm to you or someone else. If someone is breaking into my truck parked in the driveway, I'm not going to lean out the bedroom window and shoot them. The inconvienence of dealing with my insurance company is far better than a jury trial.
Neither of the shoots listed in the OP are really justified in my not-legally-trained opinion. In neither case did the slain perpetrator present ability, intent, or opportunity to commit harm. Even the case of the armed man fleeing the scene who was chased down and killed does not pass that simple test. He had opportunity (he was there) and ability (he was armed), but he did not show intent (he was running away). Now, if the armed robber is standing in front of the clerk and says "Give me the money, or I'll shoot you," it's game on. But once the perpetrator is running away, he/she is no longer an immediate threat.
While I won't shed a tear over a thief getting plugged, I'd greatly prefer it's done within the bounds of the law. Bad and questionable shoots put a black stain on all of us, and help feed the media and political machine that wants to disarm all of us.
All a defendant has to do is establish a threat, and usually the other witness is dead. That shifts the burden to prosecutors and police investigators, who have to gather evidence to show beyond a reasonable doubt that deadly force wasn't justified, according to a report released this summer by the National District Attorneys Association.
To me, this is the way it should be. It is innocent until proven guilty, right? If I've defended myself and police arrive to find me and a dead perp that is armed with a gun or knife then the burden should shift to the police/DA to prove I was wrong, right? If I am left standing with a gun and an unarmed man is down then I had better be beaten badly to justify a shoot, in most cases. If I am unharmed and the downed man is unarmed then I would expect to be in deep $hit. I mean this libral, media bias toward anyone with a gun and especially one that uses a gun is a crimnal is total BS.
Laws on self defense were well taught in my CCW class, that was more than 15 years ago. We want soon to get my wife into a CCW class and I intend to attend as well just to refresh on the current laws.
To me these laws should be applied with common sense, do my thoughts on this matters make sense? What are your opinions?
Deadly force is a last resort and should not be used to avenge the loss of property. It should only be used to stop grave physical harm to you or someone else. If someone is breaking into my truck parked in the driveway, I'm not going to lean out the bedroom window and shoot them. The inconvienence of dealing with my insurance company is far better than a jury trial.
Neither of the shoots listed in the OP are really justified in my not-legally-trained opinion. In neither case did the slain perpetrator present ability, intent, or opportunity to commit harm. Even the case of the armed man fleeing the scene who was chased down and killed does not pass that simple test. He had opportunity (he was there) and ability (he was armed), but he did not show intent (he was running away). Now, if the armed robber is standing in front of the clerk and says "Give me the money, or I'll shoot you," it's game on. But once the perpetrator is running away, he/she is no longer an immediate threat.
While I won't shed a tear over a thief getting plugged, I'd greatly prefer it's done within the bounds of the law. Bad and questionable shoots put a black stain on all of us, and help feed the media and political machine that wants to disarm all of us.
I agree with pretty much everything you said, I think the only thing that may be missing here is how the law, in what ever area this happens, applies to the protection of property. If the armed man is running away then the threat to life has ended. If the armed man turns and shoots the chasing clerk then he may (and it has happened before) be able to claim self defense. Although I have a problem with a criminal using these loop holes. Man it is easy to get into some gray areas here.
I highly recommend training with someone like John Farnam for his insight into the legalities of what is and what is not a good shoot. While I do not agree with everything he teaches about gun handling nor some of his theories on shot placement, his lectures on mindset, awareness, threat avoidance and what to do after a shoot are worth the price of the course.
Guys I work with (who know me reasonably well and know that I shoot a lot) always make mistaken assumptions about how I might react to a situation. When a news story pops up in which some moron shoots someone because they were standing in their yard, they are surprised (over and over again) when I say that it was a bad shoot.
One of the great things about professional training is learning when not to shoot someone.
I hope I'm not in that category.;)
So if the man is running away with your food, or your only means of self-defense, or stealing your car/bike and thus leaving you stranded, or your life savings, and you think its OK to just waive him goodbye? The libs are intentionally selecting the most egregious cases to make a broader point (get rid of self defense laws, and ultimately get rid of guns) and you just fell for it hook, line and sinker. It's no wonder America is going down the crapper when we have cry babies who don't mind stealing too much, nor lying, nor adultry/fornication, nor any one of a hundred other sins that in times past were routinely condemned.
BTW, in TX its always been perfectly legal to shoot someone who's stealing your property.
So if the man is running away with your food, or your only means of self-defense, or stealing your car/bike and thus leaving you stranded, or your life savings, and you think its OK to just waive him goodbye? The libs are intentionally selecting the most egregious cases to make a broader point (get rid of self defense laws, and ultimately get rid of guns) and you just fell for it hook, line and sinker. It's no wonder America is going down the crapper when we have cry babies who don't mind stealing too much, nor lying, nor adultry/fornication, nor any one of a hundred other sins that in times past were routinely condemned.
BTW, in TX its always been perfectly legal to shoot someone who's stealing your property.
Don't try to take my comments to their most rediculous extrapolations. Can you name a single instance of when someone was robbed of a car or bike or loaf of bread and then died as a result? A single one?
I didn't fall for jack. I know full well why these cases were held up as examples, and why tens of thousands of lawful uses of firearms were not mentioned. But the two shootings mentioned were questionable, and if we don't try to teach discipline in our community to only shoot when necessary, these kinds of questionable shoots are going to erode our rights. It's that simple.
