Franconia man fires 'warning shots'

[Steve_NEPhila]

Eugene, I was partially inspired by the late genius that was Mr. Carlin.

I am also with the above, as stated in my original post. If someone is running away, there will be no shot by me, be it warning or aimed. Why? Because it is not legal to do so and it is not smart to do so. The old "punishment fits the crime" deal is applicable here.

Being self righteous and claiming that it was part of your life stolen is a great way to end up in prison. If you follow that same logic, getting into a car accident (having insurance and paying your deductible of course, usually 500 or 1k) one could claim that part of your life was stolen, I call bullshit. It is the cost of living. Be pro-active, get good locks, lighting, a loud dog etc. Try to prevent, not become reactionary and foolish.

Talk about wasting life, how come no one complains about wasting hours of their life by watching the Phillies lose again and again...

[knight0334]

There is more to the use of force and deadly force than life protective measures cited in §505 and §506. Everyone seems to forget all or part of §507 and §508, plus PA Supreme Court rulings that have been declared in 1968(Commonwealth v Chermansky) and before, and reaffirmed countless times up to at least 2005(Kopko v Miller). Heck, we just had an example of the using deadly force on a fleeing perp just within the last couple years when a greater Pittsburgh area convenience store clerk chased a robber out of the store and shot him in the back as he fled - was declared justified by the police and the DA(he subsequently lost his license a couple weeks later for pulling his gun during another minor situation).

Also, just because a perp has fled or turned his back, it doesn't mean he's no longer a threat. He is still a viable threat until you are out of range of any of his possible weapons. He could also be performing a strategic/tactical withdrawal to re-engage in a superior advantage point.

We shouldn't just pop any fleeing perp suspected of the certain listed felonies because we can generally apprehend them via Hue & Cry type measures(calling out for help, 911, calling police, etc, etc). But dont think for a second that a fleeing perp is not a threat - there are times they can be shot, even in the back. Keep in mind your political area as well, Blue areas may frown upon it, Red areas may throw you a party.

[Tomcat088]

Originally Posted by Steve_NEPhila

(snippet)
Talk about wasting life, how come no one complains about wasting hours of their life by watching the Phillies lose again and again...

Some of us do complain about seeing the phillies lose, and about TERRIBLE movies that were supposed to be better. Oh well, all I can say is "Thank God I live in Texas ". I'll leave it at that.

[son of the revolution]

Originally Posted by Brillfan

Further, I really can't think of anything in my house that is worth more than a human life.

My personal evaluation of the " value " of some dirtbag that decides he can take what he wants from me "just because " , most likely terrorizing my wife and children in the process is somewhere South of zilch!! You want to play the game , you take your chances, end of story.

[adymond]

Originally Posted by Steve_NEPhila

Eugene, I was partially inspired by the late genius that was Mr. Carlin.

I am also with the above, as stated in my original post. If someone is running away, there will be no shot by me, be it warning or aimed. Why? Because it is not legal to do so and it is not smart to do so. The old "punishment fits the crime" deal is applicable here.

Being self righteous and claiming that it was part of your life stolen is a great way to end up in prison. If you follow that same logic, getting into a car accident (having insurance and paying your deductible of course, usually 500 or 1k) one could claim that part of your life was stolen, I call bullshit. It is the cost of living. Be pro-active, get good locks, lighting, a loud dog etc. Try to prevent, not become reactionary and foolish.

Talk about wasting life, how come no one complains about wasting hours of their life by watching the Phillies lose again and again...

The comments here boarder on pissing me off. Steve you don't know me so don't presume to call me self righteous or that I don't take precautions. Don't try and twist a point into something it is (with the completely inane comparison of a person stealing my property and a deductible for auto insurance).

If you willingly steal my property you are violating one of the most sacrosanct rights a person has. And that is the right to private property. One SHOULD (notice the emphasis?) be able to use deadly force to protect any property they see fit to protect so long as it belongs to them.

Unless I missed it nobody was advocating for shooting a fleeing burglar, but rather pointing out why we felt the notion that "shit" wasn't worth taking a life over was in our opinions a useless view.

I have asked before, if "shit" isn't worth protecting with deadly force what is? Only life and limb? So a person shouldn't be able to shoot an intruder in their home unless they pose a direct threat? Is there no material object you would use deadly force to protect? Do you not see why some might take the view that their property is theirs and should a criminal choose to put themselves in the position of taking that which is not theirs they SHOULD forfeit the protections of the law?

Seeing as how this is PA that is not legal unless a specific set of criteria are met. I would rather see the law reflect what TX law does.

[Eugene V. Debs]

Originally Posted by adymond

The comments here boarder on pissing me off. Steve you don't know me so don't presume to call me self righteous or that I don't take precautions. Don't try and twist a point into something it is (with the completely inane comparison of a person stealing my property and a deductible for auto insurance).

If you willingly steal my property you are violating one of the most sacrosanct rights a person has. And that is the right to private property. One SHOULD (notice the emphasis?) be able to use deadly force to protect any property they see fit to protect so long as it belongs to them.

