Washington Man Pleads Not Guilty in SUV Shooting

[Danno 1,228]

When you sneak into someones property, you are essentially taking a gamble.

Win- you walk away with a fortune that someone else worked for and you get for free.

Loose- You could be shot, killed, beaten, go to jail.

He lost, I don't have sympathy for him.

That does not mean the over reaction of the car owner is justified or should be overlooked.

Judge Danno gives him 24 months.

[Peikko 1,575]

When you sneak into someones property, you are essentially taking a gamble.

Win- you walk away with a fortune that someone else worked for and you get for free.

Loose- You could be shot, killed, beaten, go to jail.

He lost, I don't have sympathy for him.

That does not mean the over reaction of the car owner is justified or should be overlooked.

Judge Danno gives him 24 months.

You think life is cheap. I am not surprised.

As an admitted 'born thief' do think you should have been shot for your previous crimes? Would that really have been fitting?

[Danno 1,228]

You think life is cheap. I am not surprised.

As an admitted 'born thief' do think you should have been shot for your previous crimes? Would that really have been fitting?

Listen closely.

I never said "he should have been shot."

I said he took a gamble.... meaning people react when their major stuff is stolen.

He lost.

I never stole a car but if I did and got shot at I would not blame the shooter.

[Peikko 1,575]

Listen closely.

I never said "he should have been shot."

I said he took a gamble.... meaning people react when their major stuff is stolen.

He lost.

I never stole a car but if I did and got shot at I would not blame the shooter.

Listen closely, people should react to the fact that people steal their stuff, but not by snuffing the thief out. That is NOT a reasonable response to the crime. I do not care if you stole a car, hankies from Woolworth or a bag of sweeties, the point is, if you the law allows armed citizens without an once of knowledge of how to deal with crime to shoot because they are angry or scared you render life cheap. You might not value your own life or the life of others as worth more than the price of a car but for most people, most civilised people, such deaths are criminal acts in themselves. Theft is wrong, of course it is, but losing your life for stealing a car is not on the statute books so it shouldn't be allowed to be the penalty for running into the wrong person. It's at best manslaughter and at worst murder and should be penalised as such.

[Janelle2002 3,865]

Listen closely.

I never said "he should have been shot."

I said he took a gamble.... meaning people react when their major stuff is stolen.

He lost.

I never stole a car but if I did and got shot at I would not blame the shooter.

Dude shot him over a super ragged truck. The kids life was worth a lot more than that. This is cold blodded murder.

[Danno 1,228]

Dude shot him over a super ragged truck. The kids life was worth a lot more than that. This is cold blodded murder.

The term MURDER has a definition.

That term includes premeditation.

That would be awful hard to prove even if you only needed 50% of the jury to convict.

[Danno 1,228]

Listen closely, people should react to the fact that people steal their stuff, but not by snuffing the thief out. That is NOT a reasonable response to the crime. I do not care if you stole a car, hankies from Woolworth or a bag of sweeties, the point is, if you the law allows armed citizens without an once of knowledge of how to deal with crime to shoot because they are angry or scared you render life cheap. You might not value your own life or the life of others as worth more than the price of a car but for most people, most civilised people, such deaths are criminal acts in themselves. Theft is wrong, of course it is, but losing your life for stealing a car is not on the statute books so it shouldn't be allowed to be the penalty for running into the wrong person. It's at best manslaughter and at worst murder and should be penalised as such.

Yup, right there is where your logic breaks down.

When you go prowling around peoples property at night, you just really can't count on 'should>"

I'll bet a number of people on the jury will reason, if the thief had not started the chain of events, no one would be in the court room today.

Personally, I think the guy "Should not" get off.... lest it feed the public notion that others can mimic his response and no doubt for even lesser offenses.

But considering what other criminals get and one presumes a clean record, I would give him 2 years. (As I understand the facts now)