What's new
TerraForums Venus Flytrap, Nepenthes, Drosera and more talk

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Irate homeowner shoots plant thief

  • Thread starter pearldiver
  • Start date
  • #21
Regardless of the legitimacy of firearm laws (or another one of JB's insane rants), I have yet to hear a convincing argument on the issue of the bystander. Are a few plants and a strong message to other thieves really worth the death of an innocent civilian? She did say, after all, that she could "smell" the gunpowder. Also, show me the statistical proof that protecting one's property by lethal means lowers theft or crime in general.

Other than that, you guys can sit on your computers and pretend you would shoot a trespasser all you like, but until that moment arises, you're just making a moot point.
 
  • #22
For the woman to say she smelled the gunpowder, that puts her in the vicinity but who can say how close? Too close for comfort for her, for sure. The smell of smokeless powder can travel some distance. There is proof out there, FBI statistics for one to show how resistance to a criminal often does no harm or may foil the criminals plans, just the other day, I saw video of a creep trying to kidnap a little girl...she resisted and got away. It may be difficult to show precisely that the use of deadly force to prevent theft lowers theft or crime in general. I have read books from knowledgeable people that such is the case. One thing is certain, criminals go out of their way not to commit crime in the presence of the police. I think the same concept stretches to criminals being less likely to choose a victim they know or suspect to be armed. Likewise to burglarize a house they feel or know the homeowner to be armed. Should they find someone is home, then their burglary would become a robbery. Self preservation is a big motivator. Perhaps I am mistaken in that, but ask a cop sometime if his house has ever been burglarized. If and when bystanders are injured that is terrible, and something that everyone who contemplates carrying a weapon should consider. One of many considerations.
 
  • #23
I think Chicago is one instance where violent vigilantism and retaliation to gangs and deaths of bystanders spiraled out of control and produced more gangs. What would Batman do?
 
Last edited:
  • #24
Although stealing a potted plant seems kinda foolish, shooting someone for doing it is just plain wrong. Maybe yelling at the guy or pointing a un-chambered gun at him would be the best thing to do. Besides, if he had died, what do you think the man would say in a job interview after they looked up his background? " I shot him because he was stealing one of my plants"...I know I wouldn't give him any job. And also, being a hunter and shooter, I know that smelling the gun powder from a gun is way too close for comfort. Clearly he should have been fined for threatening bystanders. And also...hes in his 60's...Ive met a lot of nice old people, and a lot of mean old people that have threatened me...so Im not surprised he had a gun.
 
  • #25
I don't know which is more entertaining; the story itself, or the commentary it elicits!
*waves a flag riddled with bullet holes, chuckling*
 
  • #26
I think Chicago is one instance where violent vigilantism and retaliation to gangs and deaths of bystanders spiraled out of control and produced more gangs. What would Batman do?

Chicago citizens do not even have the right to protect themselves. They cannot own pistols and cannot carry firearms for protection. Been that way for years, so as far as violent vigilantism... Not only Chicago, but around the world, places with strict firearm laws have a naturally high crime rate.

As far as the bystander, like others have said, burnt powder can be smelled quite a distance away. Anyone who has sent a few rounds down range knows this.

There are far more crimes prevented just by the presence of a firearm than are ever reported.

And, AMEN to JB!

---------- Post added at 02:52 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:47 PM ----------

Although stealing a potted plant seems kinda foolish, shooting someone for doing it is just plain wrong. Maybe yelling at the guy or pointing a un-chambered gun at him would be the best thing to do. Besides, if he had died, what do you think the man would say in a job interview after they looked up his background? " I shot him because he was stealing one of my plants"...I know I wouldn't give him any job. And also, being a hunter and shooter, I know that smelling the gun powder from a gun is way too close for comfort. Clearly he should have been fined for threatening bystanders. And also...hes in his 60's...Ive met a lot of nice old people, and a lot of mean old people that have threatened me...so Im not surprised he had a gun.

And if the burglar had pulled out a gun while you pointed your unchambered gun at him... Besides if the guy had died...oh well. The home owner did nothing wrong, there would be no background history to check. None. As it should be. No crime was committed. Also, by your comment, are you a mean crotchety old man? Apparently they are the ones with guns.

Being in the room, holding your nose because someone farted, does not mean you were in the line of fire.
 