And I don't think stealing is ok, not by a long shot. I've had things stolen out of my truck, and had my house broken into while I was inside. But I'm also able to realize that shooting someone who pisses me off or takes a minor amount of property from me is going to cause me way more headaches than if I just called it into the insurance company. I might keep my TV from getting stolen, but I'll have to sell it to help pay for a lawyer.
If you want to shoot a teenager in the back for prying the stereo out of your car, go ahead. We'll see how lenient those laws in TX really are.
Actually, a few years ago a man in Garland, TX shot 3 men in the back as they were fleeing his house with his TV and stereo equipment. He didn't even bother to get out of his truck or yell "stop". Per TX law, his case was brought to the grand jury and they refused to indict him after less than 5 minutes of deliberation. This is not an isolated case. Folks in many parts of the country don't take kindly to stealing, and their peers feel the same way and won't put them in jail even if they shoot a thief in the back.
If you happen to live in the NE or Left Coast, I understand your attitude. I think its stupid, and don't agree with it, but I understand it. It is the exact same attitude that got us into the current economic depression--a few "educated" thieves have brought down the whole country. Just a little theivery, no problem, right? Wrong.
I can only speak for myself and will not judge others morally if they are ever involved in such a horrible situation. I personally would never shoot another unarmed human being for taking my stuff or that of others. I don't want the aftermath, both legal and personal to deal with. I can always buy more stuff. I have great insurance and have been extremely blessed in regards to finances in my 52 years on this earth.
Now having said that, I realize that so many other people are not as blessed and many will never get back or be able to replace something that has been stolen from them.
I also want to add that if I ever encounter a BG in my home or on our acreage( a mini ranch/farm/camp/whatever in the middle of nowhere in southern Highlands county FL) they had better turn and run immediately in the opposite direction from me and mine. I have no qualms about ending a threat to my life or that or other innocents and have mentally prepared and trained to do so, if that situation ever arises I will act accordingly.
P.S. As someone already stated, if thieves knew they could be legally shot for plying their misdeeds I bet it would cut down on such activities real quick
Actually, a few years ago a man in Garland, TX shot 3 men in the back as they were fleeing his house with his TV and stereo equipment.
If you happen to live in the NE or Left Coast, I understand your attitude. I think its stupid, and don't agree with it, but I understand it.
You got a link to that story? It's not passing the smell test.
I can live with my 'stupid' attitude disappointing you. It's not that I think thieves should get away with petty crime, it's that I don't think shooting an unarmed man in the back is the right solution. I don't mind if a thief gets plugged, but I'm not going to take my chances with a legal system that is, at best, mildly hostile to armed citizens. If you truly believe that TX has a no-bag limit, open season on unarmed petty criminals and vandals, hey, good luck with that.
Though I would definitely agree with defending my property circumstances matter. If someone breaks into my home "just to steal my 52" plasma" as far as I know they are there to do me harm and I will articulate that I was in fear of my life. If they are running out of the house I would probably give chase but I would not shot them in the back. Sometimes we really need to apply just a little common sense. OTOH if more of these douches were put down on the spot the others may reconsider their actions.
FromMyColdDeadHand
12-05-08, 15:00
Jackson Indian Storeowners Association
H0ly cr@p! Can you imagine the out rage of the Simpsons had Apu as the head of the "Jackson Indian Storeowners Association"! Maybe Joe Biden was right!
Although these cases are extreme examples, and "bad shoots" in my opinion, the basic premise of the article, and others like it, is flawed.
I've seen several of these articles decrying the fact that more people (perps) will die as a result of castle doctrine, and that the increase in deaths is inherently wrong.
Well, it makes sense that if you allow people to use deadly force to defend themselves instead of running away, there are going to be more perps getting shot. Simple logic, isn't it? Just like if you allow legal concealed carry, those guns are going to be used occasionally in self-defense, resulting in injury or death to the perp. Perps aren't going to stop committing crimes as soon as the law is passed, but if enough get shot while committing crimes, you may get a deterrent effect and crime rates might go down.
Most of these articles are written from the point of view that any death of a perp that wouldn't have been sentenced to death for his or her crime is wrong, and that no citizen should be able to unilaterally sentence a perp for any "punishment" that isn't equal to the crime.
The laws are pretty clear, you can only use deadly force if you have a reasonable belief that your life is in danger. Because we don't know the state of mind of a someone breaking into our house or car while we are occupying it, we have the legal right to assume they mean us harm and can use deadly force. But once the guy is running away and no longer a threat, we are no longer in danger.
Despite the implication of the author, the law is not the problem. The problem is that a couple people misinterpreted the law and went beyond what it clearly allows. That doesn't make the law bad, it just means people need to be better educated on what the law actually means.
variablebinary
12-05-08, 16:15
Does anyone actually have a problem, morally, with a thief being shot, under ANY circumstances?
I don't.
If more theives got shot while plying their trade, there would soon be less thieves in the world.
I dont totally disagree, but at the same time I dont want to be the guy who shot a 13 year old kid in the head because I caught him breaking into my car to steal my IPOD.
If someone is in my home that's a different story. All bets are off and I will what I need to and ensure my wife and baby are not at risk.
Its a case by case thing as it should be. I am not blood thirsty, but I wont hesitate to defend myself either.
You got a link to that story? It's not passing the smell test.
I can live with my 'stupid' attitude disappointing you. It's not that I think thieves should get away with petty crime, it's that I don't think shooting an unarmed man in the back is the right solution. I don't mind if a thief gets plugged, but I'm not going to take my chances with a legal system that is, at best, mildly hostile to armed citizens. If you truly believe that TX has a no-bag limit, open season on unarmed petty criminals and vandals, hey, good luck with that.
