In Kenosha, WI: Carjacking victim to be charged with endangering attacker?

[titsonritz]

Two Points,
One; You left the car either running or with the key in the ignition. Dummy.

Two; If you value your life like I value my stuff, leave it alone. It's that simple.

I can get behind that.

[chadbag]

Let me just leave this here:

A Nation of Cowards
by Jeffrey Snyder
from 1993

http://www.rkba.org/comment/cowards.html

[ViperTwoSix]

I think this case highlights the need to understand the laws while carrying a firearm. As georgeib said, some states do not allow you to protect property with deadly force. The state I live in is one of those. For example, if someone is burglarizing my car and no one is in it, deadly force would be illegal. However, if the car was occupied then deadly force would be justified. Wether it makes sense or not, that’s the current law and it is in my best interest to understand it.

On another note, I think there are always two standards we have to look at, legal and moral. I know many of you believe protection of property by deadly force is justifiable, and I cannot disagree. But I do believe that, as I think Dr. Malcolm in Jurassic Park put it, just because we could doesn’t mean that we should. Would I, if I found myself in the same situation, shoot a 13 year old for stealing my car and only my car? I don’t know. Teenagers do a lot of stupid stuff. I know I did. Some teen making a huge mistake doesn’t always equate to a death sentence morally, even if justified legally. I know it’s all extremely circumstantial, but I know if certain people that I’ve encountered as a teen hadn’t shown considerable restraint then I may not be here today.

All else aside, shooting out the tires would be too Hollywood for me. Personally, I know my capabilities and if my target is the tires of a moving vehicle I know that my chances of actually hitting a tire with a handgun is nil.

[TomMcC]

Let me just leave this here:

A Nation of Cowards
by Jeffrey Snyder
from 1993

http://www.rkba.org/comment/cowards.html

I have this book by Jeffrey and consider it a good one, read it multiple times. We have to be careful though, the issue being a lethal force crime being present along with the property crime. In that case, if possible, lethal force is most definitely called for. Don't think Jeffrey would advocate the use of lethal force for strictly property crimes. I certainly don't and neither, for the most part, has modern western society. We don't give people the death penalty for burglary, or grand theft auto.

[ABNAK]

I have this book by Jeffrey and consider it a good one, read it multiple times. We have to be careful though, the issue being a lethal force crime being present along with the property crime. In that case, if possible, lethal force is most definitely called for. Don't think Jeffrey would advocate the use of lethal force for strictly property crimes. I certainly don't and neither, for the most part, has modern western society. We don't give people the death penalty for burglary, or grand theft auto.

This is a different scenario than the OP, but mull this over: you hear someone in your house at night. Do you wait for them to actually try to run out with your stereo, or attack you? Or do you just cap their ass when you encounter them? I vote for the latter. The former can get you killed.

[TomMcC]

This is a different scenario than the OP, but mull this over: you hear someone in your house at night. Do you wait for them to actually try to run out with your stereo, or attack you? Or do you just cap their ass when you encounter them? I vote for the latter. The former can get you killed.

I think it would depend on the developing scenario and the lay out of your house. I've thought about it a bunch considering my lay out. A 2 story home. If the burglar is staying downstairs and stealing things, I'm not going down there. I have home owners insurance for that. I will be locked and loaded at the top of the stairs, 911 called. IF he starts up the stairs, he's done. I really really am trying to make it through life without killing someone, I don't see killing someone for material stuff (biblically speaking). Fearing for my life, that's the big demarcation.

[ABNAK]

I think it would depend on the developing scenario and the lay out of your house. I've thought about it a bunch considering my lay out. A 2 story home. If the burglar is staying downstairs and stealing things, I'm not going down there. I have home owners insurance for that. I will be locked and loaded at the top of the stairs, 911 called. IF he starts up the stairs, he's done. I really really am trying to make it through life without killing someone, I don't see killing someone for material stuff (biblically speaking). Fearing for my life, that's the big demarcation.

I can get on board with that, and not for humanitarian issues either. To go downstairs and try to "clear" it could lead to an unhealthy end for you if ambushed. You're safe at the top of the steps, and have the approach covered. As long as no loved ones are downstairs the thief either settles for what's on the first floor, or seals his fate. If he started up the steps I would not issue a warning however. Silence on my part, prior to the BANG, is part of a smart home defense scenario. Voice gives away position; not a wise choice. If the perp is not alone then his buddy now knows how to maneuver (or shoot through the walls/floor up at you).

I don't ever want to pull the trigger on someone either (i.e. it's not a wet dream of mine or anything) but will not hesitate to do so.

[Wildcat]

This is a different scenario than the OP, but mull this over: you hear someone in your house at night. Do you wait for them to actually try to run out with your stereo, or attack you? Or do you just cap their ass when you encounter them? I vote for the latter. The former can get you killed.

Aren't there still some states that insist you retreat from your home rather than allow you to use deadly force against an intruder?

I don't like the idea but some state/local laws are misguided.

[vicious_cb]

On another note, I think there are always two standards we have to look at, legal and moral. I know many of you believe protection of property by deadly force is justifiable, and I cannot disagree. But I do believe that, as I think Dr. Malcolm in Jurassic Park put it, just because we could doesn’t mean that we should. Would I, if I found myself in the same situation, shoot a 13 year old for stealing my car and only my car? I don’t know. Teenagers do a lot of stupid stuff. I know I did. Some teen making a huge mistake doesn’t always equate to a death sentence morally, even if justified legally. I know it’s all extremely circumstantial, but I know if certain people that I’ve encountered as a teen hadn’t shown considerable restraint then I may not be here today.

All else aside, shooting out the tires would be too Hollywood for me. Personally, I know my capabilities and if my target is the tires of a moving vehicle I know that my chances of actually hitting a tire with a handgun is nil.

They're just teens right? Tell that to this dead uber eats driver folded in half on sidewalk.

13 & 15 YO Girls Murder Uber Eats Driver
Evil is among us. Quite disturbing how Marxist "subjects" can kill so easily.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/202...ook-cellphone/

https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread...er-Eats-Driver


Go ask the South Africans what the consequences are when you arent allowed to protect your property.

[Black_Sheep]

Aren't there still some states that insist you retreat from your home rather than allow you to use deadly force against an intruder?

I don't like the idea but some state/local laws are misguided.

Minnesota is one of those states, the homeowner has a duty to retreat. Personally I consider a criminal entering an occupied home is enough of a threat to justify the use of lethal force if necessary, but the state says otherwise.