  • #27
Wow! Paha, this is why I'm happy my own country has tougher gun laws. This is actually terrifying. I really don't understand why anyone would want more guns floating around- there are far too many stupid, impulsive and untrustworthy people around- giving them guns just makes them even more of a hazard to society.
 
  • #28
The Minnesota house just passed the "Shoot First" law, meaning you are entitled to shoot trespassers on your property you imagine are threatening, they don't have to be armed themselves.

It's just another Dirty Harry law, all these poeple imagine they are the character from the movies and gonna whip out their pieces and save the world. Thing is when that Gabrielle Gifford lady got shot down in AZ there were like 5 or 6 people who pulled out guns and were ready to start shooting the people they THOUGHT were the shooter until other attendees stopped them. It could have turned into a whole OK Corral sorta thing... :lol:
 
  • #29
Get off my lawn! :-))
 
  • #30
@dsrtfox1942: What about the people who were inside their homes, minding their own business, who were killed by stray bullets? Having a gun doesn't necessarily prevent crime. There's plenty of cases where victims get killed first before they can even draw out their guns. There's also many examples of armed robberies being foiled by unarmed heroes. If you want to compare the US to the rest of the world, the US has the highest gun-related crimes than Europe, and Europe has even tougher gun laws. However, Mexico also has strict gun laws, but it doesn't prevent drug wars.
 
  • #31
The potential thief should be arrested but killing him? Lets not forget he was a father, should they lose their dad because he tried to still a plant? Killing a person who enters a house illegally I'm all for, but not for stilling property outside the home.
 
  • #32
The potential thief should be arrested but killing him? Lets not forget he was a father, should they lose their dad because he tried to still a plant? Killing a person who enters a house illegally I'm all for, but not for stilling property outside the home.

Agreed.

---------- Post added at 04:46 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:38 PM ----------

Chicago citizens do not even have the right to protect themselves. They cannot own pistols and cannot carry firearms for protection. Been that way for years, so as far as violent vigilantism... Not only Chicago, but around the world, places with strict firearm laws have a naturally high crime rate.

As far as the bystander, like others have said, burnt powder can be smelled quite a distance away. Anyone who has sent a few rounds down range knows this.

There are far more crimes prevented just by the presence of a firearm than are ever reported.

And, AMEN to JB!

---------- Post added at 02:52 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:47 PM ----------



And if the burglar had pulled out a gun while you pointed your unchambered gun at him... Besides if the guy had died...oh well. The home owner did nothing wrong, there would be no background history to check. None. As it should be. No crime was committed. Also, by your comment, are you a mean crotchety old man? Apparently they are the ones with guns.

Being in the room, holding your nose because someone farted, does not mean you were in the line of fire.

Pulling out a gun while someone is pointing a gun at you would be a really stupid idea and I couldn't imagine anyone doing it unless they are experts at robbing and are wearing a vest. If the guy had died there would be a extremely sad family that would be affected permanently...and besides, Im sure that they would hire an expert lawyer and give that old man a run for his money. Besides, he was just stealing a plant..all he needed was a warning and a good scare...not a life threatening one.
 
  • #33
Agreed.

---------- Post added at 04:46 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:38 PM ----------



Pulling out a gun while someone is pointing a gun at you would be a really stupid idea and I couldn't imagine anyone doing it unless they are experts at robbing and are wearing a vest. If the guy had died there would be a extremely sad family that would be affected permanently...and besides, Im sure that they would hire an expert lawyer and give that old man a run for his money. Besides, he was just stealing a plant..all he needed was a warning and a good scare...not a life threatening one.

That old man would have had every lawyer the NRA and other gun organizations have on his side, and would not have had to put out one dime of his own money. Part of the benefits of having these organizations. Last time I checked, criminals aren't exactly the brightest of people. What kind of family does he have to begin with, he's a burglar. I am not saying that shooting him was necessary, but certainly justified legally. We know no details beyond what the media releases, and we all know the media draws onto negative things and blows them out of proportion. So all we can do is speculate our own opinions. I was born and raised around firearms and will die that way. I am an NRA life member, and currently work retail and have for numerous places selling firearms. I'm as pro second amendment as they come. I live by the motto, better to have and not need, than to need and not have.