Here is one that happened this morning in the DFW area.
http://www.myfoxdfw.com/myfox/pages/Home/Detail?contentId=8014171&version=2&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=VSTY&pageId=1.1.1
None of those stories matched the one presented earlier of a man shooting three men in the back as they fled his yard with a TV. And some of the cases that are linked there will be presented to a grand jury, which could indict.
TX is more lenient at the DA level and the grand jury level than most states. However, a questionable shoot could still go to grand jury and an indictment could result. Is a TV or car stereo worth that kind of trouble? Especially one that would be replaced in a month or so? Yeah, you could be right in shooting a dirtbag as he runs out of your yard or is trying to get in your truck, but is your righteousness worth all the headache of a grand jury and possible trial? Even if no indictment is handed down, what about a wrongful death civil suit? I'm not saying I agree with that kind of lawyer mentality, but to think that it doesn't exist is inviting trouble.
If someone is in your home or trying to get in your home, and you think your life is threatened, go ahead and shoot. I'm not arguing that. But shooting someone running away from you on principle is risky and could be disastrous.
FromMyColdDeadHand
12-06-08, 04:15
A bad guy, knowing there is a good chance he'll get capped if he breaks into an occuppied home, takes a big risk. I must be common knowledge in bad guy circles that there is a castle defense doctrine, so I think anyone breaking into a home where people are home the home owner has to think that they are up to more than the usual shenanigans.
None of those stories matched the one presented earlier of a man shooting three men in the back as they fled his yard with a TV. And some of the cases that are linked there will be presented to a grand jury, which could indict.
TX is more lenient at the DA level and the grand jury level than most states. However, a questionable shoot could still go to grand jury and an indictment could result. Is a TV or car stereo worth that kind of trouble? Especially one that would be replaced in a month or so? Yeah, you could be right in shooting a dirtbag as he runs out of your yard or is trying to get in your truck, but is your righteousness worth all the headache of a grand jury and possible trial? Even if no indictment is handed down, what about a wrongful death civil suit? I'm not saying I agree with that kind of lawyer mentality, but to think that it doesn't exist is inviting trouble.
If someone is in your home or trying to get in your home, and you think your life is threatened, go ahead and shoot. I'm not arguing that. But shooting someone running away from you on principle is risky and could be disastrous.
The story was just an example. I believe that case will still be reviewed.
A bad guy, knowing there is a good chance he'll get capped if he breaks into an occuppied home, takes a big risk. I must be common knowledge in bad guy circles that there is a castle defense doctrine, so I think anyone breaking into a home where people are home the home owner has to think that they are up to more than the usual shenanigans.
You can't fix stupid. These idiots broke into the wrong apartment.
http://www.myfoxdfw.com/myfox/pages/Home/Detail?contentId=7945836&version=2&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=TSTY&pageId=1.1.1
Sounds to me like alot of people need to learn about the use force continuum...
I also score this as a bad shoot
But there is a point where repeated robberies do threaten a business owners life, or at least livelyhood
So while I think it is crazy to shoot at a guy driving away with a case of beer
I am not totally comfortable saying that you should never defend "stuff" with deadly force
And what I am much more concerned with is that this article as well as one on illegal gun trafficking between states appeared on the same spread of my local paper
Along with a third about the Nat Park Ruling
The indoctrination may be beginning
Sounds to me like alot of people need to learn about the use force continuum...
BINGO!!!!
John_Wayne777
12-06-08, 17:01
Although these cases are extreme examples, and "bad shoots" in my opinion, the basic premise of the article, and others like it, is flawed.
I've seen several of these articles decrying the fact that more people (perps) will die as a result of castle doctrine, and that the increase in deaths is inherently wrong.
Bingo. These articles try to portray the castle doctrine as a license to kill. This specific article is especially odious in this respect as it mentions only one "witness" being alive at the end of the shootout....as if the guy laying dead with the multi-felony rap-sheet and a gun is really hard to pinpoint as the bad guy...:rolleyes:
The inclusion of Joe Horn's shooting is also a propaganda tactic. AFAIK Texas didn't enact a castle doctrine law recently....but why bother with that bit of fact when you can make a point by leaving out the truth? In any case, the end result of Horn's actions was not a loss to society. His actions were foolish but ultimately a grand jury concluded that "they deserved it" was a sufficient justification for shooting the bastards. Good for them. I wouldn't act as Joe Horn acted in the same circumstances, and I wouldn't ever advise that anyone repeat his actions as I'm quite sure he'll tell you himself that life sucked royally for him after he pulled that trigger.
Nevertheless, I have no tears to shed for the dead scumbag and if I was on the grand jury I would have no-billed him too.
Most of these articles are written from the point of view that any death of a perp that wouldn't have been sentenced to death for his or her crime is wrong, and that no citizen should be able to unilaterally sentence a perp for any "punishment" that isn't equal to the crime.
I would go further...the press in general objects to the death penalty and often writes articles critical of even police shootings. Many in the press object to any laws or powers that end up with dead criminals, ESPECIALLY when the people doing the shooting don't wear a badge. The fate of the intended victims of these scumbags doesn't play into their diseased thought process.
Speaking personally, I'm not going to risk a shootout over a DVD player. If the guy is stealing my DVD player and shits himself and runs the minute I light him up with the Surefire, it would be cheaper to buy a new DVD player than to go through a homicide investigation. Castle law or not, I'm not shooting. If I did need to shoot, however, it would be nice to know that the scumbag's equally worthless "Mah baby didn't do nuttin'!" relatives couldn't sue me for it.
