Store Clerk Faces Murder, Weapons Charges For Shooting a Fleeing Chainsaw Thief

Image via midsouthsmallengines.com

A Memphis store clerk is facing charges for allegedly shooting a man to death over a stolen chain saw. Cops say Charles Kalb shot and killed a man running from Mid-South Small Engines without paying for a shiny new saw. What’s more, Kalb reportedly used an illegal sawed-off shotgun to shoot the alleged thief in the back.

I recently wrote about not using deadly force in property crimes. The theme: Let. Him. Go. Killing someone over a $400 chainsaw — or any other property — simply isn’t worth it.

The US Law Shield people have sponsored a number of free legal seminars in Illinois and I attended one last week. It helped that I knew the attorney delivering the presentation and who went into detail regarding the legal standard for justifiably using deadly force. However, some of his words seemed to go right past at least a few in attendance.

Steve Davis told the fifty-odd people present that he strongly recommended never using deadly force to defend property. Even if your state has a provision allowing the use of force to stop certain property crimes, it may be a violation of federal civil rights laws and court precedent (Tennessee v. Garner in particular).

Besides, he pointed out, from a social morality point of view, how will it look to a jury – or a skeptical prosecutor – that you shot someone over a radar detector or an old Craftsman lawn mower?

Davis urged people not to confront suspects in property crimes but to instead “let him go.”  He even had those present repeat after him several times.  “Let. Him. Go.”

More than a few folks in the comments roasted the idea of following the law and not using deadly force to defend their things.

Like BigMikeU:

I really think its sad we are being told to allow some scumbag that is stealing our stuff to just get away?I will never allow my self,family or Property to “ever” be violated! I dont have insurance either and cant afford any kind of theft insurance!If anyone wants to steal something that i need to make money with or hurts my dog while entering my house that will end up with a knife in their hand while i stop them from doing further harm!Im tired of people telling me the bad guys are not worth our safety or piece of mind! To hell with that i say and use the Constitution to defend your self,family and property!I totally agree with you…. PERIOD! May for ever and always “only” GOD BLESS AMERICA!

Or Dan:

No I’m not going to let them go. I’m going to let them have it.

BigMikeU, Dan and other gun owners should know that they face a strong likelihood of arrest, prosecution and lengthy imprisonment for shooting people over property crimes. As famed criminal defense attorney Andrew Branca advises, “Carry a gun so you’re hard to kill. Know the law so you’re hard to convict.”

The case from Memphis shows what can (and probably will) happens when people use deadly force in the heat of the moment to defend property from people who don’t pose a reasonable threat of death or grievous bodily harm.

WLWT has the story . . .

The man killed, Lamorris Robinson, was seen stealing a chainsaw from a store, according to a police affidavit. The affidavit goes on to say [Charles] Kalb shot Robinson in the back with a sawed-off shotgun as he ran from the store.

Robinson was unarmed, WMC reports.

“The law in Tennessee is very clear. You are not allowed to use deadly force whether it is a firearm or a knife or any other weapon to defend property. Period,” Will Dougan told the news outlet.

Dougan works as the chief instructor at a gun range in Memphis. He teaches gun owners about using their weapons and the law.

If Mr. Kalb had simply called the police and reported the theft, he wouldn’t find himself facing murder and weapons charges and the monumental costs involved in defending himself.

Let this be a lesson for anyone else thinking of shooting a fleeing thief. Those who think replacing their “stuff” would pose a hardship would do well to consider how much of a hardship they’d face over spending $50,000 on a criminal defense attorney and then a ten to thirty year term in prison.

Your property simply isn’t worth it.

comments

  1. avatar pwrserge says:

    There is something wrong with a legal system where your choice is to allow yourself to be victimized by criminals or to be victimized by the government. If ever there was a case for jury nullification, this is it.

    1. avatar Raymond P Clark says:

      Why would you kill anyone who is not trying to kill you? Its morally wrong as well as legally wrong. Deadly force is only used in deadly force encounters. To shoot someone over a toaster or even a prized sports car is just wrong. There is a lot wrong with our legal system, this just isn’t one of them.

      1. avatar pwrserge says:

        There is a reason why theft of property above a certain value carried the death penalty in all civilized cultures until the left wing decided to get soft on crime.

        1. avatar Dave in PTC says:

          Pwrserge, you’re dang right. Older cultures knew that it wasn’t the value of the object that mattered so much, it was the violation of a societal/cultural/neighbor trust. The goal of the law then was not to just punish, it was to ELIMINATE that person’s behavior and influence.

        2. avatar No One Special says:

          My advice if you want to act and live like savages is to go live with them. There is any number of countries in the middle east that I’m sure would love to have you, in more ways than one I’m sure. They still cut people’s hands off or worse over there. Just be prepared to deal with all the other things that you are most probably not going to like.

        3. avatar pwrserge says:

          “Savages”? You mean like the majority of the United States prior to 1900? Or did you forget that the punishment for cattle rustling and horse theft in the old west generally involved the gallows?

          The reality is that a persons right to be secure in their property is absolute. It’s the foundation of our legal system. I a thief doesn’t want to get shot, then perhaps they would be better off not stealing?

        4. avatar Phil Wilson says:

          It’s not crazy to equate theft with murder in one sense. You effectively exchange some of your (finite) time on Earth to create wealth. If someone steals that wealth, then in a way they are effectively stealing some of your life. Not that I am advocating shooting thieves when they don’t pose a threat of death or serous injury. I personally wouldn’t shoot someone fleeing my house with valuables. But from a certain perspective, theft isn’t fundamentally different from murder, and is essentially a kind of slavery.

        5. avatar Miner49er says:

          Sergei, we’ll excuse your lack of understanding the significance of stealing one’s horse.

          In the old west, where death for horse thieves was common, your horse was a very important asset. Because of the great distances and desolate countryside, having a horse could mean the difference between life and death.

          You’ll notice, no one spoke of the death penalty for stealing a wagon or even stealing property by jumping a claim. Even in the old west, citizens chose the court for redress of their grievances. Vigilanteeism was frowned upon and rarely exercised.

          Times have changed, and we recognize that punishment should be proportional to the crime. To be the judge, prosecutor, jury, and executioner for some item of property is not the American way.

          Frankly, I think people who rant about killing people over a few hundred dollars worth of property are latent psychopaths just itching to kill someone, looking for any excuse to justify their savagery.

        6. avatar strych9 says:

          “If someone steals that wealth, then in a way they are effectively stealing some of your life.”

          This concept was discussed, at length, many years ago. The argument was found wanting.

          The reason for that, in short, is because the argument is wrong. But, even if you were to say the argument is right, it’s still not a rational or ethical reason to kill someone. If nothing else killing them is wasteful of yet more of your time and ensure, 100%, that you don’t get made whole for the original crime.

        7. avatar Toni Smith says:

          Horse theft from someone not well used to walking back in the day was close to being murder which is a big part of why it was a capital crime. Same with rustling. It was their livelyhood and removing that from them could cause them to starve. Personally i think the system we have now where theives get a slap on the wrist and you go to jail of you stop them is far more barbaric than anything we used to have because it encourages more of it which then in turn tends to lead to a greater number of more serious crimes

        8. avatar pwrserge says:

          Why am I not shocked that the commie is defending the right of the criminal to get away with another person’s property over the right of the property owner to be secure in their property? I mean, they’re nothing if not consistent. Once you justify that strong-arm robbery doesn’t justify a violent response it becomes easier to justify that same exact strong-arm robbery at government gunpoint.

          I live on a very simple principle. Don’t start nothing, don’t get nothing.

          But please, tell me how a shop owner who’s already working 80 hour weeks to make ends meet doesn’t have the same stake in his property as a cattle baron has in his herd? If a bunch of thugs run off with the contents of your bodega, are you really any better off that the cattle baron who lost a few dozen head to rustlers?

          The reality is that the current justice system doesn’t punish property crimes in any meaningful way. The thieves are rarely punished and the punishment is rarely more than a slap on the wrist. When this happens often enough, people lose faith in the system. What’s worse, people are persecuted by the government over defending their right to be secure in their property. Say what you want about “barbaric” punishments, but they have a strong effect on recidivism. After all, a thief who gets bullwhipped in the public square isn’t as likely to do it again as the thief who spends six months in the county jail getting all his needs met.

        9. avatar Toni Smith says:

          Exactly my sentiments PWSerge. Shop keepers used to keep a sawn off shotgun under the counter loaded with rock salt and this was more the local grocery with only lower dollar value items. All the laws protecting criminals from serious punishment for their crimes are just govt protecting their own damn theiving kind

        10. avatar strych9 says:

          “Once you justify that strong-arm robbery doesn’t justify a violent response…”

          I don’t think anyone said that. Strong-arm robbery is quite different from simple theft.

          There’s a wide gulf between grabbing something and running away or shoplifting and threatening violence in a robbery. Robbery, by definition, involves force or threat of force. At that point you have a threat. If it’s credible you can obviously react with violence.

