Another Homeowner gets Charged for Harming Poor Innocent Thieves

[KegRiver]

Originally Posted by ishootbambi

i donated to the defence fund of the last victim of canadas bassackwards justice system and i will this time too. anyone heard of a trust yet?

Count me in, if that trust fund gets set up.

Some very good posts here.

Blackheart; post #5 well said.

rugatika post#12; I was wondering when someone would notice that the news wasn't giving us the whole story. Good catch!
Good to see that some here don't just blast away at every little sound in the forest.

jaylow; post #17 LOL You got that right!! Maybe more of the same is in order.

KANTRESIST; post #18 Yup, that's how I see it. Maybe excessive force was used. So what!
So are we now all going to have to take courses in the proper use of force?
If people want proper use of force in such situations let them pay to have a cop guard my house. Until that happens I'll use as much force as I DEEM NECESSARY.

tractor1971; " It is called occupational hazard among thieves.

It should be.

CaberTosser; post #23 Very well said! I was wondering that too. How do we KNOW it was excessive force? How do the police know? They weren't there.

And it wasn't excessive force to Tazar a man to DEATH at the Vancouver airport?
They are supposed to be trained in the proper use of force. We aren't.
Seems there is one rule for them and another one for us.


gitrdun; post #26 Well said.

[bingo1010]

i am sure the guys just stopped by to see if they could borrow a quarter to make a phone call!! no harm intended..right. in my opinion if you have the luxary of living out of town then take full advantage of it...go with mr kleins idea...s.s.s. the liberal laws of the country are only getting worse, it is a total waste of time and taxpayer dollars to get the authorities involved.

[keeks]

I just heard the guy was a vacuum cleaner salesman. I think he got off easy.

k

[Mayhem42]

Originally Posted by jaylow?

keep up the good work! hatchet to the face! holy crap thats crazy. nobodys going near this guys house again. i think id rather get shot in the arse than a friggen hatchet to the face. good on him.

i was indifferent about this. i dont think it was excessive force because everyone would react differently. how many of us depending on the circumstance may have grabbed something worse than the hatchet?

Jaylow i lauhed so hard i cried when i read this...not a funny deal but that statement was.

[Rovin]

It is my opinion that the homeowner used the wrong side of the hatchet, and should have swung a few more times.[/QUOTE]

X2

[Phil67]

I think the homeowner made a mistake. To enter the situation not knowing how many perps, bring in a weapon he was probably not that skilled with, to go up against a person with probably a lot less to loose, could have ended up with his wife watching him die, trying to save his remote control. I was called on jury duty for a case by pigeon lake with the same set of circumstances, the farmer went into his shop and got his shotgun and cornered the thieves, the scuffle insued and he was shot with his own gun. He recovered but said if he could do it again he would go to the niehbours and phone police and wait, nothing in the house was worth dying for. Another incident by thorsby left me thinking. My friend Phil awoke in the night to find his shop lites on. He asummed he left them on so headed out and when outside realized there was at least two people loading stuff out. He returned to phone the police and was told to stay inside, try to get license and description without being seen and an officer would be out in the am to get his statement. He sat for a couple minutes then phoned back and told the dispatcher not to bother sending someone in the am as he just shot the bast.... Less than 5 minutes they were in his yard to do what they are paid to, he got charged with mischief and had to make a donation to victum services but money well spent in his opinion.

[maddwapper]

caber tosser ,,iagree totally with your point ,,grab the most effective tool handy and lets go ,,,remember the story about the two thieves who killed an entire family for 50 dollars ,,,, IN COLD BLOOD ..

[CNP]

Originally Posted by rugatika

Lethal means killing someone. this guy got a booboo on his face. This guy was threatening the life of his wife still in his car by ramming into it and he restrained himself from killing the guy. Sounds like a totally level headed response to me. Maybe the wife wanted her hubby to get rid of the dog...who knows.

You're really stretching when you try equating civilian application of the death penalty to getting busted in the chops with a hatchet. The thief was using his car as a weapon. I wonder what would have happened if the police were there and this guy was ramming into their car with a partner still in the passenger seat. Think guns might have been drawn??? Darn right!! Think shots might have been fired if the guy kept using his vehicle as a weapon? Yup.

It's a shame this INNOCENT home owner is being harrassed by those that are supposed to be protecting him, his family, and his property.