I would go further...the press in general objects to the death penalty and often writes articles critical of even police shootings. Many in the press object to any laws or powers that end up with dead criminals, ESPECIALLY when the people doing the shooting don't wear a badge.
Absolutely. Except they don't seem to mind it so much when rural white trash perps get killed. If there isn't a racial angle they often don't run with it.
And whenever the police shoot a violent perp with a history of crime, every activist comes out of the woodwork to denounce the shooting and demonize the police, especially if there's a racial angle. But they are curiously silent whenever cop is killed by one of the same perps.
I do find it interesting the a grand jury in Texas will let someone go like that. He clearly overstepped the intent of the law but it was still OK with the average citizen. Gotta love a state where the people don't take any shit, and give citizens the benefit of the doubt against criminals.
Is there any evidence that shows break-ins, and especially hot burglaries (break-ins with the occupant present) are lower in Texas than in states without Castle doctrine?
Does anyone actually have a problem, morally, with a thief being shot, under ANY circumstances? I don't. If more theives got shot while plying their trade, there would soon be less thieves in the world.
Good luck with that.
I place too high a value on human life to end it in the intervention of a property crime.
Having seen a fair number, I'm not inclined to believe there's many where it's worth it.
Good luck with that.
I place too high a value on human life to end it in the intervention of a property crime.
Having seen a fair number, I'm not inclined to believe there's many where it's worth it.
I concur Skintop.
The casual way that some of these posts talk about taking a life tells me that they are on the "Net" talking and that they have never been in the "Sh#t" period.
John_Wayne777
12-06-08, 19:07
I concur Skintop.
The casual way that some of these posts talk about taking a life tells me that they are on the "Net" talking and that they have never been in the "Sh#t" period.
There are two sides to that, in my opinion:
1. An opinion of the intrinsic value of the life of the criminals in our society in a metaphysical sense
2. A realistic assessment of the financial, legal, relational, and perceptional consequences of taking a criminal's life.
If we were to take the temperature of most of M4C on question one I doubt that we would discover that the lives of the criminals in our society are valued very highly by the membership of this site. In fact, the temperature on that question might be so low that it would alarm those with a delicate constitution. I doubt there is a vast reserve of concern for the guys who shoot convenience store clerks or people trying to get money out of the ATM.
Now if we were to look at question 2 there would be a much different trend. While many individuals may not place a lot of value on the continued existence of somebody in their house stealing their DVD player, nevertheless you would observe that a significant number would be reluctant to pull the trigger (even if legally justified) simply because of what that action would cost them.
I often remind people on another forum that if there is somebody bleeding out in their den that they *will* have to answer for it. Their family will hear the guy death rattling. Their neighbors will see the squad cars rolling in code 3 and will come out just about in time to see the the police tape going up and the coroner going in with a stretcher and a body bag. They'll be answering questions from uniformed officers and detectives for hours both at the scene and at the station. Lawyers will need to be called.
When they finally get to go home they'll be coming home to a crime scene complete with the big stain in the carpet were the intruder spent his last moments on earth....
Etcetera.
There's nothing fun about the aftermath of a shooting. Even if it's 100% justified in the eyes of the authorities and everybody who belonged in the house comes through without a scratch, the process itself can make a simultaneous root canal and prostate exam look damned pleasant in comparison.
I would submit for consideration that these sorts of discussions often blur the line between items one and two. The Joe Horn case is a good example. When that case first hit I posted in a TOS thread detailing all the ways in which Joe Horn screwed up and how I would never in a million years behave as he did on that day. I pointed out that even on the 911 tape you could hear the fear in Horn's voice after the shooting as the reality of what he had just done was realized. The "you hear my shotgun, don'tcha?" bravado was gone.
I said repeatedly that if Horn had it all to do over again, he most likely would not repeat his actions that day. Staring down a possible indictment isn't a "fun" or enjoyable experience. Being a headline on CNN isn't a "fun" or enjoyable experience. Being the object of protests by "civil rights" groups isn't a fun or enjoyable experience.
As I said before, I wasn't the least bit saddened by the outcome of Horn's shooting, nor would I vote to indict him if I was on the grand jury....but there isn't a snowball's chance in hell I would make the decisions he made that day. I'd much rather be a good witness and let the cops deal with the perpetrators than be on the hook for shooting them.
I regard lethal force as a last resort to be used only when I have no real reasonable alternative. Nevertheless, if somebody pulls the trigger in a situation where I wouldn't have done it I won't shed any tears for the scumbag who got a dose of ballistic karma. ;) I think you'll find that most here have a very similar view on things.
That, of course, doesn't begin to cover the response to events like the guy out in California who beat his toddler into hamburger on the side of the road. The officer who finally put a bullet in that jerk's head had to go through a homicide investigation...but I'd wager that even though it isn't the most pleasant process in the world he would do it again in a heartbeat. I dare say most of us on M4C would buy that guy some ammo, a steak, and a beer for taking out the trash because as harsh as it sounds, there are just some people who don't need to walk among us.
My 2 cents. YMMV.
I doubt there is a vast reserve of concern for the guys who shoot convenience store clerks or people trying to get money out of the ATM.
I regard lethal force as a last resort to be used only when I have no real reasonable alternative. Nevertheless, if somebody pulls the trigger in a situation where I wouldn't have done it I won't shed any tears for the scumbag who got a dose of ballistic karma. ;)
The two stories concerned unarmed scumbags outside of store and home.
John_Wayne777
12-06-08, 19:49
The two stories concerned unarmed scumbags outside of store and home.