        11. avatar Chris T in KY says:

          pwrserge is correct
          The Missouri National guard only protected government buildings in ferguson during the riots. But private property was destroyed for several days. It was the civilian Oath Keepers that stopped the looting and burning. By responsibly openly carrying their long guns.

          And in Florida a fire chief shot and killed a car thief because , “he was trying to steal a government vehicle with guns in side”.

          So it seems if you steal or harm government property you get the DEATH PENALTY.

          Private property is allowed to be stolen, vandalized, and destroyed.

        12. avatar Miner49er says:

          S9, Hey our friend Sergei changed the subject to strong arm robbery because he’s knows he’s wrong about simple theft.

        13. avatar pwrserge says:

          I see very little difference between the two. But hey, you’re the one pretending that federal law is equivalent to the Constitution.

        14. avatar TickTalk says:

          I am so tired of this “hang the horse thief or rustlet” myth that gets kicked around here..

          The was NEVER a time when that was legally a Capitol offence, anywhere in the US or territories. No laws EVER existed on that.

          The horse thieves or cattle rustlers that were killed were always the result of vigilante mobs. Where possible, members of those mobs were prosecuted and hanged for murder. Not often, since these extrajudicial lynchings typically happened in the dark or night, or with no witnesses willing to speak up..

        15. avatar TickTalk says:

          I do need to qualify that.. I am speaking of the ‘old west’.. and in modern times, TX for example, yeah you can use deadly force in specific circumstances.. I prefer the ‘well your honor.. some people just need killing
          ‘ defence.

        16. avatar Joseph Malone says:

          The reason was whether the property was livelihood dependent. Old west a horse was livelihood without horse you would not make money and therefore stealing a horse was paramount to murdering the person. This speaks more to the utility of the item rather than intrinsic value however the two are often related and this confuses the issue. Today someones car might be their source of livelihood so under old law shooting a car thief might be a modern reinterpretation.

        17. avatar matt says:

          If you mean the left wing circa maybe about 1200AD, sure.

          Property crimes have not been held to be capital offenses in any Western Country that I am aware of in a lot of centuries. Horse thievery was never a capitol crime. The use of FORCE in such a crime, was sometimes a capitol offense. Vigilante possesses and mobs certainly did hang a lot of horse thieves. Those involved were sometimes prosecuted for it too.

          And I don’t think anyone is saying you should just grin and take it if someone steals your things. There is a reason we do have a government. Its function is supposed to be to protect you and redress of wrongs. They can’t be everywhere, which is why everyone has a right to self defense. SELF defense. Someone steals your stuff, the government is the property avenue to redress your grievance.

          And face it, whether you like it or think it is right, if you’ve got two brain cells to rub together, you also are aware of the reality of what the author mentions. You shoot someone over a property crime where the criminal wasn’t armed and no evidence they assaulted you and even if no charges result in the end you are at a minimum going to need to hire a defense attorney to help you navigate NOT getting charged with murder.

          So, hmmm, reality is if I shoot someone, I am probably out a few thousand for a defense attorney to help me out at best. Or at worst I am out tens of thousands on the attorney, losing my job, probably my house, possibly my spouse and kids (who even if they support you, might not really be willing to stick around for decades) and my freedom for probably 10-life…

          Yeah, my property is really worth that.

          Even a self defense shooting that could still result. I’d rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6, but I am also going to take at least a fraction of a second to think am I actually likely to be carried by 6? I am not shooting someone through my door or window standing on my front porch. Even hammering on something to break in. They darned well better have broken in to my house and advancing on me before I pull that trigger.

      2. avatar Josh says:

        No, stealing is wrong. If you don’t want to get killed, don’t attack people, don’t break into people’s homes and businesses, and don’t steal property. Thieves deserve to die and the law should be amended to reflect that.

      3. avatar Paul says:

        Don’t come to Texas. Texas law protects the property owner, not the thief. That’s the way things are supposed to be. If you stole a sandwich from a restaurant, the resterauteur would probably “get away” with killing you.

    2. avatar MarkPA says:

      OK, so suppose you are right. There is something wrong with our legal system. What are you, or I, or thousands of others going to do about it?

      If we don’t like the laws the way they are then our course of action is clear-cut. We petition for redress of grievance. What other rational choice do we have?

      The problem with using deadly force merely to protect property (i.e., withOUT an adequate pretext that you were simultaneously protecting your life & limb in self-defence) is primarily practical.

      Your defense at trial for homicide can not be sustained on grounds of “self defense”. You stand a high probability of being convicted by a jury of . . . peers.

      Bear in mind that the jury members are not necessarily your peers; your neighbors, coworkers, friends. They are just as likely to be your target’s peers; his neighbors; practitioners of your target’s way of life; his friends. If so, these peers of your target are very apt to convict you. For that matter, your own neighbors, coworkers and friends might see things differently that you do and they are apt to convict you as well.

      Even if you are acquitted (it happens; even Bernie Getz was acquitted of homicide) your trial will cost at least $50,000 and more likely $200,000 or even more. Your trial will take at least a year out of your life. If you have really good – and expensive – self-defense legal defense insurance then it might cover much of your out-of-pocket expense; but it won’t cover your lost income or emotional cost of undergoing trial.

      And, you will do great damage to the cause of civilian ownership, carry and use-of-guns in self-defense. No matter how self-righteous you feel, a strong majority of voters will read/watch the MSM’s portrayal of your gunning-down an unarmed youth with a promising future merely because he was sealing your riding lawn mower for a joy-ride. A mere property crime.

      OK, so, now you are probably behind bars for 10 – 20 or more years. You are almost certainly bankrupt. Your property has been sold-off to try to cover some of your living expenses. And, you have damaged the cause of civilian arms ownership.

      Your fellow gun owners are being taxed to pay the expense of keeping you in prison – as long as you survive. Your target’s peers are locked-up in the same prison as you are confined to. Your fellow gun owners are paying for the welfare upon which your wife and children survive. Your house has been sold because you couldn’t pay the mortgage.

      But, you still have your self-righteousness. Does this make sense; purely as a practical decision on your part?

      The best thing you can do is arrange your affairs such that your property worth stealing is locked-up well enough that it’s unlikely to be stolen. Then you are much less likely to experience the urge to shoot someone who is committing a mere property crime against you.

      The next best thing you can do for yourself is to read a book or take a course in the law of self-defense. You might then learn how much you don’t know about how to conduct yourself so as to minimize your vulnerability to being prosecuted for using a gun in defense of yourself.

      The next best thing you can do for yourself is buy self-defense legal defense insurance. Which one is a difficult choice; but you really must choose one which will pay for your defense before you go to trial; NOT AFTER you might be acquitted.

      If you choose NOT to do anything in your own best interest do NOT expect me – and others like me who have invested in self-education and legal defense insurance – to feel sorry for the consequences you suffer at the hands of an unjust legal system. You could have done much more to avoid your plight. But you would not. Your choice.

      1. avatar pwrserge says:

        Practicality is not an argument in defense of a morally corrupt system.

        1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          pwrserge,

          I don’t believe that MarkPA was defending our criminal-justice system. Rather, I believe MarkPA was illustrating the likely outcome of a particular course of action as friendly advice or possibly even a friendly warning.

          In case that doesn’t seem on-target (pun intended), perhaps you forgot MarkPA’s opening salvo where he encourages us to petition our government to change our rotten criminal-justice system. Again, that is not defense of the system. That is recognizing that the system is bad.

    3. avatar Arc says:

      This, jury nullification. The law is supposed to protect us, not victimize us. Shoot to kill, just don’t say that.

  2. avatar Ranger Rick says:

    “Your property simply isn’t worth it.”

    Except to the thieves who wish to relieve you of it.

    1. avatar Raymond P Clark says:

      So, let them have it…

      1. avatar pwrserge says:

        Yes, because the life of a criminal is clearly worth more than your right to be secure in your property.

      2. avatar Rickster says:

        “So, let them have it ” not over a chainsaw. Or replaceable property . Hurt my dog , cat , they will be done with their life of crime. I can’t justify shooting some pos over an inanimate object . Protect family , pets , even strangers. Dont risk jail over a $400 tool. Just my 2 cents worth , I hate scumbags that think it’s ok to steal from others that work hard to earn what they have. I just wont risk having to live with them at the grey bar hotel.

        1. avatar Ranger Rick says:

          Would this be your approach if Robert “Beto” O’Rourke’s Buy Back Boys were to knock on your door and demand your inanimate “Assault Weapons” ?

        2. avatar Some dude says:

          What if it’s a gun, or guns, that they are stealing from you?

        3. avatar No One Special says:

          Buy a good safe and install it properly.

        4. avatar Miner49er says:

          You know, I agree with you about puppy dogs, they are members of the family.

          And if someone is willing to kill any mammal in cold blood, they are just a fraction of a second away from killing a human.

          And I tend to follow the suggestion of that guy who talked about peace and brotherhood and never wore no shoes, long hair, beard and sandals and a bunch of funky friends:

          “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone“

        5. avatar biblical revision says:

          “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.”

          Except he never actually said that.

        6. avatar Miner49er says:

          “Except he never actually said that.”