As far as Europe and other countries, do any research on violent crime numbers and you will see that, particularly in Australia, it had a steep incline since they decided to ban civilian firearm ownership. Their governments would never tell you this, though it has been published by trustworthy researchers numerous times. The UK has a higher crime per capita rate than the US. Remember, just like unemployment rates in this country, crime statistics can be covered up by new reporting policies. According to BBC news, handgun crime in the UK rose by 40% since 1997 when they enacted it's gun ban. While in the US, since the expiration of the assault weapons ban in 2004, our crime rates have fallen.

Chalk it up to whatever you want, but the facts are the facts. Gun bans simply do not work. Criminals will always have access to firearms. And with that I am done on this thread.
 
  • #34
@dsrtfox1942: Only the pro-gun groups claim that crime increased. Anti-gun groups say that crime decreased. Criminologists say pro-gun groups manipulated data to support their point of view. Some researchers say there is insufficient data to draw any conclusions, while others say the laws had no effect on crime rate. Here are data plots for crime rate in Australia; didn't have time to look at other countries, so results for Australia may or may not be representative of other countries.

From FactCheck.org:
homicides_australia_chart.jpg


Australian Homicide weapon statistics
Relative use of knife and firearm to commit homicide, from 1989-90 to 2006-07 (percent)

weapon_trends.ashx


From www.gunsandcrime.org
assault.gif


propcrym.gif
 
  • #35
Insane in the membrane. Insane someone has no brain.

Mato, I am entitled to rant. I am far from insane. As always you must pull out personal insults in attempts to be heard. This all plays hand in hand with everything I "rant" about. we live in a society where everyone wants something for free and will take it if not given. It just needs to stop.

And you don't have to be that close to smell the gunpowder from a bullet.
 
  • #36
I know I said I was done, but, like I said, any group can twist numbers. Many criminologists have published statistics on both sides. I did say violent crime, not crime involving firearms. However, statistics do not show how many crimes are stopped, and how many lives are saved by firearms. No such study has ever really been done, simply because no crimes are committed in these situations. So, in short, it is my opinion that firearms save more lives than they take. Because one armed citizen uses poor judgement, which we don't even know, people latch onto that and use it to progress their agenda. The NRA publishes many instances of people using firearms to defend themselves every month, yet main stream media sources very, very rarely report these.

It is just common sense that criminals will always be criminals, they will attain firearms and use them. Period. That is a fact. Honest people who own firearms do not commit crimes, criminals do. Taking firearms "off the streets" is a scam to rob us of our rights. Some people just don't understand, and never will, fortunately these people are the minority as the large majority of Americans support civilian firearm ownership, and more and more states are passing legislation to allow private citizens who are responsible to carry their guns. Yet our crime rates are lowering year after year. The areas of this country that have the highest violent crime rates are also the areas with the most stringent firearm laws. Fact.
 
  • #37
Dont be a criminal, you wont get shot..
its the criminals choice to steal or not..if you get shot (or die) because you choose to steal, the only person to blame is yourself..there is only one "bad guy" in this story, not two..

IMO, the guy totally deserved to be shot..if he also died, oh well..its his fault.
I wouldn't feel sorry for him..
the fact that he is a father is irrelevant..
if he is father, he should choose to be a more responsible father and not do stupid things that might get him shot or killed..

feeling sorry for the criminal, and demonizing the guy defending his property, is the exact opposite of how we should react..but thats America these days I guess..completely backwards..

Scot
 
  • #38
@dsrtfox1942: It is true that criminals will find any way to hurt victims despite laws. It is also true that enacting laws is not always the best way to combat crime. The following links are my rebuttal to your claim, "The areas of this country that have the highest violent crime rates are also the areas with the most stringent firearm laws.". Some statistics don't look like they have been normalized with respect to population density.

Washington, DC has strict laws, but crime rate decreased:
http://mpdc.dc.gov/mpdc/cwp/view,a,1239,q,547256,mpdcNav_GID,1556.asp

List of states with highest crime; larceny was not included because it's no longer considered as a leading indicator for crime (I would have liked to see it included):
http://www.dailyfinance.com/2010/04/05/most-dangerous-states-crime-rankings-for-2010/

US cities with highest crime risk index:
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2011/02/16/the-11-most-dangerous-cities

This only deals with gun-related crime (I would have liked to see other crimes included), but you can use the gun control law ranking of the states with the crime ratings from above. When combined with previous data, it shows no correlation between strict gun control and increase in crime:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...t-gun-states-from-mississippi-to-arizona.html
 
  • #39
@dsrtfox1942: It is true that criminals will find any way to hurt victims despite laws. It is also true that enacting laws is not always the best way to combat crime. The following links are my rebuttal to your claim, "The areas of this country that have the highest violent crime rates are also the areas with the most stringent firearm laws.". Some statistics don't look like they have been normalized with respect to population density.