...and again, shooting them would not have been the course of action I would have taken in the Horn case or the case of the stolen beer. Shooting the perps in those cases just isn't worth it.
That being said, when I dig down into my bowels of compassion for the perps in these cases I keep coming up dry.
While I don't really think petty theft deserves the death penalty, we all know that the sorts of people who do this sort of thing generally aren't straying from the straight and narrow just this once. I would argue that what you see in these discussions is the expression of the frustration people feel at the powerlessness society shows in the face of the criminal element.
In a staring contest with scumbags the good guys (and by that I mean society as a whole) usually blink. That's frustrating as hell. I think what you often see in these threads is an expression of that frustration.
JW,
I agree 100% with your analysis and you probably articulated this better than than anyone thus far. I was involved in a job related shooting back in 1997. In my case I was the one who was shot as I did not even have the opportunity to shoot back. The physical and emotional drain afterwards was unreal.
I learned several valuable lessons from that incident. One of them was no matter how prepared you think that you are, you probably aren't.
I am the utmost proponent of self-defense and protecting ones property. However, there most certainly has to be common sense applied. Being a victim of a burglary is probably one of the worst crimes that one can suffer. Primarily because the home is the one place where you should feel safe and that safety and security is violated by some douchebag who feels the need to steal your property. That doesn't mean that I am going to shoot someone for stealing my TV. I certainly would not shoot someone as they are leaving my store or residence as that violates any kind of common sense test.
...and again, shooting them would not have been the course of action I would have taken in the Horn case or the case of the stolen beer. Shooting the perps in those cases just isn't worth it.
That being said, when I dig down into my bowels of compassion for the perps in these cases I keep coming up dry.
While I don't really think petty theft deserves the death penalty, we all know that the sorts of people who do this sort of thing generally aren't straying from the straight and narrow just this once. I would argue that what you see in these discussions is the expression of the frustration people feel at the powerlessness society shows in the face of the criminal element.
In a staring contest with scumbags the good guys (and by that I mean society as a whole) usually blink. That's frustrating as hell. I think what you often see in these threads is an expression of that frustration.
Two points:
1. While you never want to be "that guy" who shoots a 13-year-old for stealing an IPOD, you also have a right to confront and stop that 13-year-old and defend yourself in the process if HE turns around and goes from would-be petty thief to a deadly threat to you. The media may paint you as "shooting a child over an IPOD" but that just isn't the case if that 13-year-old points a gun at you when you confront him. Sometimes these situations are more complicated than they appear. In other words, don't shoot the little bastard just because he's stealing your IPOD, but be prepared to do so if he reacts with violence when you rightfully try to stop him.
2. Reporters who write these stories about "changes" in self-defense laws have very short memories. The common law of England and in the U.S. for MANY years in pretty much every state allowed self-defense, including deadly force if reasonable, anywhere one had a right to be so long as the defender did nothing to cause the altercation. Inside the home, outside the home - doesn't matter. That is still the law in Virginia where there are no statutory provisions and the common law prevails.
States that are now passing these so-called "castle doctrine" and "make my day" laws must have, at some point in the past, abrogated the common law rules to restrict self-defense. So really all they are doing now is undoing (in some cases only partially) the deviation from the normal common law rules that they enacted some time ago. Those terms in quotes are media terms meant to sensationalize. A more accurate description would be "reversion to the common law" or "repeal of restrictions abrogating the common law rules."
The most non-sensical thing the media is trying to do is blame a law for the people that are breaking it. This is a major logical fallacy.
Castle doctrine laws in most states are pretty specific about when deadly force is justified. Shooting a fleeing thief who is no longer a threat in the back is not covered in most states. Therefore reasonable self defense laws don't cause people to become vigilantes, rather vigilantes ignore the limits of reasonable self defense laws and go too far.
If people go beyond the law, it doesn't make the law wrong, it just means those people were wrong. If they went too far, they may be punished. But if you can't get a grand jury to indict, that's a whole different issue.
Now I will say that there is an ignorant segment of the population that may misinterpret the law, just as they misinterpret other laws. I saw a women who lives in Indiana say on television, in so many words, that she would kill a particular person if he set foot on her property, and there's nothing anyone can do about it because it's her property. This was not a guy who had threatened her or done anything illegal, just someone she didn't like because he was an asshole. Indiana castle doctrine protects the domicile from forced entry and justifies deadly force, you cannot simply shoot any trespasser on your property even if they are not posing a threat.
You are absolutely correct on all counts. That woman in Indiana needs a serious education before she ends up unlawfully killing someone.
Jack_Stroker
12-07-08, 18:10
Actually, a few years ago a man in Garland, TX shot 3 men in the back as they were fleeing his house with his TV and stereo equipment. He didn't even bother to get out of his truck or yell "stop". Per TX law, his case was brought to the grand jury and they refused to indict him after less than 5 minutes of deliberation. This is not an isolated case. Folks in many parts of the country don't take kindly to stealing, and their peers feel the same way and won't put them in jail even if they shoot a thief in the back.
If you happen to live in the NE or Left Coast, I understand your attitude. I think its stupid, and don't agree with it, but I understand it. It is the exact same attitude that got us into the current economic depression--a few "educated" thieves have brought down the whole country. Just a little theivery, no problem, right? Wrong.
Texas has no laws stating you must say anything to a thief of anyone who is commiting a crime that allows for the justified use of deadly force. I do not know where you heard that but it isn't true.
Secondly when is a thief just a thief? What if he turns out to be more than that? What if YOU make him more than a simple thief?