          Well, I wasn’t actually there to hear it.

          But since you were, what did he really say?

      3. avatar Merle 0 says:

        So what if they plan to steal your butt virginity? You gonna let them take that too?

        1. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

          You just had to go there…. 😝

        2. avatar Merle 0 says:

          I couldn’t help it 😂

        3. avatar jwm says:

          You still have butt virginity? You’ve never dealt with the IRS or the California State Tax Franchise, have you?

        4. avatar What would Spock say says:

          I suppose that would fall under the “or grievous bodily injury” part of the self defense statute. But this cracked me up for some reason. Well played sir.

      4. avatar Someone says:

        You know what, Raymond? You let the thief have your property. I can’t afford that. I’m not rich and every penny I have in my stuff was paid for with hard labor, my wife’s and mine.

        Does the thief deserve death penalty for stealing property? Of course not. But I will be damned if I will just stand by, watching him to carry part of my life away. I’m not shooting anyone in back, yet I will try to stop the theft in progress. If the perpetrator drops what he stole, I will not try my luck with a citizens arrest and let him run. But if he attacks me, I will defend myself.

    2. avatar Southern Cross says:

      Be a hard target. Lock things away. Make sure the doors and their locks are good solid ones. Draw your blinds and curtains, especially when not at home. Consider operational security. Try not to give anyone the reason or opportunity to even check your place, much less break in.

      My family and I have not been broken into or burglarized in 50 years by taking simple precautions.

  3. avatar jwm says:

    If you cannot afford insurance for your property, like the dude above, then you cannot afford to shoot the bad guy. I’m not going to shoot except when a deadly threat is given to myself or another innocent. I have killed. It is not fun. And it stays with you.

    On a whole other note. Sawed off shotguns should not be illegal. They may be a poor choice of weapons, but they should not be illegal. I draw the line at NBC weapons.

    1. avatar No One Special says:

      This is common sense talk (wisdom) right here. The only thing I’ll add is that thieves still piss me off regardless. While I don’t want to kill them, I’d love to hook their genitals up to a strong electric current. Just to make the point of if it isn’t yours don’t touch it.

    2. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      jwm,

      While I do not condone killing a thief over something that has little monetary value, I wholeheartedly endorse reasonable attempts to capture and hold a thief until police arrive to arrest him/her and take him/her away.

      If the thief uses physical force to resist capture, then I also wholeheartedly support the victim using physical force to defend him/herself. And if the thief keeps escalating physical force to the point that he/she becomes a credible, imminent threat of great bodily harm or death, then he/she deserves whatever comes next when the victim also escalates force in righteous self-defense.

      1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        Heavily implied in my above comment:

        It is really important that we attempt to stop thieves. While I agree that we should not kill a thief for attempting to abscond with a $20 toaster, we most certainly should NOT just let him/her go. Rather, we should attempt to capture him/her so that our justice system can hold him/her accountable.

        1. avatar jwm says:

          You do you. But remember, any attempt to get the thief in the system also puts you in the system. I’ve been there. Citizens arrest, the whole magilla. Those are hours, days, weeks that you will not get back.

          Let me relate to you just one little personal story from my days in security. Which by the way is a great second job or college job. A young man with my company went after a shoplifter at a K Mart. I arrived after the fight. He was stoked. He’d taken the bad guy down and the cops were ‘atta boying’ him no end. He was also bleeding from a severely bitten thumb and the medics were just arriving.

          At the time we were making 5-7 bucks an hour. As the medics were flushing his truly fucked up thumb I asked him ‘why?’ He didn’t have a coherent answer. He was young and full of piss and vinegar. He wanted to assert his will over that bad guy and he had.

          Then I asked him ‘Have you ever heard of AIDS?’. His thumb was bit nearly to the bone.

          If it’s just property theft and not a threat to you or another, let them go.

    3. avatar I Haz A Question says:

      Deadly force against a fleeing thief, no.

      Deadly force if someone is stealing your (replaceable) property, no.

      But what about less-than-lethal? Bean bag shotgun, or bear spray, or paintball to the nuts at close range? Teach ’em that crime hurts.

      1. avatar jwm says:

        Haz. Unless i’m mistaken you, like me, are a CA resident. Here even hard language and a bad stare are considered deadly force. And don’t wear a MAGA hat. That might put you on death row.

        1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

          Yes, SoCal lifelong resident. I once engaged in a discussion – which turned into an argument – with an off-duty LAPD officer who said you can’t shoot out the tires of your own car if someone is stealing it from your own garage. Any discharge – even if against your own property and not in the direction of the thief – would be prosecutable as a crime. Even if the thief were driving right toward you in the driveway, you couldn’t shoot if you have room to step out of the way. Funny how that doesn’t seem to be a requirement for “I feared for muh life” cops.

          According to that cop’s explanation, if someone’s in my driveway and breaks into my car, I can’t even draw my gun to hold him at bay unless the thief presented a danger to my personally, and even then I can’t run out there because a D.A. could argue that *I* could have avoided the situation entirely.

          Basically, LE now expects everyone to simply roll over and let all thieves and muggers do whatever they want because the property’s not worth the confrontation. I agree in the general sense that my life isn’t worth material “stuff”, but at what point do we teach criminals the hard lessons? LE nowadays is telling everyone that “insurance covers all your stuff, so let someone else steal it and just call us so we can show up and take a report”.

      2. avatar Ragnar says:

        In regards to property crime; are Police allowed to use deadly force to stop a thief? Not necessarily shooting the thief, but to draw their weapon to forcibly detain the criminal?

        Somewhat of a rhetorical question.

    4. avatar arc says:

      Depends on who got killed, some animals are more equal than others.

    5. avatar Combat Dachshund says:

      I always find it morbidly funny that those who want to kill because somebody is absconding with their VCR or life size anime statue are nearly always those who haven’t had to deal with the mental and emotional cost of killing.

      1. avatar Miner49er says:

        Right.

        Maybe they don’t realize that they’re going to be sleeping with that person for the rest of their lives, they’ll wonder a thousand times why they didn’t do things differently.

  4. avatar WARFAB says:

    Meanwhile, in Texas……..

    1. avatar Jerms says:

      Only after dark

  5. avatar Inigo Carmine says:

    Well spoken about victimization, Pwrserge.

    Jury nullification shouldn’t be such a rare thing, especially in this day and age of political/malicious prosecution – that’s part of it’s design.
    For something to happen, it requires consent and agreement across the board, if not unanimously. A legislative body needs to pass a law, the executive head needs to not veto it (or it has to have enough legislative support to override), the executive branch needs to allocate resources and priorities that include enforcement of it, the prosecutor has to decide to prosecute and to devote time and resources to that. The jury is the last step where the common people get to call bullshit on the whole thing, effectively the people given one last chance to ascent; their approval that things are proceeding correctly.

  6. avatar Imayeti says:

    As WARFAB alluded too, in El Paso a judge took his wife to the theater. Returning to the car after dark he shot/killed the turd trying to steal his car. The really important words are “after dark” in TX.

  7. avatar Truckman says:

    well I will put it like this I once told a fellow I worked for repairing cars at a gas station there had been some robberies around where we were and he said for none of us to be heroes I looked at him and said you don’t have to worry about that with me because I will give them everything in register and ask them if they needed gas also because I was not going to get shot over a little money not worth it especially being a wife and baby at home I was 21 at that time and still feel that way and am 65 now still feel same way with the same wife

  8. avatar Whoopie says:

    “If someone ever tries to kill you, don’t stand for that. You try and kill ’em right back.”
    -Malcolm Reynolds, Firefly

    1. avatar KenW says:

      Zoë: Preacher, don’t the Bible have some pretty specific things to say about killing?
      Book: Quite specific. It is, however, somewhat fuzzier on the subject of kneecaps.
      More Firefly

      1. avatar What would Spock say says:

        Bravo Browncoats

  9. avatar Nanashi says:

    Jury nullification.

    I really doubt that chainsaw was being stolen just to remove trees.

  10. avatar Hannibal says:

    If you’re looking to stop people from stealing large items like that from your store a Taser (a real one, not a stun gun) might be a good option. Check with a lawyer in your state first and know that your civil liability goes up through the roof the moment you use one, even if justified- but it’s better than shooting someone in the back with a shotgun for what is, essentially, a large case of shoplifting.

  11. avatar Timoth Toroian says:

    Get a copy of your state’s criminal codes and you will discover most if not all of them frown upon shooting over property crimes AND really don’t like shooting fleeing perps in the back. Unless they committed murder right before your eyes, maybe. Unless someone is in danger don’t shoot. If they are in your house and don’t leave you don’t have many choices. If it’s 2:30 A.M. and they are armed, a different story.