Washington, DC has strict laws, but crime rate decreased:
http://mpdc.dc.gov/mpdc/cwp/view,a,1239,q,547256,mpdcNav_GID,1556.asp

List of states with highest crime; larceny was not included because it's no longer considered as a leading indicator for crime (I would have liked to see it included):
http://www.dailyfinance.com/2010/04/05/most-dangerous-states-crime-rankings-for-2010/

US cities with highest crime risk index:
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2011/02/16/the-11-most-dangerous-cities

This only deals with gun-related crime (I would have liked to see other crimes included), but you can use the gun control law ranking of the states with the crime ratings from above. When combined with previous data, it shows no correlation between strict gun control and increase in crime:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...t-gun-states-from-mississippi-to-arizona.html


The problem with crime stats is that there really is no uniform way to report crimes. Not to mention charges that get dropped, plea bargains that lessen charges... etc, etc. I am 96 credits into a CrimJ degree at PSU, and the first thing you notice is the discrepancies amongst areas and LE agencies and their reporting habits. Anyone can throw out numbers but what is more important are what police officers and the people of these areas say for themselves. Last I knew, the people in Washington DC and Chicago and many metropolitan areas are not noticing a decrease in crime. An interesting website when you use their crime stats.
http://www.neighborhoodscout.com

You have a 1 in 22 chance to be a victim of a violent crime in Chicago. A 1 in 75 chance in DC. Example, My home state of PA which has very excellent firearm laws, in my eyes, has two major cities being Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. In Philadelphia it is next to impossible to attain a firearms carry permit, however in Pittsburgh the opposite is true. Philadelphia gives you a 1 in 26 chance of being a victim of a violent crime while Pittsburgh gives you a 1 in 102 chance. Pittsburgh definitely has a larger amount of firearms in the city than Philly, legal firearms that is. In my hometown of Bethlehem, which isn't a small town, I have a 1 in 317 chance...

One can go on and on, but there is much more to look at than numbers. NYC gets a low chance of being a victim of violent crime, but you have to observe the crimes per square mile. Population density is a key factor here. If a small town has population of only 300 people and there is a double murder/ suicide, you have a 1 in 100 chance, which is an unfair judgement because of a single incident.

There are many ways to twist and obscure numbers to enhance your position.

"If you are unwilling to defend even your own lives, then you are like mice trying to 'negotiate' with owls. You regard their ways as 'wrong', they regard you as dinner."
-John Farnam

and my favorite:


."..and he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one." — Jesus Christ, Luke 22:36 NKJV
 
  • #40
@dsrtfox1942: "There are many ways to twist and obscure numbers to enhance your position." That's what the researchers accuse pro-gun advocates of doing. They pick only the cases where gun ownership saved victims in the same manner that they accuse the media of only highlighting gun-related crimes. If you do enough research, you will find that laxness or severity of gun control law has no correlation with crime rate. Just compare several different regions' crime rates with the severity of gun control law for the same year; it's even better if you can track the crime rates and severity of gun control law across the same set of years. You will see areas with lax gun control and high crime rate, areas with lax gun control and low crime rate, strict gun control and high crime rate, and areas with strict gun control and low crime rate.

Philosophical issue:
Physical weapons don't motivate people to defend their lives.
"The pen is mightier than the sword." <- Exemplified by the legacy and endurance of philosophers and martyrs from the ancient world and religions, the Renaissance and Enlightenment, Gandhi, the US Civil Rights movement, Polish Solidarity and the Fall of the Berlin Wall, the Syrian resistance, the underground democracy and human rights movement in China, etc. The ancient Christians defeated Rome through preach, not by sword (Jesus's disciples and converts preached throughout the empire). However, medieval and imperial Christianity conquest was mostly spread by sword sprinkled with some words...
You could also argue how Hebrews escaped Egypt without taking up arms...
There's also the case of how Judea was conquered by Rome despite armed resistance...
 
Back
Top