BS................you didn't know any more facts than the original story when you first condoned using an axe on the guys face. The original story didn't say anything about a wife, just that he axed a guy in a car in his driveway. You just make it up as you go. Using an axe on someones face tells me their is intent to kill. I pray no thieves get your attention........for their sake and yours. For you would become no better than them and you would be in their company for many years. When you defend yourself or your property, leave out the malice, it takes you down to their level.

[DairyMan7]

Well honestly I haven't read much about this other than what all of you have written. So here goes my take.

I agree with Okotobians take on wait a sec, if it was a case of him showing up and nothing really happened no threat and he used a hatchet.....well come on guys I hope we can all agree. Thats excessive.

Now with that other fellars comment about threat level and he was using his car as a weapon. Yup fully agree if a hatchet is what he grabbed, then a hatchet is what he grabbed. If someone was ramming my wife(either way you think about it) I would use the other side of the hatchet.

Now the grey area I believe is none of us were there, we don't know what happened, we can read all that !@$# the reporters write. But we all know thats bull !@#.

Now heres another grey area, are these kids, adults, or drugys. Thats kind of for the courts though.

One thing I do want to point out though and it is concerning to me is. Ya the prosecuter said blah blah blah, use these charges. Here in Alberta the lead investigator still lays the charge. Now if you were a level headed common sense kind of constable, you would use discretion of course, but ultimately your boss the Cpl, Sgt, or Staff, Sgt tells you what to do. If the boss reviews the file and says, nope charge, or no don't charge, well guess what you do it.
Now having said that and I've heard from a few of you in other forms. Well the cop shouldn't have discretionary powers, he should just catch and charge and let the courts do the mediation.
Here is a perfect example of us Cst should be allowed to use some sort of discretionary measures, as long as we discuss this with our bosses, the crown prosecuters and such.
Having said that, this being a very high profile case.......that wouldn't fly.
Every prosecuter in Alberta wants this case, to bolster their own resume, crown or defense.

Basically what I'm saying is this, and I have met a few of you or have had great long debates with you on here and I consider a lot of you my kind of folk.
A good Cst that got this file, would have did what he could to ascertain all the evidence and present it to their boss for review of the file. I guarentee that his or her boss said CHARGE, or talk with the crown prosecuter to see what they say, and they would say CHARGE.
Its a high profile case, ya have to.

So thats my two sense.

I agree with voted in judges. I personally agree that if someone is on my land with no excuse and I catch them, they better explain themselfs, quickly and carefully. I do to some extent agree with some of you, I would like to have the power to defend my family and home.
But I don't agree with people thinking they should be the judge/jury and executioner.

[rugatika]

Originally Posted by ehntr

BS................you didn't know any more facts than the original story when you first condoned using an axe on the guys face. The original story didn't say anything about a wife, just that he axed a guy in a car in his driveway. You just make it up as you go. Using an axe on someones face tells me their is intent to kill. I pray no thieves get your attention........for their sake and yours. For you would become no better than them and you would be in their company for many years. When you defend yourself or your property, leave out the malice, it takes you down to their level.

The thief CHOSE to commit a crime against me. I wouldn't have chosen anything other than to defend myself, family and property. The fact that he chose a hatchet or axe or whatever...what is he supposed to do...grab a wiffle bat and then determine if he needs something more substantial later on?? He likely grabbed the first thing he saw that he felt would be a useful tool for defence. I'm sure the thief would rather he had boxing gloves and a straight jacket on.

I also pray no thieves get my attention. I congratulate you on being able to control your emotions while thieves are stealing your stuff...I don't think I could achieve such a high level of calmness if I saw someone taking my stuff AND possibly posing a hazard to my family...and I'm sure adrenaline would take over and I am 100% sure I would feel malice towards them AND I am also 100% sure that doing so does NOT take me down to their level. The liberal argument that there is some sort of moral equivalence between a person defending his property (with whatever force he deems necessary at a time of great stress and adrenaline CAUSED by the actions of the offender) and a burglar is ludicrous.

This liberal concept that your property is not worth defending is what entices so much of the criminal activity.

Like it or not...we should have the right to defend our property and if thieves don't like it they can chose to stay the heck off our property.

[BANG]

god damn it!
reclusive hermit is looking like a better and better option compared to living among these liberal twits.