  12. avatar Steven Lynch says:

    Here in Houston we call them Scouts and if he would have got away, there would be more come later for more stuff and there you would be, calling the cops and they would show up an hour or three later , So eventually you would have to give up your business or learn to fight, maybe grow some balls and buy a gun? Welcome to Little York Houston, they still kill you dead here

  13. avatar Josh says:

    You know, if the government said, “Don’t harm thieves, just report them to the police!” and then the police efficiently and effectively hunted down the thieves, the courts imprisoned them, judges and parole boards kept them locked up, and the government made the victims whole, then people might actually be willing to let thieves go. Instead, the police shrug at property crimes, prosecutors and courts shrug at property crimes, judges and parole boards shrug at property crimes, and property owners are left to fend for themselves or to file insurance claims, eat their deductibles, and then pay increased premiums so they can eat the rest of it over a period of years.

    So if the government is not going to make it right, they have no ethical or moral grounds to forbid the victims from making it right themselves.

    1. avatar No One Special says:

      There are a number of things that can be done to deter thieves/criminals without so much as an encounter. A security system, good dog(s), cameras, signage, tactics of your own to invoke fear into the hearts of would be criminals. All of which should be just as important as the insurance policy you pay for to protect the same property.

      1. avatar SoCalJack says:

        Great points. Be a harder target than those around you. Because fortunately there are folks out there that still refuse to lock their stuff up, they leave their car doors unlocked, they walk around with their eyes on their phone, they trust everyone they meet for the first time…

    2. avatar Victoria Illinois says:

      If the government won’t take theft seriously, perhaps they can foot the bill for replacement of stolen items….out of their pockets, not the taxpayers.

  14. avatar NORDNEG says:

    Blame the legal system for giving thugs more protection than the citizen, scum lawyer’s, activist judges, citizens review committees, (basically the perps relatives), are all the problem. Lawyers see $$$ signs, Judges are power hungry, citizen review committees are another word for anarchist. Law abiding citizens take it in the shorts anymore.
    Thank the bleeding hearts.

  15. avatar American Patriot says:

    May not be worth it but it would surely detour crime. Which if this country any motive to do needs harsher laws otherwise what is the deterrent?

  16. avatar Mark says:

    Not a word about the standards for nonlethal force in defense of property? Everyone’s howling about lethal force or about letting the suspect go.

  17. avatar former water walker says:

    Don’t wanna get shot? Don’t steal chit. Simple…

  18. avatar NORDNEG says:

    Kill em all, let god sort them out,,,I’ve loved that remark ever since I was in the Corp.

    1. avatar pwrserge says:

      “Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius”

      Not a particularly good quote given the original context.

    2. avatar Guesty McGuesterson says:

      So we kill you and let God sort out the confusion?

      1. avatar Miner49er says:

        Oh no, the killing is for the other people.

        See, Sergei is different, he’s quality folks.

  19. avatar Arizona Free says:

    Go into a bank and take bags of money and try to run. The cops will ventilate you before you get to your car. A jewelry store will get you the same treatment. It’s not what you rob but who.

    1. avatar Dave says:

      Robbery involves use of force. Theft does not.

    2. avatar Miner49er says:

      In reality, it is illegal for police officers to shoot you in the back unless you are a fleeing felon and they witnessed the crime.

      You know, for everyone advocating instant death for suspected property theft, that sort of behavior is completely unconstitutional.

      It’s interesting that so many folks who consider themselves good patriots are willing to shitcan the constitution when it comes to a few hundred bucks worth of stuff.

      1. avatar pwrserge says:

        There are zero constitutional bars to private action kiddo. The Constitution limits the government, not private citizens. Once again, you have no idea what you’re talking about.

        But hey, I’m not surprised that a Demokkkommie is ready to play fast and loose with individual rights of victims in defense of the “rights” of the criminals to get away with their crimes.

        1. avatar MarkPA says:

          I think you are correct on this one. I think it’s quite unlikely that a non-cop could be held to have committed a violation of the 4A for “seizing” a criminal. Perhaps if the non-cop were acting in aid of and direction of a cop; perhaps if a member of a posse. But, such would be rare events.

          It seems not so far fetched to be prosecuted federally for a deprivation of civil rights. If a Federal prosecutor could sustain a case that you used deadly force against a target because of his race, religion, national origin or some such protected class membership then you could run a risk of Federal prosecution. Yet, it seems somewhat unlikely that an assistant US DA would take the time – unless he had plans for getting promoted or running for office.

          The real risk is state prosecution for assault or homicide without adequate excuse based on a claim of self-defense. And, that risk is very real in all 50 states with the possible exception of TX when the shooting occurs at night.

        2. avatar Miner49er says:

          “I think it’s quite unlikely that a non-cop could be held to have committed a violation of the 4A for “seizing” a criminal.“

          That’s what some folks would call kidnapping, and it is illegal, not only in every state in the union, but in federal law as well.

          You just got to read the constitution a little more closely, with perhaps special attention to the legislation section.

        3. avatar pwrserge says:

          Now, having been busted on a bullshit constitutional argument you devolve into a bullshit legal argument. A citizen’s arrest is not kidnapping. Every citizen has the legal right to detain somebody they witnessed committing a serious crime using reasonable force. At worst, it’s a civil matter.

          What you’re quibbling about now commie, is the definition of “reasonable force”. Funny how you always jump up to defend the criminal lowlife and don’t give a shit about the little guy who now has to deal with a loss in property that would otherwise never be made good and the criminal highly unlikely to be punished in any meaningful way.

        4. avatar Miner49er says:

          I blame our naturalization process for your ignorance, Sergei (Of course, you may still be in Russia and never having been naturalized at all, who knows for sure).

          Article 6, clause 2 is the relevant portion of the constitution:

          “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

          Honestly, even if you’re still behind the Iron Curtain, you really should sit down and read the constitution, you might find it enlightening.

        5. avatar pwrserge says:

          Ok fucktard… I’ll even give you a dumbass version so you can read it.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen%27s_arrest#United_States

          The Constitution does not limit private action. Federal law is not the constitution. Get fucked.

        6. avatar Miner49er says:

          Oh, the old citizens arrest gambit.

          From your citation:

          “A person who makes a citizen’s arrest could risk exposing him or herself to possible lawsuits or criminal charges – such as charges of false imprisonment, unlawful restraint, kidnapping, or wrongful arrest – if the wrong person is apprehended or a suspect’s civil rights are violated.[4] This is especially true when police forces are attempting to determine who an aggressor is. Private citizens do not enjoy the same immunity from civil liability when making arrests on other private citizens as do police officers.”

          Sergei, have you ever broken the law?

        7. avatar pwrserge says:

          Pretty sure that the chances of “the wrong person” being involved are exactly zero when you’re apprehending a thief who’s got your property. But keep dancing commie… Check the actual statutes, in most states, you have absolute immunity from civil and criminal action when using non-lethal force to execute such an arrest.

        8. avatar Hannibal says:

          You can deprive someone of their rights as a private citizen. Such rulings were made during the days of lynching when “private citizens” conducted extra-judicial executions.

      2. avatar Hannibal says:

        “In reality, it is illegal for police officers to shoot you in the back unless you are a fleeing felon and they witnessed the crime.”

        False and false.

        The “fleeing felon” rule was abolished in the 80s. See the case “Tennessee v. Garner.” Now the standard is that a suspect must be reasonably perceived to be an imminent threat of death or great bodily injury. It doesn’t matter if you are wanted for a felony or jaywalking. On the other hand, you can be a child rapist and if the police cannot articulate that you are an immediate threat, they legally cannot use deadly force. Also there is no need for the officer to have witnessed the crime. He needs probable cause.

        Note that these rules do not apply to those who are escaping custody. If you’re escaping prison after being convicted the rules are much less strict for when deadly force can be used.

        NOW. If I were chasing a child rapist and I had no other means of stopping his escape but deadly force I suspect I would be a lot more likely to come up with ways that he was an imminent threat to someone than if I were chasing someone for a dime bag, but legally there’s no stark distinction between a crimes anymore. Which, to some degree, makes a lot of sense. You can be guilty of a felony for writing bad checks. But I think they threw the baby out with the bath water and should have perhaps tried to set a standard of violent crimes, rather than forgetting about them altogether.

        1. avatar Miner49er says:

          Hannah, you seem reasonable but this:

          “You can deprive someone of their rights as a private citizen. Such rulings were made during the days of lynching when “private citizens” conducted extra-judicial executions.“

          No, you can’t.

          And using lynching as an example of when you can deprive someone of their rights is beyond the pale.

          The constitution says the laws made pursuant to the constitution are the supreme law of the land, and the very fact that the lynching is extra-judicial makes it unconstitutional.

          The constitution grants the power to the law of the land, when you violate the law you are violating the Constitution.

  20. avatar strych9 says:

    It’s pretty shocking, to me at least, to see a number of people I know to be fairly well educated talking like they’ve never had a basic civics class.

    Yeah, no one likes a thief. They make us all angry. Anger is not a justification for homicide and neither is theft without force. What gives you the legal and ethical ability to take human life is the threat the other person poses to you or another. Without that threat, sorry, you’re in the wrong and if you’re not damn lucky a jury will find that way. Talk of jury nullification… damn, does betting your life on the sickly pony seem like a good idea to you?

