Originally posted by Silent Master
If they had been shooting at him or driving the car towards him, I'd say he had every right to shoot. but that isn't what happened.
Yup.
Originally posted by Surtur
I was surprised to see the kids dad said the ruling was fair.
Some people, in fact many of them, are logical, and level headed. His deceased son was caught in the act of trying to burgle a home. His son was shot while fleeing. He understand that his son was doing something that could get him killed. However, his son was trying to flee and it was wrong of that the homeowner to shoot at a fleeing car.
Only in Castle Doctrine states can you shoot someone on your property...but I don't even think that would apply in this situation since they were on the road.
Yes, I believe a burglar automatically forfeits his or her life the moment that step onto private property with the intention to burgle. That's a known risk that even stupid teenagers understand.
However, I do not think the homeowner should serve ANY jail time. None. None whatsoever. He should be ordered to pay out a painful sum to the victims family and be required to do some sort of community service to gunshot victims (such as medical care like having the change the diapers to a convalesced victim).
But he is a working, productive member of society. He would not have killed the young man had the young man not sought to harm him or taken his property. Removing a productive member of society, who is not a danger to society, is such a waste. His life may be ruined, now. He may lose his job. I want his taxes. 😐
Originally posted by dadudemon
Yup.Some people, in fact many of them, are logical, and level headed. His deceased son was caught in the act of trying to burgle a home. His son was shot while fleeing. He understand that his son was doing something that could get him killed. However, his son was trying to flee and it was wrong of that the homeowner to shoot at a fleeing car.
Only in Castle Doctrine states can you shoot someone on your property...but I don't even think that would apply in this situation since they were on the road.
Yes, I believe a burglar automatically forfeits his or her life the moment that step onto private property with the intention to burgle. That's a known risk that even stupid teenagers understand.
However, I do not think the homeowner should serve ANY jail time. None. None whatsoever. He should be ordered to pay out a painful sum to the victims family and be required to do some sort of community service to gunshot victims (such as medical care like having the change the diapers to a convalesced victim).
But he is a working, productive member of society. He would not have killed the young man had the young man not sought to harm him or taken his property. Removing a productive member of society, who is not a danger to society, is such a waste. His life may be ruined, now. He may lose his job. I want his taxes. 😐
I actually agree with this.
You could put other restrictions on him, if it's about punishing the man. Unfortunately, our legal system is pretty straightforward in how it works: You either pay money or go to jail. And the big crimes (Like manslaughter) almost always entail jail time.
Originally posted by Killjoy12
A lot of you say he was fleeing the scene and the homeowner had no right to shoot. Had he done nothing those three thugs would have just kept robbing places. Not only should the guy not have got 90 days he should be given a medal.
That is why we have laws and police. Resorting to vigilante justice deprives the target and society at large due process.
Originally posted by cdtm
I actually agree with this.You could put other restrictions on him, if it's about punishing the man. Unfortunately, our legal system is pretty straightforward in how it works: You either pay money or go to jail. And the big crimes (Like manslaughter) almost always entail jail time.
I still can't see why, if the kid forfeited his life with his actions, the parents are owed any money.