[paul1964]

Let it be a judge or a cop that came home. see what would have happened
when the perp. was trying to drive away yet over them. Just to get away, not giving a sht about who they hit. Its not like the guy grabbed the hatchet to kill him just stop the perp. Cops don't do ****. Last year I had a Guy come in through my bed room window with a knife . well thank that I will wake to any sound. cause as he was climbing over my wife's feet I punch him in the face. he dropped the knife. Called the cops they drove around and didn't catch anyone.
There was blood on the window and on the grass plus all my window screens had been cut .He even got in my porch.
I will tell you one thing the next time it happens ,I feel sorry for the Kid. 5 iron . Beside my bed.
As for the Taber man I'm all for his actions, these were not kids but all adults. They know what they were doing. And thus I feel a hanging should take place. here here to the Taber man hes got my VOTE for next election.
Protect your home.

[Sporty]

If the the wife was in the car when they arrived home, I have a bigger issue with the house owner leaving her alone when he has no idea who is on his property. He had no idea what he was walking into, what if these guys killed the house owner then proceeded to go after the wife? I don't have issue with someone wanting to protect their family, the facts are the family wasn't inside the house while it was broken into, I have issue with someone making personal belongings more important than the family. This guy should have stayed with his wife, taken the license plate number and called the cops IMO. He wasn't protecting his family when they weren't even home to begin with and he wasn't protecting his family when he left his wife alone in the car with God knows who was lurking around his property.

[rhuntley12]

Will be interesting to hear what comes out if it goes to trial. Radio was talking about it this AM and kind of said a jury wouldn't convict him, which I would agree with. They weren't specific but made it sound like he went back out and just hit the guy with a hatchet, which I'm guessing isn't true.

Sad thing is I bet if both pled guilty and/or convicted the homeowner would get a harsher sentence.

Coming from the states and heck living in Texas for a year it does seem unreal to me that you can't protect your property.

[roadkill]

Uh, guys? 'charged' doesn't mean 'found guilty.' Elected prosecutors wouldn't have any more freedom to not charge this than the current ones do. It's just part of the bureaucracy.

That being said, it's possible that taking a hatchet to a man's face was the wrong thing to do. I still think that the homeowner may get off lightly.

The legal system in Canada and countries like the US and UK et al is heavily geared towards freedom, rather than imprisonment. By which I mean that the Crown has to convince a judge *beyond reasonable doubt* about the accused's guilt. The defence only has to put a doubt in the judge's mind. Unfortunately, it's easier to do this in a B&E situation than one whut leaves a man's face munched up.

[Albertadiver]

Good discussion here fellas. Dairyman, great comments.

I said it before in a thread a long time ago, when I was a young boy, we had a constant problem on our farm with people stealing fuel from our tanks. My family couldn't figure it out. Locks on the valves were always cut etc. We had a 1/4 mile laneway and the tanks were at the opposite end of the big open farmyard from the two houses. You had to drive past the houses to get at the tanks.

One night/early morning Grandpa and dad caught them. Grandpa blasted the side of the truck with the shotgun to get thier attention, and dad proceeded to beat the ever loving you-know-what out of these guys. Me sitting in my pajamas wondering what the heck is going on.

Anyhow, they sat in the box of thier truck with grandpa holding them at gunpoint till the RCMP came 45 minutes later after Grannie called the police. (we were 35minutes from town) (That was back when they had the two cherry rotator lights like in Beachcombers and the old crown vics)

Thieves were charged with theft, and assault on my dad because it was 2 on 1 and dad was just defending himself. Cops shook hands with Dad and Grandpa and hauled these guys away.

Funny, never had any issues after that for as long as I can remember!

This was in the early 80's. Sad it's not like that still.

[rugatika]

Originally Posted by roadkill

Uh, guys? 'charged' doesn't mean 'found guilty.' Elected prosecutors wouldn't have any more freedom to not charge this than the current ones do. It's just part of the bureaucracy.

That being said, it's possible that taking a hatchet to a man's face was the wrong thing to do. I still think that the homeowner may get off lightly.

The legal system in Canada and countries like the US and UK et al is heavily geared towards freedom, rather than imprisonment. By which I mean that the Crown has to convince a judge *beyond reasonable doubt* about the accused's guilt. The defence only has to put a doubt in the judge's mind. Unfortunately, it's easier to do this in a B&E situation than one whut leaves a man's face munched up.

Sadly, being charged with a crime is a tool that is used by todays legal "bureaucracy" to harrass honest citizens. Being charged with a crime is no big deal for a criminal...he's familiar with the system and really has little to lose or gain by being found guilty or innocent...he will likely get off with a light sentence (if any real sentence at all) IF he's even found guilty. Being charged with a crime IS a big deal for an honest citizen. He has to hire lawyers, the stress, etc etc. Even though there isn't a snowballs chance in heck that a jury will find him guilty and the prosecutor knows it...he's going through with all this to a) harrass this guy and b) send a message that protecting your property is not going to be tolerated by the ruling class.