    To allude to a time when stealing certain specific items was tantamount to murder, and when the justice system was spotty at best, is illogical and intellectually dishonest. You don’t want to go back to vigilantism being common. That’s where you’re going with Antifa, it’s where you’re at in Venezuela and large parts of Africa. To say you desire that only makes you look like a fool.

    As jwm notes above; If you go down this road, regardless of the legal outcome, you’re not going to like where you end up unless you’re basically a psychopath.

    1. avatar pwrserge says:

      So you’re going to argue that property criminals are properly caught and punished? Really? In Chiraq, the CPD can’t even close 90% of their homicides. What makes you think that they are any better at property crimes?

      Given that the justice system has turned into a finishing school for career criminals, that’s an absurd position.

      Bring back serious punishment for property crimes and other crimes will drop like a rock. It’s a well documented effect of “broken windows” policing. Unfortunately, our justice system cares far more about “unfair” treatment of criminals with encyclopedic rap sheets than it does about the rights of citizens to go about their lives secure in their persons and property.

      1. avatar strych9 says:

        Bad behavior or dereliction of duty on the part of others does not excuse use of violence where it is not legally or ethically warranted.

        I don’t disagree that the legal system doesn’t deal with property crime very well but that system not function correctly is not an justification for homicide.

        To go on a bit of a tangent here, this discussion is a symptom of how fucking successful the people you call “commies” have been. We’re actually discussing destroying the basic system of Western Civilization because the Left has managed to throw just enough sand into the gears to provoke this kind of reaction.

        They want to burn the whole fucking thing to the ground and they’ve actually managed to piss you off enough that you’re willing to help them. I would implore you to think a bit before assisting them in their goals.

        1. avatar pwrserge says:

          Let’s be honest, what you’re describing as a [fundamental part of western civilization] is an affectation of the last 100 years or so. There is nothing harmful to western civilization to allow immediate private action to protect property.

        2. avatar Toni Smith says:

          i would also add that this shite that has come in in the last 100 years has all come from the commie left to do exactly what it has done…. increase crime and raise peoples tollerance of both street crime and govt crime

        3. avatar strych9 says:

          This isn’t the “last 100 years or so”. This goes back, directly in the US’s case to the 1600’s and, really, long before for Western Civ in general.

          This kind of thing gets starts to get hashed out, with good documentation but the ideas are obviously not brand spankin’ new at the time, in England during the reign of f Henry II, that’s in the 1100’s.

          Fuck man, this is debated hotly in Athens well before (like 500 years) the birth of Christ. Shit, Athens didn’t even tend to kill people for MURDER because they noted the breakdown in social cohesion associated with the death penalty when it was abused by tyrants and during Greece’s Dark Ages. Instead when it looked like someone might be convicted they were given the option to self-impose exile on themselves.

          Later on abuses by the government (Kings) are what lead to a much greater examination of this, and nearly endless debate on the topic by the 1600’s. Hobbes and Locke both touch on this and they’re both dead by 1704, about eight decades before our Constitution is signed.

          In fact a bunch of this is what we’re talking about when we discuss the British idea that colonists should be allowed arms in the first place. There was in fact an argument that the Empire should do as Spain had done and forbid the ownership of arms because of exactly the kind of shit you’re talking about. England decided against this policy.

          Frontier lawlessness and frontier justice certainly occurred and in some cases were a necessary evil but that doesn’t mean that the concept of not lynching a thief, or when lethal force was ethically acceptable (theft not being one of those cases) was a new concept at the time.

          Again, the fact that the current application of the justice system doesn’t work well for property crimes is NOT an argument to simply ignore the system. It’s an argument to actually reform the system to what it’s supposed to be: Where property crimes are punished by the perpetrator making the victim whole plus some. A guy steals $1000 from you and he’s forced to work/pay it off to the tune of $1500 or something.

          There’s a logic behind that idea and it’s not a bad logic, unless you like the idea of living in some place like Iran or South Sudan.

        4. avatar Miner49er says:

          S9, your words of wisdom are falling on deaf ears.

          And the fact is, it is these comments by POTG that have just plain folks really concerned about private firearms ownership in the US.

          It’s not really the mass shootings or muggings or suicides. It’s the anger and vicious rhetoric from the POTG that have prudent citizens concerned.

          S9, you’ve seen poster after poster declare with anger they have an absolute right to kill people who have stolen $100 item.

          Now ask yourself, do you really want any one of these individuals owning an A.R. 15 with a 90 round magazine and 1000 rounds of ammo?

          This is exactly why the anti-gunners are making progress every day at disarming America.

          If we don’t start policing our own ranks and pointing out the armed crazies who are ready to kill for 100 bucks, then the rest of the citizens will take action that we may not appreciate.

        5. avatar pwrserge says:

          Look at the commie… Pretends he gives a shit about the constitution, then in the same post advocates taking away people’s constitutional rights over political opinions. But hey, if you want to play that game, there’s a dark hole in GITMO with your name on it you treasonous piece of shit.

        6. avatar Miner49er says:

          “you treasonous piece of shit”

          Big words from behind a keyboard, Ivan.

          Once again, I think the term is agent provocateur.

          But you are very entertaining, I must admit.

        7. avatar strych9 says:

          Unfortunately the reality that political perception is very, very close to political reality is… well, reality. So, miner does have a point here.

          One of the antis greatest strengths historically has been in messaging discipline. We lack that, lack it in spades.

          Which, as an aside, is why I don’t think Beto is “stupid”. I think he knows he has no chance in this primary but is setting the ground work for a job or political position later on in the Party by playing the same game the antis have forever: moving the goalposts. He’s probably been told to do this.

          It’s like haggling at a flee market only this is over how much of your freedom they get to take away from you by convincing other people that with said freedom, you’re dangerous. The Left has been shockingly good at that it seems. But hey, that incrementalism in exchanging your rights for convenience or the perception of safety is how we’ve got people with Ring and Alexa in their houses and willingly carrying a spy tool in their pocket that just 30 years ago was the NSA’s wet dream.

          Overall serge, the point is not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. I get that thieves piss people off. They piss me off too. When they looted my pad in a shitty neighborhood and the cops didn’t care to even bother looking for that stuff… yeah I was pissed. That doesn’t mean I get to haul off and kill some people for shit I can replace and which, if caught, the thieves can be forced to replace for me.

          As I’ve said before. It’s called the “high road” because walking it is fucking hard. However the high road leads to the high ground and high ground, especially moral high ground, is a great spot to emplace machinguns and mortars.

        8. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Unfortunately the reality that political perception is very, very close to political reality is… well, reality. So, miner does have a point here.”

          Oh crap! strych9 and I agree again. Maybe I am getting too old for this.

        9. avatar I Haz A Question says:

          @Sam,

          Yeah, I think I’ve woken up today in the Upside Down. I’m actually agreeing with some of Miner’s and strych9’s comments, while watching Miner and Sergei punch each other over nomenclature.

        10. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “@Sam,
          Yeah, I think I’ve woken up today in the Upside Down. I’m actually agreeing with some of Miner’s and strych9’s comments”

          Hanging out here can be a mental hazard; wear a shield and be cautious.

  21. avatar Texican says:

    While I agree that the example here was unnecessary use of force due to the chain saw not being Charles’s property (unless he’s the owner – who should have insurance and anti-theft procedures). The conundrum is that when someone steals your property they are stealing the part of your life it took to generate that property. Whether it was wages or your own two hands it took time. Time you can’t get back. That’s why horse thievery got the death penalty.

  22. avatar WI Patriot says:

    “A Memphis store clerk is facing charges for allegedly shooting a man to death over a stolen chain saw.”

    As he should, property crimes do NOT warrant the use of deadly force, additionally, you CANNOT should anyone “fleeing”…

    1. avatar Jerry Sweet says:

      Why not cops do it all the time

  23. avatar Bigus Dickus says:

    Funny, reading through the comments here EVERYONE is missing a *MAJOR* point, the thief was running away so the shooter was not nor could be in fear for his life…*AND* HE SHOT THE THIEF IN THE BACK! You are in no way defending yourself when your target is running away and you shoot him in the back. Add to that the use of an illegal firearm and this joker is facing serious long term time in prison.

    1. avatar pwrserge says:

      Malus lex est null lex. Legality is not an argument against a morally sound action. I don’t give a shit about a thief getting ventilated. I do give a shit that victims of property crime are only given the choice of allowing themselves to be victimized by criminals or instead getting victimized by the government.

      1. avatar Miner49er says:

        Sergei, have you ever broken a law?

        1. avatar pwrserge says:

          No, I haven’t. What’s your point?

        2. avatar Miner49er says:

          By your own statements you say you choose moral action over legal action:

          “ Legality is not an argument against a morally sound action.”

          So have you ever broken a law, including city or county ordinance, state or federal law?

        3. avatar pwrserge says:

          objection, relevance.

        4. avatar Judge Dread says:

          Overruled. Answer the question.

  24. avatar jwm says:

    There’s 2 things I’ve taken away from this comment stream.

    1) I don’t want serge as my lawyer.

    2) miner49er is a walking talking advertisement for Americans to outlaw left. After all, they don’t seem capable of policing themselves.