Unless I missed it nobody was advocating for shooting a fleeing burglar, but rather pointing out why we felt the notion that "shit" wasn't worth taking a life over was in our opinions a useless view.

I have asked before, if "shit" isn't worth protecting with deadly force what is? Only life and limb? So a person shouldn't be able to shoot an intruder in their home unless they pose a direct threat? Is there no material object you would use deadly force to protect? Do you not see why some might take the view that their property is theirs and should a criminal choose to put themselves in the position of taking that which is not theirs they SHOULD forfeit the protections of the law?

Seeing as how this is PA that is not legal unless a specific set of criteria are met. I would rather see the law reflect what TX law does.

Adymond, chill. Steve is just expressing his moral opinion, which he's entitled to. I can see why the "self-righteous" thing would get under your skin, but at this point it might be just best to leave it at you have differing moral principles on this issue-- you think it is justifiable to shoot a thief who is not posing a direct threat to your life or limb, and Steve thinks it is unjustifiable. I think both are acceptable, if different, moral opinions to hold on the subject. Which is correct? Not sure, but shouldn't matter in terms of respecting each others' opinions on this issue.

[Steve_NEPhila]

I apologize adymond if I have insulted you.

However, I do strongly believe that property is not worth the life of a citizen. Different scenarios are indeed treated appropriately, for example waking up to find someone in your bedroom. The intent whether or not they are there to steal property is not important and in my opinion deadly force is reasonable. Deadly force is also reasonable to prevent an individual from gaining access into your property while one is inside.

For an extreme example of how I think of this I will give an interesting scenario. I would not shoot someone in the back while running away if they had stolen thousands of dollars from me. The reason being primarily that life and property are separate pursuits. First of all, any reasonable person will actively attempt to prevent any such theft from taking place.

I do not want to be a citizen of a state that would place property rights above an individuals life. Exigent circumstances notwithstanding, the two are not equal. Sure, if someone is attempting to steal the property, yet during the act threatens life they indeed can be killed. The most fundamental concept is which is worth more, life or property. This is a moral argument that we citizens have difficulty with because our own Government clearly values property over life (which I am sure I do not need to cite examples of).

[Spishack357]

ETA: Posted in wrong thread...

[adymond]

Originally Posted by Eugene V. Debs

Adymond, chill. Steve is just expressing his moral opinion, which he's entitled to. I can see why the "self-righteous" thing would get under your skin, but at this point it might be just best to leave it at you have differing moral principles on this issue-- you think it is justifiable to shoot a thief who is not posing a direct threat to your life or limb, and Steve thinks it is unjustifiable. I think both are acceptable, if different, moral opinions to hold on the subject. Which is correct? Not sure, but shouldn't matter in terms of respecting each others' opinions on this issue.

Understood. I can appreciate a moral outlook that would keep a person from defending their property with deadly force. I can also understand (especially since I hold this opinion myself) why one would want the option to protect their property with deadly force (and by protect I also include shooting a thief running away from my home with my possessions on his person). I would just expect that one who holds such a moral position might show some respect for the views of others that differ from their own.

Originally Posted by Steve_NEPhila

I apologize adymond if I have insulted you.

However, I do strongly believe that property is not worth the life of a citizen. Different scenarios are indeed treated appropriately, for example waking up to find someone in your bedroom. The intent whether or not they are there to steal property is not important and in my opinion deadly force is reasonable. Deadly force is also reasonable to prevent an individual from gaining access into your property while one is inside.

For an extreme example of how I think of this I will give an interesting scenario. I would not shoot someone in the back while running away if they had stolen thousands of dollars from me. The reason being primarily that life and property are separate pursuits. First of all, any reasonable person will actively attempt to prevent any such theft from taking place.

I do not want to be a citizen of a state that would place property rights above an individuals life. Exigent circumstances notwithstanding, the two are not equal. Sure, if someone is attempting to steal the property, yet during the act threatens life they indeed can be killed. The most fundamental concept is which is worth more, life or property. This is a moral argument that we citizens have difficulty with because our own Government clearly values property over life (which I am sure I do not need to cite examples of).

I'd like to also appologize since I may have gotten a little hot under the collar prematurely. I can respect your views, I just happen to hold different views.

I'd also fear a state that holds property rights above an individual's life. But I am not talking about the state protecting my property with deadly force. I want the state out of it. It's my property and I want the ability to protect it.

In your extreme example I would shoot a person if they were running from my home with thousands of dollars (if it were not prohibited by the state). I do not have enough disposable income that thousands of dollars in cash is of no impact. The loss of several thousand dollars would have a very negative impact on my ability to provide for my wife and son. I will not allow anyone to have that kind of impact on my family. I also have items that are not replaceable that I would (again if permitted by the state) defend with deadly force. Nobody will ever take my wedding ring from me. Nor will I allow anyone to take my wife's rings. They represent too much to me. They are worth more to me than the life of a person who chooses to violate the sanctity of my private personal property. Life, liberty, and property are the foundations of this nation. One is not more important than the next.