If you see someone in your house stealing your posessions, you do not have any way of knowing for sure that the thief is just a thief and nothing else. That thief might be a murderer, serial killer, or rapist. You really have no idea what their motivation for being in your home really is at the time. That thief might have had no plans on hurting anyone but once you confront him things will change. The thief you must understand, is not a good decision maker in the first place or he wouldn't have chosen theft as his vocation. Thieves are a cowardly bunch as a general rule and thus they are very likely to be scared easily. So if that thief feels threatened by you or anyone else who lives in your home that thief may turn into something else entirely different and much worse in mere seconds. Afterall you may be armed, and if you survive you are the whitness that can send that thief to prison. So when that thief sees you he may become more than a thief. Suddenly that thief may become a murderer or worse. You really have no way to know what that person or persons are capable of. If you don't think the guy is armed then wrestling with him or engaging in hand to hand combat with the guy could be a potentially deadly mistake. They could be armed, and you failed to see it or that person might just vary well be a much better fighter than you. There could easily be more than one thief and they may (and probably are) younger and in better physical condition than you are. So from a safety perspective you being armed with a firearm is the best way to go. Having a weapon and the will to use it puts you in greater control of the situation. If the thief or thieves don't have guns then you will most likely have the advantage. You'll have a greater ability to deliver decisive action when needed and you should know your home better than the thief does. Knowing your surroundings better gives you additional advantages. If a single thief is armed then you are (at worst) on equal terms with them.
So a thief isn't always just a thief.
I'd be curious to know... Who among those participating have:
Been the vicitm of property crimes, esp robbery, occupied structure larceny/thefts, and occupied-home burglaries (generally)
Been the victim of people crimes, esp assault
Intervened in same, esp through the threat or application of lethal force
Investigated same
Prosecuted same
Testified in court for any reason, esp in relation to these types of cases
Defended a use of force to a review board or criminal court, esp in these types of cases
Been named a defendant in a criminal case for a use of force event
Been named a defendant in a civil case for a use of force event
It's fine to have and tender an opinion on the topic, but clearly, some will be more informed than others.
I hate the fact that society and courts have empowered criminals and encumbered citizens. Nonetheless, it's the price we pay as we maintain some semblence of the sanctity of life.
Skin,
I intercepted a misguided individual one night back in 1996 or so when I lived in WA state who was (I believe) attempting to break into my vehicle in the drive way of my townhouse. I went through the backdoor and around the side with Mr. Remington. He was standing next to the door of my vehicle and I lit him up with the Surefire attached to said shotgun. I ordered him to the ground (he was armed with a large flat tip screw driver) and told him to drop the object. Needless to say it was a long 5 minutes until the S.O arrived.
He was arrested for malicious mischief, criminal trespassing and something else. One of the deputies told me if I had "popped him" more than likely I would have walked.
A few lessons learned. I will probably not go outside if it were to happen again as it was late night and I had no real idea what was happening and there could have been other perps with him.
If he had done something stupid armed the edge weapon (screwdriver) would I have been justified and could I convince a jury that I acted reasonably and prudent?
I was also the vicitm of an attempted car jacking/ assault in Seattle around 1997 or so. At the time I was working as a bail bondsman and I was working a case in West Seattle. I had just been involved in a situation where the guy I was looking for bailed and ran and SPD showed up to assist. I gave them a description and after no joy they rolled out. I went back to the strip mall area where he was last seen and I was driving the parking lot (Mc D's) was right there, when a young black male stepped in front of my car (fairly new Lincoln Towncar) and wouldn't move. My driver window was down. I honked the horn for him to move and he did. As I started to accelerate away he reached through the window and punched me in the face. I was armed with a G22, OC and an ASP.
Needless to say I was pissed, slammed on the brakes and went to get out of the car. As I turned to open the door (forgot my seatbelt was on) all of a sudden he and 3 others guys were now standing at the door, they opened it and tried to pull me out (seatbelt saved me) I reached down, grabbed my OC and dumped the whole can on them and me (it was rather confusing as I was using my left arm to fight them off) as I sprayed. They broke contact, I put the car in drive and sped off.
I called 911 and told them what happened. I then drew my G22 and had it discreetly ready for round two. I told the dispatcher that I was armed and that one of the guys was going to the trunk of his vehicle and that they should get someone out here quick. After the realized that I had called SPD they took off in separate directions on foot. I followed the primary shithead with my vehicle as much as I could and eventually a couple of units arrived. We ended up finding one of them about 2 blocks away, casually walking down the street. Still had an orange stain on the white t-shirt from where the OC hit him. He mouthed off as soon as they started to interview him and he was subsequently arrested and charged with a misdemeanor (don't remember what.)
Lessons learned. My situational awareness sucked and I should have noticed his boys at the front door of Mc D's, to the left of me hanging out. I also should have drove on through "get off the X" :D after the punch to the face rather than stopping thereby allowing them opportunity to strike. The SPD guys all told me that I was well within my right to use deadly force in this situation. I felt otherwise and I guess because of past training I opted for a lesser means of force. Had I not been caught off guard, and had they not opened my door things may have gone differently. There was definitely potential for an innocent bystander getting shot in the melee as well as me getting disarmed.
Needless to say that in my older age I am a lot more aware of my surroundings and alot more likely to avoid a confrontation unless there is no other option.