    1. avatar pwrserge says:

      Moral arguments and legal arguments are different things. I can separate the two. Just because the law is the law doesn’t mean I have to endorse said law.

      1. avatar Miner49er says:

        But you always obey all the laws, right?

        1. avatar pwrserge says:

          As far as anybody can prove in court? Yes.

      2. avatar Toni Smith says:

        personally if a law is not Just, Fair and Moral it should not be followed. For those that seem to think that all laws must be followed i will posit an extreme example. Say tomorow some radical feminazi bunch took power and decreed in law that all males must present to the hospital for mandatory sex reasignment surgery. Would you follow the law or would you go against it???

    2. avatar Miner49er says:

      Why do my words frighten you so?

      I threaten no one in my posts, I always employ a measured and reasonable tone with my statements and questions.

      Hearing too much truth can be uncomfortable.

      But my opinions posted here are the very sort of free-speech the founding fathers wished to preserve and encourage, and wanting to ‘outlaw’ them (and me) seems to be the very antithesis of American patriotism.

      To the privileged, equality feels like oppression.

      1. avatar jwm says:

        Miner. You threaten our human and civil rights. ‘If we don’t regulate ourselves, blah, blah, blah’. But when I use the exact same argument that you use you use your fake outrage.

        You’re a phony.

        1. avatar Miner49er says:

          Help me to understand when I have threatened your rights.

          Yes, I have pointed out that prudent citizens may object to much of what I read on this forum.

          And again, just because my opinion makes you uncomfortable does not give you the right to advocate for censorship of my speech or my death.

        2. avatar jwm says:

          I did not call for your death or censorship. You project much of your own guilt onto others. I simply used the very same line of logic you yourself introduced. Which leads me to believe since you’re reacting to it so that your plans for POTG involve censorship and death. Being as you are a socialist I would not doubt either.

          You introduced the hyperbole here. Not I. Just like upstream you told s9 that ‘nearly all the comments above were about POTG eager to kill over a hundred dollar theft’. Not word for word, but close enough.

          You deliberately inflate the truth and then threaten us that we need to ‘police ourselves’. Or else.

          2020 is going to be rough on you socialists.

        3. avatar Miner49er says:

          You posted:

          “2) miner49er is a walking talking advertisement for Americans to outlaw the left.”

          So just what do you mean by “outlaw the left“, just how will you go about enforcing this ‘outlaw’ action you speak of? Will people like myself be allowed to continue to live in our homes, will we be put in camps, will we be imprisoned or killed?

          And help me understand where you find article or amendment in the United States Constitution to support this ‘outlaw’ action you propose to take?

          You are no patriot, just another petty dictator wannabe, like Don the Con.

          Like Jefferson, I thank Providence daily for the rights and protections of the constitution, and the amendment process therein to guarantee that the constitution can change to reflect the values of American society.

        4. avatar jwm says:

          As you yourself say, miner, the constitution can be changed. There is a process. And again. You were never threatened in my comments. No more than your comments threatened me. As basically I just redirected your own comments back.

          Now, if you feel threatened by them, you wrote them. As for your follow on about camps. Again, that’s just your socialist projections. What you wish to do to me and mine.

        5. avatar Miner49er says:

          jwn, I ask again:

          So just what do you mean by “outlaw the left“, just how will you go about enforcing this ‘outlaw’ action you speak of?

        6. avatar jwm says:

          Don’t be dense, miner. How were you and the ‘normal’ American public going to ban guns and make it stick? Make a constitutional amendment that acknowledges that socialism is a threat to peace and security. Set the mechanism in place to remove all socialists from public office and any teaching positions, public and private.

          There are endless avenues open to do this. Just because all you socialists can come up with is violence and camps doesn’t mean the rest of us aren’t civilized. Once Trump gets his second term he will continue to load the courts with conservative judges.

      2. avatar Miner49er says:

        jwn, you won’t answer the question because you’re not being honest about your statement.

        Stripped bare, your comment means that you want to make it illegal for people to hold political views that are contrary to yours.

        So just what do you mean by “outlaw the left“, just how will you go about enforcing this ‘outlaw’ action you speak of?

        1. avatar jwm says:

          Minor. I realize that as a socialist you’re not the brightest amongst us. But you’ve been answered. Plainly and simply. Change the constitution, as you yourself pointed out can be done. Then let the law enforcement agencies enforce the law. You know, just as you and hillary planned on to ban guns. Except that hillary isn’t in the oval office and Trump will be there until 24. And with all the good will the left is building up with Trump you guys are in for a bumpy ride.

          That’s as simple as I can explain it. If you still can’t figure it out, well socialist.

  25. avatar Sam I Am says:

    Posts like this always generate responses that are overwrought. The drill is simple: listen to /read the story. Consider the conditions, the action, the aftermath/potential aftermath. Then….make your own decision as to how you will proceed. You have been given information (valid information at that).

    When you decide you will risk everything regardless of the situation, you have been informed and cannot claim any sort of ignorance, being uninformed, being mistaken, being somehow unjustly treated. If your decision ends your life, or arranges permanent residence in Graybar, your survivors can be proud of your principles. If you decision keeps you from taking a dirt nap, or out of jail, you can continue to live your life in relative safety.

    The issue isn’t, “Buh, muh rahts”. The issue is being an informed and responsible gun owner, and making decisions accordingly; nothing more than that. No proclamation of bravado here, or in court will serve to protect you from the law.

    1. avatar pwrserge says:

      I think it’s an important discussion not to argue what the law is or isn’t but what it should or shouldn’t be. Nobody is arguing that the guy was legally in the right. A moral argument, however, can be made.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “I think it’s an important discussion not to argue what the law is or isn’t but what it should or shouldn’t be. ”

        Well, pwserge, as usual you are always wrong, and I am always right.

        (Of course, it is the same for you, on the other side of the screen. “Ain’t it cool?”)

        1. avatar pwrserge says:

          Pretty sure I can’t be wrong on the subject of what I, myself, think.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Pretty sure I can’t be wrong on the subject of what I, myself, think.”

          Maybe you are wrong about what you think you think?

          Note: the first rely was a gag.

    2. avatar strych9 says:

      True.

      But then there’s this rock called “politics” that we trip over, fall down a hole…

      …and we end up in Wonderland chatting about the Red Queen and some oddball cat that have us thinking we got dosed on acid. And while we contemplate who might have slipped us these drugs some lunatic pours us a hot beverage, drops some roofies in it and talks to a fucking rabbit about the time.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “…and talks to a fucking rabbit about the time.”

        And?

        You have some sort of problem with that?

        1. avatar strych9 says:

          My only issue is that it’s always 18:00 which means the tea never stops and tea makes me have to piss like a racehorse which makes me either annoyed and in a hurry or wet.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “My only issue is that it’s always 18:00…”

          Rabbits are a protected class; you could be sued for your comments.

        3. avatar strych9 says:

          “Rabbits are a protected class; you could be sued for your comments.”

          I’ll be brief: Fuck the hare, fuck the Hatter and, for good measure, fuck Donnie Darko too.

        4. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “I’ll be brief: Fuck the hare, fuck the Hatter and, for good measure, fuck Donnie Darko too.”

          Well….I never !

        5. avatar strych9 says:

          Not like it would be the first time. Heath Ledger hit that years back.

        6. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Heath Ledger hit that years back.”

          What the heck is a Heath Ledger? Are you talking about Heathcliffe from “Dark Shadows”?

        7. avatar strych9 says:

          Donnie Darko is played by Jake Gyllenhaal. Gyllenhaal is in “Brokeback Mountain” with Ledger.

          Heathcliffe is what happens when Garfield tries to gangbang, fails and ends up hanging out with a bunch of B-Boys and Captain Planeteers.

        8. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Heathcliffe is what happens when Garfield tries to gangbang, fails…”

          I thought that situation always results in a nasty hairball deposited on new furniture. At least “Heathcliffe” is what it sounds like.

        9. avatar strych9 says:

          “I thought that situation always results in a nasty hairball deposited on new furniture.”

          That’s from when Garfield tongue-punches Nirmil’s fartbox too much.

        10. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “That’s from when Garfield tongue-punches Nirmil’s fartbox too much.”

          Actually, my good soul, I have it on staunch authority that the hairball results from failing to shun the frumious Bandersnatch

      2. avatar jwm says:

        Your day has obviously been so much more interesting than mine.

        1. avatar strych9 says:

          I’m extremely impressed by how much time contractors working out a bid on a house can waste.

          They probably thought I was a bit weird though… what with forcing coffee down some poor rabbit’s throat in the front yard while rambling about playing cards and yelling at the neighbors tabby…

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “I’m extremely impressed by how much time contractors working out a bid on a house can waste.”

          Once worked with an Army officer who was acting as GC for building his custom home. He could hardly keep his mind on his job, or his eyes opened. One day he arrived at the office and announced that anyone thinking to build a custom home should just ask an architect how much money was needed, write a check and walk away.

