|
|
Post by nikonbob on May 12, 2007 11:37:48 GMT -5
Just recently a 76 year old man tried to stop a would be thief who he had caught on his rural property. He tried to block the would be thief's escape with his own vehicle but the would be thief tried to drive through a fence to escape. He ceased trying to escape when the 76 year old property owner got his shotgun and fired into the air. When police arrived they took the would be thief into custody. Happy ending? Not really as the 76 year old property owner now faces at least two firearms charges. Me, I just keep shaking my head and thank the powers to be that we have such an efficient police force.
Bob
|
|
|
|
Post by John Parry on May 12, 2007 12:04:05 GMT -5
Shoot 'em all - let God sort 'em out!
We had a similar case over here that's still causing a lot of waves. A farmer shot one of a gang who had gone to rob his property. The farmer did shoot him in the back as he was running away, but the question that everyone asks is - "Would the gang have run away had the farmer not had the gun?" It's a thing that gives me a lot of trouble - in general I would say that the only people who should have guns are the Royal Army. Maybe the anti-terrorist police. This chap had a gun to shoot rabbits. Gun crime is bad in my home town of Manchester, but it seems to be a gang thing. Other people don't seem to be involved - although of course they could be. Don't know. As I say - it troubles me.
Regards - John
|
|
|
|
Post by doubs43 on May 12, 2007 13:04:26 GMT -5
Bob, where did this take place? In Georgia, the owner would not have been charged unless he was in violation of some law such as a convicted felon in posession of a firearm. The police would likely have praised his actions as the thief was being taken away. I, too, shake my head at the lack of common sense by law makers and the police in other parts of the country.
Walker
|
|
|
|
Post by nikonbob on May 12, 2007 13:56:00 GMT -5
John
What troubles me even more is that you can't depend on what could be jokingly referred to as a legal system in this country. That includes the police and courts etc. I said legal system instead of justice system as from where I sit there is a vast difference.
Walker
This happened in my home town in Canada. It is illegal here to have a loaded firearm anywhere other than a recognized range or in the field during hunting season never mind discharging it. I just thought a stern warning might have done the job rather than charges being laid but that too is at the discretion of the police. Common sense falls by the wayside a lot of times. It is much easier to pass new and tougher gun laws than to actually catch a perpetrator of some heinous gun involved crime. Just make everyone else suffer while doing nothing to solve such things as gang related crime. It is an old story with no easy answers I guess.
Bob
|
|
|
|
Post by John Parry on May 13, 2007 17:06:31 GMT -5
Another case here - a bit of paedophilia. The perpetrator happened to lay his wrists on the railway track as a train was going by. You don't ask...
Regards - JOHN
|
|
|
|
Post by John Farrell on May 13, 2007 18:17:40 GMT -5
We had a similar case in New Zealand, 2 or 3 years ago. A farmer caught some guys trying to steal a motorcycle, He fired at them as they drove down his drive, with a shotgun, which was loaded with a heavy bullet. It disabled the car, and hit one of the robbers. The farmer was charged, but found not guilty. Juries won't convict here in such cases.
|
|
|
|
Post by nikonbob on May 13, 2007 19:29:28 GMT -5
The wife and I were talking about this incident and she mentioned that she hoped his lawyer would be smart enough to go for a jury trial.
Bob
|
|
|
|
Post by kiev4a on May 13, 2007 22:25:43 GMT -5
I doubt such a case would ever go to trial in our state--for the same reason no attorney in his right mind will file a "deep pockets" lawsuit against a company here. Like "our family wants 100 million dollars from the cigarette company because our father smoked for 50 years." Juries here tend to believe people have to demonstrate a little personal responsibility and don't deserve a truckload of money because the "victim" was stupid. Our daughter is clerk for a district court judge. She says an "ambulance chaser" type attorney has NEVER won a case that goes to jury trial. They make their money by threatening to file suits small enough the insurance company figures it's cheaper to just by them off than spend money on fighting it.
|
|
|
|
Post by herron on May 14, 2007 9:00:23 GMT -5
Sad state of affairs, which is too often true.  |
|