I'd be curious to know... Who among those participating have:
Been the vicitm of property crimes, esp robbery, occupied structure larceny/thefts, and occupied-home burglaries (generally)
Been the victim of people crimes, esp assault
Intervened in same, esp through the threat or application of lethal force
Investigated same
Prosecuted same
Testified in court for any reason, esp in relation to these types of cases
Defended a use of force to a review board or criminal court, esp in these types of cases
Been named a defendant in a criminal case for a use of force event
Been named a defendant in a civil case for a use of force event
It's fine to have and tender an opinion on the topic, but clearly, some will be more informed than others.
I hate the fact that society and courts have empowered criminals and encumbered citizens. Nonetheless, it's the price we pay as we maintain some semblence of the sanctity of life.
I support the use of force in defense of property. My family and I endured a year and a half of vadalism and theft at the hands of local hoodlums only to have the police tell me that my only recourse was to stand by and be a victim. It's too long a story to tell here, but it was total BS IMO and made living in my neighborhood hell.
Repeated violations of my property, over and over and over again for 18 months get pretty old and seriously, negatively impact the life of your family. Thankfully, the punks moved away.
It's high time people stopped getting away with crap.
That said, I am well aware of the law and just stand idly by and let people steal and vandalize. Sure, under Virginia law I have the right to use "reasonable" force to protect property, which never includes deadly force. But, I am armed. Introducing myself, armed, into the middle of an iPod theft is a recipie for disaster under current law. Like the previous poster stated, the iPod thief pulls a knife then you just suddenly became the "bad guy" who shot someone over an iPod. In my town, I may as well just check into the county jail myself and save the tax payers the trouble.
I'd be curious to know... Who among those participating have:
Been the vicitm of property crimes, esp robbery, occupied structure larceny/thefts, and occupied-home burglaries (generally)
When I was in high school, someone blew up my mailbox with a pipebomb.
While I was in college, someone broke into my truck twice, and broke into the house (while everyone was inside), all on separate occasions.
Does anyone actually have a problem, morally, with a thief being shot, under ANY circumstances?
I don't.
If more theives got shot while plying their trade, there would soon be less thieves in the world.
Morally, no. I am all for shooting thieves. Property is not just "stuff," and most people who characterize it as such are of a collectivist bent.
The right to defend the fruits of one's life and labor is a cornerstone of freedom, so it's no surprise that property rights have been, and continue to be, eroded by the socialists aong us.
Good luck with that.
I place too high a value on human life to end it in the intervention of a property crime.
Having seen a fair number, I'm not inclined to believe there's many where it's worth it.
There is the view that property represents that portion of one's life spent earning it; a part of life that can never be regained if stolen. Also, a part of one's life is spent earning the insurance that would replace it.
I, too, would not shoot a kid stealing an ipod, and not just because of possible legal repercussions. Some proportionality is obviously required.
There is the view that property represents that portion of one's life spent earning it; a part of life that can never be regained if stolen. Also, a part of one's life is spent earning the insurance that would replace it. I, too, would not shoot a kid stealing an ipod, and not just because of possible legal repercussions. Some proportionality is obviously required.
What's your threshold, then? What property crimes warrant the use of lethal force for the interdiction or capture of an offender?
Also, how many boxes did you check off in my list?
What's your threshold, then? What property crimes warrant the use of lethal force for the interdiction or capture of an offender?
Honestly, I'm not sure I can give a definitive answer to that. If someone was stealing something out of my car, I would certainly confront them, and because I would be armed, any use of force would depend on the actions of the thief. If he fled, I wouldn't shoot them in the back and given my physical limitations, I probably wouldn't chase them. Given any repeat performances, that may change. My circumstances are such that I am not likely to suffer this sort of thing any more. Thieves would have to be in my home to take anything of value from me. That fact changes things a lot.
Also, how many boxes did you check off in my list?
I have had stuff stolen from my car, and I was mugged (armed robbery). None of the others.
If he fled, I wouldn't shoot them in the back and given my physical limitations, I probably wouldn't chase them. Given any repeat performances, that may change.
Do you believe that a "repeat performance" would change your legal privilege to use deadly force in this sort of situation?
I don't think it would.
Do you believe that a "repeat performance" would change your legal privilege to use deadly force in this sort of situation?
I don't think it would.
No, I don't believe that it would, legally, in my jurisdiction. I was referring more to my attitude. I would hope that a "kid" who is stealing for the thrill would be scared straight by nearly getting caught. One who persisted is obviously on his way to committing more serious crimes.
Please understand that I am talking as much about moral philosophy as I am about legality or real-world action. I could see myself deciding not to put myself through the legal hassle and mental anguish of shooting a thief. But that doesn't mean I don't think I would be morally justified in doing so.
Conversely, I know that shooting and killing someone, for whatever reason, would haunt me for the rest of my life, even if it was a good shoot.
Property is not just "stuff," and most people who characterize it as such are of a collectivist bent.
So, because I won't shoot an unarmed man in the back who is stealing my car stereo, I'm a commie?
Look, I've got insurance. If something gets stolen, it gets replaced. Yes, I understand the feeling of victimization that comes with losing something valuable. I'm had things stolen. When my roommate woke me up to tell me there was someone in the house I went down the stairs to confront him and drive him from the house. If he had offered the slightest resistance, I would have shot him. Since he ran, I didn't pursue or shoot him in the back.
To me, this isn't a question of morality. This is a use of force question. The consequences of shooting someone are dire and long lasting. I'm not willing to risk a jury trial over something that could get easily replaced. The only exception to that are my guns. If someone is trying to steal my firearms, I will do everything in my power to stop them, including the use of lethal force.
So, because I won't shoot an unarmed man in the back who is stealing my car stereo, I'm a commie?
No.
You make your choice freely. It's the people who tell others not to use force who are the commies.