          Now, not being a trained architect (but having a father and brother in the business), I was looking at his latest nightmare…a sauna using hot rocks in a bin where water was sprayed onto the rocks to generate the steam. Of course it was all expensive, and had the best of feature. The Army officer was really proud of this sauna to be built into his master bath; talked about it endlessly. His project management book was on his desk, and I picked it up to see what such a book contained. Lo, there were drawings of the sauna and the installation area.

          Took the main drawing out of the book, and studied it for awhile. Then, I rotated the drawing (blueprint) 90degrees. Suddenly things made perfect sense. I drew the Army officer over to look at the print, and told him that he would not be happy at all with the sauna. It was going to be installed on a wall, not the floor, and the opening for the rocks, and steam release, would be parallel to the floor.

          The officer requested immediate leave from the commander, and was not seen for two weeks. Then we had the ChairForce/Grunt discussion once again.

  26. avatar Will Drider says:

    Eye for an Eye! Its no for vengeance: In biblical times there was basically one punishment for all crimes and that was death. Steal bread or kill had the same sentence. Eye for an Eye was to make punishments equal to the crime and not exceed what was due. This inturn lead to the first repeat offenders in history, Lol. However, today there is a group of crimes that lethal force can be used to Stop. Other crimes: Even if lethal force is technically legal, it fails the Eye for an Eye justification. We are also restricted from being vigilantes and may not collect that equal punishment ourselves. Instead of spending major money on a lawyer (public defender won’t evn wipe your tears), improve your security “Structure” and surveillance.

    Yes, it sucks to have property crimes that mostly overworked and understaffed PDs don’t work on beyond taking the Report. It just one of the degradations of our current society.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “Eye for an Eye! Its no for vengeance”

      So many people who should know better get this all wrong. The statement, as you note, is the pronouncement of a limit, not a command to seek maximum punishment with no compassion, restraint or sense of proportionality. It is a call for use of common sense.

      1. avatar tdiinva says:

        Vengeance is the province of God on the last day. Earthly justice should be proportional. Killing someone for stealing a chainsaw from a hardware store without threatening anybody does not meet this standard.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Killing someone for stealing a chainsaw from a hardware store without threatening anybody does not meet this standard.”

          There is always the path of the Amish and Quakers.

        2. avatar KenW says:

          They can get medieval on your heinie.

        3. avatar Toni Smith says:

          ok so as one other commented for example about how the left wants to make it so that the law abiding firearms owner whose firearm gets stolen is responsible for any crimes committed with it after it is stolen. If we applied that same sort of law to the theft of the chainsaw and the miscreant went on to be a mass killer with a chainsaw?
          BTW not trying to be rediculous. There are laws that are just and fair and there are laws that are unjust, unfair and immoral. If the perp is trying to leave the scene with your goods i say should be fair game however if you see them with your goods sometime after and go after them then no get witnesses and police involved then after having reported the theft in the first place

  27. avatar Dan W says:

    Everyone wants a civilization but no one wants to pay the price of civilization. The price of civilization is restless culling of the underclasses. The asshole stealing the chainsaws did his part to make America great again but achieving room temperature.

    If we had any sense the law would require you to kill the thief, not punish you.

    1. avatar Miner49er says:

      So Dan, in all your life, you have never stolen anything, not a pencil from work, never fudged done an expense report?

      Never under charged in the air and kept the money, never receive more than you paid for and not return it?

    2. avatar Lurker6 says:

      Bwhahahhawhahhahah. Just when I think all the little closet parochial, petty working man Mussolini’s and latent sociopaths on here absorbed in their own isolated inner worlds and private shameful rage fantasies can’t get any more pathetic or ridiculous. You guys just get worse and worse every time I check in. Is this how it’s been lately? It’s been a few months. Most of you losers really should understand that in an ideal world you would only exist for the entertainment of others.

  28. avatar jakee308 says:

    And it looks really bad for any self defense claim when they get shot in the back.

    Everyone is outraged that you have to let the thieves go if they can out run you but that’s just the rules. Forget this talk of morality it’s just plain not a self defense situation period.

    What you can do is take actions to prevent your property being seen as easy pickins but even then opportunities arise that were not foreseen. Thems the breaks.

  29. avatar Hankus says:

    Hypothetical question time.

    The anti-gun cabal wants to make gun owners responsible for crimes performed with weapons that are stolen from them.

    In this case, do you think deadly force would be justified in order to stop a thief making off with a weapon of yours? Disregarding the fact that they have in their possession a deadly weapon that could be turned on you. (“He had a gun in his hand, I was afraid for my life”, etc)

    Just considering what crimes MAY BE committed, I am wondering how the law may be interpreted in that case.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “The anti-gun cabal wants to make gun owners responsible for crimes performed with weapons that are stolen from them.

      In this case, do you think deadly force would be justified in order to stop a thief making off with a weapon of yours? ”

      Interesting question. Hadn’t contemplated that concept before.

    2. avatar tdiinva says:

      I would use lethal force if someone was making off with my firearms. I would plead defense of others and leave it up to the jury. If the defense failed I would accept the punishment because I would probably saved someone’s life. It’s called sacrifice.

      1. avatar Lurker6 says:

        pppfft, Oh sure you would guy. I bet you like to complain about other people “virtue signaling”. You still brag about that winning touch down in high school? Ever occur to you that statistically that stolen gun of yours is 90% likely to be used to kill another scum bag? God you guys are such old shut in wind bags.

        1. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

          “Ever occur to you that statistically that stolen gun of yours is 90% likely to be used to kill another scum bag?”

          What is both hilarious and sad at the same time is, you actually believe that bullshit.

          Free clue – Pull the stolen gun data and compare to the homicide rate.

          Not. Even. Close.

          And as far as I’m concerned, the more ‘scumbags’ that kill each other, the better for society…

        2. avatar tdiinva says:

          I didn’t play football in high school and my high school football team sucked.

        3. avatar Lurker6 says:

          Geoff

          “And as far as I’m concerned, the more ‘scumbags’ that kill each other, the better for society…”
          That was kinda my point dude. The guys anonymously virtue signaling about his fake savior complex and his willingness to destroy his own life and that of his families in order to save some hypothetical stranger, never stopping to actually critically reason and understand that that hypothetical stranger he’s throwing his life away for is almost certain to be a violent career felon.

  30. avatar NORDNEG says:

    I think there is a lot of people on this thread that has NOT been a victim,,, until you are , your comments mean nothing to the people who have. I’ve been shot, stabbed, blown up, had things stolen, destroyed & vandalized, intimidated, berated by doushbags , I give NO ground to punks, thugs, or idiots that think they know more than the victims they prey on… every one thinks climate change is a man made occurrence, so why not do away with a bunch of dirtbags, help the environment. HA ! I love Fireball…!!!

    1. avatar "keep yur paws off my dead guy" possum says:

      Blown up? And your still alive, you must be tougher then a possum.

  31. avatar "keep yurvpaws off my dead guy" possum says:

    Shooting someone in the back is only justified if your an L E O

  32. avatar Broke_It says:

    Kind of reminds me of Adam Smith’s keen observation, “The real price of everything, what everything really costs to the man who wants to acquire it, is the toil and trouble to acquire it.”

    Now you and I both see a $400 tool, but these men perceived a value sweeter than life itself located within that chainsaw.

  33. avatar Edgar Gomez says:

    In some countries you get your hands chopped off for stealing. I see death as a better option. Don’t steal and you won’t get your brains blown off.

    1. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

      “In some countries you get your hands chopped off for stealing. I see death as a better option.”

      If you fail to learn the lesson your were taught by getting a hand cut off, they execute you the next time…

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “If you fail to learn the lesson your were taught by getting a hand cut off, they execute you the next time…”

        In the “lose a hand for stealing” countries, the punishment is very specific, the right hand, for a very specific reason. The result is intended to ensure very few thus punished survive to be caught a second time.

        1. avatar Miner49er says:

          The left hand is unclean and can’t be used for religious rituals, so no right hand means no paradise.

          Some people make up really strange rules for their sky daddies, they’re all wrong for all the same reasons.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “The left hand is unclean and can’t be used for religious rituals, so no right hand means no paradise.”

          Actually, there is a more practical and immediate result: the left hand does the wiping, and the right hand is used for feeding. The new “lefty” has interesting choices to make.

          As to insulting people of faiths, if you haven’t been introduced to Pascal’s wager…

        3. avatar Miner49er says:

          Yes, you wipe with the left… that’s why it’s unclean.

          Once you lose your right hand, you no longer have the ability to participate in the necessary rituals to achieve paradise.

        4. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Once you lose your right hand, you no longer have the ability to participate in the necessary rituals to achieve paradise.”

          That is deferred, and potential. Using the left hand to eat means choosing to eat filth, or choosing starvation. At best, the “lefty” would be set outside the city gates, and forced to eat in seclusion, lest the people fall upon the “lefty” for filthy practices in public. People and family would be compelled to shun a “lefty”.

        5. avatar Miner49er says:

          Pascal’s Wager is chock-full of fallacies, at almost every level one considers.