To me, this isn't a question of morality. This is a use of force question.
It's both.
It's the application of morality to real-world situations that allows for differing opinions.
You make your choice freely. It's the people who tell others not to use force who are the commies.
You're entitled to your opinion, and you can even share it with others. Characterizing those who disagree as "commies" does nothing for you or your argument though.
Some that disagree with you here and elsewhere include some pretty noteworthy folks in the vein, and who have extensive backgrounds and vitae in the subject matter. They would also be some of the last people others would ever charactize as "commies", sympathizers, and apologists.
You might want to check your fire.
I consider myself more of a Nazi. Something about those commie uniforms just doesn't appeal to me. They look so peasantish. Is that a word?
You're entitled to your opinion, and you can even share it with others. Characterizing those who disagree as "commies" does nothing for you or your argument though.
Some that disagree with you here and elsewhere include some pretty noteworthy folks in the vein, and who have extensive backgrounds and vitae in the subject matter. They would also be some of the last people others would ever charactize as "commies", sympathizers, and apologists.
You might want to check your fire.
Back when I used to do CCW-certification style classes or other more beginner oriented stuff, I used a simple term to help people think about their use of force decisions: TORO.
If using that level of force, especially lethal force, is The Only Reasonable Option, then use it. If there are other reasonable options that will allow you and yours to go on with your lives without the expense, notoriety, and stress of a criminal investigation and possible prosecution ... choose another option instead.
Now, TORO is more restrictive than a lot of laws in a lot of states. So if you're looking for the widest possible set of excuses to shoot someone, TORO is not your guide.
But if your primary goal is to stay alive and free to support and enjoy your family for years to come, using lethal force only when all other reasonable options have evaporated is a pretty safe guideline.
(this is not legal advice and I am not your attorney)
Heavy Metal
12-08-08, 18:05
If you chose to confront a thief, a Taser or Pepper Spray backed up by your sidearm provide a less than lethal option for intervention.
You're entitled to your opinion, and you can even share it with others. Characterizing those who disagree as "commies" does nothing for you or your argument though.
Some that disagree with you here and elsewhere include some pretty noteworthy folks in the vein, and who have extensive backgrounds and vitae in the subject matter. They would also be some of the last people others would ever charactize as "commies", sympathizers, and apologists.
You might want to check your fire.
Sorry, I think I was not clear enough.
I was not referring to those of you who are giving practical and legal advice that shooting someone over property is a bad idea (and illegal in most jurisdictions). I agree with you. I am sorry that it may have come across like that
I was trying to refer specifically to the philosophical argument that thieves should have some protection from harm when stealing your property. I was also equating property with life, on a philosophical level.
That makes more sense. Thank you for the clarification.
AirTrafficControl
12-08-08, 22:02
I firmly believe that anyone that would risk their own life to steal anything of value from another idividual is signing his own death certificate. Justice has it's own way of be served...ATC
All I have to say is if dirty scumbag thieves knew that a victim could shoot them without having to suffer the recourse of our dictatorial laws. There would be a shit ton less robberies and crime all together.
John_Wayne777
12-09-08, 07:51
All I have to say is if dirty scumbag thieves knew that a victim could shoot them without having to suffer the recourse of our dictatorial laws. There would be a shit ton less robberies and crime all together.
Entirely possible.
A gun dealer I used to frequent once responded to an alarm and ended up aiming his Benelli shotgun at a would-be thief armed with a screwdriver.
After the shock of having somebody point a 12 gauge at his face wore off, the thief began to get antsy knowing that the cops were coming. When warned that if he continued to move he'd get a load of buckshot in the face the thief snappily replied "You can't shoot me! That's murder! They'll put you in jail!"
Criminals know how to play the system. They can make it work for them whereas honest people often end up being screwed over by the system because they are honest.
All I have to say is if dirty scumbag thieves knew that a victim could shoot them without having to suffer the recourse of our dictatorial laws. There would be a shit ton less robberies and crime all together.
That's true, for the past part.
The downside is that it's also likley to create more of the super-predators who have greater predisposition toward indiscriminate violence.
An imperfect analogy, but a good visual is found in car crashes. Enact certain control methods and you'll have fewer crashes, but with greater severity. Enact others and you'll have more crashes, but with less severity. You have to decide what you're willing to accept.
sandpacker21
12-09-08, 19:57
Ted Nugent said it best..... I DON"T LIKE REPEAT OFFENDER"S I LIKE DEAD ONE"S..
If this start happining all over to me it would deter crime... A theif would think twice before stealing,killing raping or whatever.. The truth is if a theif would rob anything he would eventuialy kill or be a rapist.. Small crimes turn into bigger ones later.. In this Counrty we have to many bleeding heart Libreals....
If a theft,rapist criminal does not want to die dont freaking do it...... Id rather see a thug dead than an inniocent person or my child killed, raped or beaten..
I've been the victim of property crimes. Four men were convicted of felonies for them, and at least one more got away clean.
I wouldn't shoot people over property. I don't own anything worth enough that it would be cheaper to kill someone. Thats not to say I won't shoot them, I just won't shoot them over property.
As far as I am concerned, the law ought to say that you can use any force you wish to use, to repel an unlawful intrusion into your domicile. To include monkey stomping, if one is so inclined.
As far as I am concerned, the law ought to say that you can use any force you wish to use, to repel an unlawful intrusion into your domicile. To include monkey stomping, if one is so inclined.
Honestly now, who wouldn't love to turn on the 11 o'clock news and hear "A burglary turned deadly tonight when a homeowner monkey stomped an intruder to death"?
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.