          It doesn’t rely on logic, rather it is faith based and faith, by definition is a belief in things for which there is no good evidence.

          There is no evidence to support the existence of a God who can grant salvation or damnation, and belief is not a choice.

          And again, which god are we talking about?
          As there is no good evidence for the existence of any God, it really doesn’t make any difference, you can insert any God you want into the argument and it’s still a logical fallacy.

          Personally, anyone who uses Pascal’s Wager to justify a ‘belief’ in God is clearly a self-serving person who wants to hedge his bets because he’s afraid of his imaginary sky daddy.

          For a much more reasoned critique of Pascal’s Wager, just Google Pascal’s Wager fallacy.

        6. avatar Sam I Am says:

          Like so many, you cannot understand what you don’t want to understand; talking about the wager. The wager is truly simple. While many have attempted to attack the proposition posed by the wager, all fall into the same error: complication.

        7. avatar Jerry Sweet says:

          Hey miner tell that to God when you stand before him in terror just before He casts you into the lake of 🔥 repent and be saved

        8. avatar Miner49er says:

          Sam, I’m afraid you were too caught up in your God delusion to perceive reality in a rational fashion.

          Again I ask you, which god are you talking about when you discuss Pascal’s Wager?

          Is it Zeus? Is it Shiva? Is it Thor?

          Why aren’t you willing to clarify your statement of the wager? And what evidence can you offer to prove the assertion in your wager regarding salvation and hell?

        9. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Why aren’t you willing to clarify your statement of the wager?”

          Because I mistakenly thought you had the ability to understand the wager. However, when I saw you fall into the kaleidoscope of over-complication, it seemed useless to go further.

          Your uninformed ad hominem attack underscores your lack of seriousness. Presuming facts not in evidence is not the sign of a facile mind.

        10. avatar Miner49er says:

          Sammy, I’m calling BS on your reply.

          Pascal’s Wager has long been recognized as a fallacious argument, you’re not the first to use the wager in the attempt to delude others into your fantasies.

          Most Christians don’t even believe the shit they spout, and they don’t think you have to truly believe in order to get to heaven. Your own statements show it’s all an act:

          ”Pascal’s conclusion is that one’s life is subject to more benefits if one acts as if God does exist.”

          So one should ”act as if God does exist”?

          Yep, it’s all an act, no heartfelt conviction or true belief, just an act.

          If the only thing that keeps you in line is a threat of hellfire, that means you have no internal moral structure and only the threat of punishment is what keeps you behaving ethically.

          That’s pretty scary to us rational folks.

      2. avatar Miner49er says:

        Sam, I just love Pascal’s Wager.

        As I understand it, if you believe in Zeus and he’s real you’re good to go.

        If he’s not real, you’ve lost nothing.

        But if you don’t believe in Zeus, and he is real, then you’re going to Hades for sure.

        Is that it?

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Sam, I just love Pascal’s Wager.
          As I understand it, if you believe in Zeus and he’s real you’re good to go.
          If he’s not real, you’ve lost nothing.
          But if you don’t believe in Zeus, and he is real, then you’re going to Hades for sure.
          Is that it?”

          To ridicule and discount the negative outcome indicates lack of respect for a wrong choice. Pascal’s conclusion is that one’s life is subject to more benefits if one acts as if God does exist. (Oh, and that being wrong about God results in a catastrophic outcome from which no return is possible – and the avoidance of such is added to the benefit column)

        2. avatar Miner49er says:

          But which god are we talking about?

          How can Pascal’s Wager possibly work with the thousands of gods out there?

          Pascal’s Wager is a fallacy because it’s based on the notion that there is but one God, and we have no proof that there are any gods, much less some particular one.

        3. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “But which god are we talking about?”

          Really? That’s your question? Then you do not understand Pascal.

        4. avatar Miner49er says:

          That’s the fallacy with Pascal’s Wager, he assumes (without presenting any evidence) there is only one God who can offer salvation.

          His wager completely ignores the possibility that there are other gods who can offer salvation or one other god that can offer salvation or no gods that can offer salvation.

          The claim that there is a personified, supernatural being that offers either salvation or eternal damnation is an extraordinary claim, for which one must offer extraordinary evidence.

          No one has offered such evidence to date, though I remain hopeful.

        5. avatar Sam I Am says:

          You do not understand the wager (which is also a very good analysis tool for most any serious question). You understand a superficial glossing of the wager, but not the wager.

        6. avatar Miner49er says:

          Pascal’s Wager is chock-full of fallacies, at almost every level one considers.

          It doesn’t rely on logic, rather it is faith based and faith, by definition is a belief in things for which there is no good evidence.

          There is no evidence to support the existence of a God who can grant salvation or damnation, and belief is not a choice.

          And again, which god are we talking about?
          As there is no good evidence for the existence of any God, it really doesn’t make any difference, you can insert any God you want into the argument and it’s still a logical fallacy.

          Personally, anyone who uses Pascal’s Wager to justify a ‘belief’ in God is clearly a self-serving person who wants to hedge his bets because he’s afraid of his imaginary sky daddy.

          For a much more reasoned critique of Pascal’s Wager, just Google Pascal’s Wager fallacy.

  34. avatar GS650G says:

    Nothing I own is worth killing over. That said if someone is inside my home uninvited then they are a threat. But leaving with my things warrants a picture and 911 call, not a bullet.

  35. avatar Wally1 says:

    I used to laugh when someone says that they never committed a crime. There are so many laws that most people don’t even realize that they broke the law, probably everyone has broken a law. We would laugh to the quote “A misdemeanor a day and felony on the weekend”.
    I do not agree with our revolving door legal system, These criminals just keep committing crimes and victimizing people with little or no consequences from the courts. We had a case where a 22 year old had racked up 6 felony convictions since he was 18 and this scumbag is still walking the streets. It’s not the cops, they are doing their job, it’s the courts giving lenient punishment and all these so called rehab and drug court programs that are just B.S.

  36. avatar KaP says:

    You must know the laws of the state you live in as there are a few states where defending your property is legal,

  37. “I recently wrote about not using deadly force in property crimes. The theme: Let. Him. Go. Killing someone over a $400 chainsaw — or any other property — simply isn’t worth it.”

    “[I]sn’t worth it.” Interesting way to describe taking human life when not necessary. Or legal. Or morally justified. That suggests there is some analysis to be done to arrive at the decision not to murder a fleeing thief . . . by shooting in the back. Don’t think so.

    1. avatar Miner49er says:

      Unfortunately, the dark reality is the calculation is much colder than anyone wants to admit.

      What they mean is: ‘will the hassle and inconvenience be more than the thrill I get from killing somebody?‘.

      Above, you’ll see plenty of posts from individuals who seem to crave shooting down another human being for a $100 item.

      Yep, it’s clear America is a Christian nation with hope, love and charity for all men.

  38. avatar Dan says:

    Lol thanks for using my comment. That made my day.

  39. avatar Chief Censor says:

    We need to change the law back to allowing victims to shoot robbers if the robber refuses to stop stealing. Also, should make it legal to shoot someone that is destroying your property and refuses to stop when confronted.

  40. So many of these discussions start with bad facts and bad law, become simplistic statements of a philosophy, angry nit-picking of statements that cannot possibly cover the entire subject, misquotes and then insults and the ultimate irrefutable rejoinder “F—-you.” I shall do an article on this for Concealed Carry. I am hamstrung by the fact that, as a lawyer, I must defend people on the law that IS. Not what I would like it to be. And that law may be the result of a 5-4 decision by the Supreme Court. If you don’t like the law as it is, don’t rely on jury nullification. It happens but not very often. Use your computer to organize.

  41. avatar America is full of Betas says:

    What happened to our country and property rights!?????

    In Texas its legal to shoot some one on ur land @ nite or stealing ur property! Crime will go down.

    If u steal property that is vital to someone’s livelihood u be allowed to shoot the bastard! Crime will go way down.

    People know stealing is wrong and ur hurting someone else. That is what our Constitution is about leave others alone or face the consequences!

    I heard some old guys talking about shooting some thieves with bird shot in their asses back during depression days..didn’t kill them but, it broke some skin where they sat down..

  42. avatar Barry Hirsh says:

    Oh, I dunno.

    A shotgun blast up the butt seems to me like a fit punishment.

    How’d Christopher Walken put it in “Things to do in Las Vegas when you’re dead”?

    Oh, yeah…. BUCKWHEATS.

  43. avatar Seizure doc says:

    Much of the commentary here is nonsense. We live today under our current system. You want to shoot someone over stealing $500, go ahead but this article is telling you what you will get. Plain and simple. If it was a 15 year-old kid, do you really want to END HIS LIFE over a chainsaw ? I don’t like letting it go any more than the next guy but today, you WILL pay for such actions, rightly or wrongly.

  44. avatar Red says:

    Apparently the clerk violated the “Keep Criminals Alive & Employed” Law.

    Really sad that anyone can come along and take whatever they want and you are expected to quietly stand by and wait for the police to show up, if they do.

    Criminals have more rights than taxpaying citizens. And the tyrants want to disarm us too!

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email