You can bet your bottom dollar that an elected prosecutor wouldn't touch this case with a ten foot pole unless he was in some liberal area like Montreal (I can't really use TO anymore as a Lib example as it appears even they are starting to reject the nanny state). A prosecutor harrassing this guy like that would have a tough time getting elected next go around...especially in an area like Taber. I suspect he'll be getting enough of a cold shoulder as it is. Taber is prime redneck country...God bless em.

I remember what it was like when I would help my uncles on the farm. Always checking for tire tracks into the yard, couldn't leave a battery on the auger, never leave much fuel in the grain trucks, installing yard lights, etc etc. I can easily see how you would get so frustrated with continually being a target.

[RobWall]

If there is anyone who deserves help with his lawyer bills its this guy.
My neighbours house was hit in broad daylight last week by some punk kids who did more damage breaking things then the value of the stuff they stole.
The punks were caught and now have a court appointed lawyer which both myself and the homeowner support with our tax $$$.
The system is wrong. At the very least if/when these kids are convicted the costs associated with the defense should be transferred to the defendant so that they never see another income tax refund cheque until the bill is paid.

[Mickey]

Too many things missing in this story to make absolute conclusions about.

I side with all of the members here that have said anything about defending your own property.

Was the hatchet excessive? No idea. Can I say that I would have done anything different? Probably not. I know that I wouldnt be grabbing a tennis racket instead. It is a sad state of being when I cannot defend what is mine.

If the man is charged and convicted of assault with a deadly weapon, he is now no longer able to cross the border into the US. All of this, because someone deemed what he did to be a poor choice. Fact is that none of us can say with absolute certainty how we would act in that same situation.

For those that have faced something like this and told thier story here, I applaud you.

I keep a 6" blade in the drawer beside my bed for a reason.

I know that I shouldnt bring a knife to a gun fight, but if my wifes life is at stake, you can be assured that I will not stop until the party is subdued, unconscious or incapacitated, in whatever means it takes. Self defence is taught for a reason. I intend to use it to the full extent of my knowledge.

I agree with more of an eye for an eye in the justice system.

There is absolutely nothing deterring criminals from being exactly what they are, CRIMINALS.

[CNP]

Originally Posted by rugatika

The thief CHOSE to commit a crime against me. I wouldn't have chosen anything other than to defend myself, family and property. The fact that he chose a hatchet or axe or whatever...what is he supposed to do...grab a wiffle bat and then determine if he needs something more substantial later on?? He likely grabbed the first thing he saw that he felt would be a useful tool for defence. I'm sure the thief would rather he had boxing gloves and a straight jacket on.

I also pray no thieves get my attention. I congratulate you on being able to control your emotions while thieves are stealing your stuff...I don't think I could achieve such a high level of calmness if I saw someone taking my stuff AND possibly posing a hazard to my family...and I'm sure adrenaline would take over and I am 100% sure I would feel malice towards them AND I am also 100% sure that doing so does NOT take me down to their level. The liberal argument that there is some sort of moral equivalence between a person defending his property (with whatever force he deems necessary at a time of great stress and adrenaline CAUSED by the actions of the offender) and a burglar is ludicrous.

This liberal concept that your property is not worth defending is what entices so much of the criminal activity.

Like it or not...we should have the right to defend our property and if thieves don't like it they can chose to stay the heck off our property.

Killing thieves on sight is not the proper defence of your property. That is another crime. You would agree that if the thief had an axe in his hand that you have the right to defend yourself with lethal force. That's all understandable and in line with the law. However, that was not the case described in the first instance. The first instance said a person was in a car in his driveway and he struck that person twice in the face with an axe......and you condoned that......and even indicated that using an axe on someones face is not lethal. But at the same time you would say that if a thief just had an axe in his hand you would defend yourself with lethal force. I'm not a liberal and don't espouse liberal views if that is what you are insinuating. Criminals don't want to venture onto my property either but I'm not joining up with the interweb-bravado-crowd by shouting "Crucify Him". I agree that defending yourself by any means is the right course of action. Shooting someone who is fleeing, in the back (as in another case) or axeing someone sitting in a car in your driveway is not defending yourself, that is something else entirely. That is delivering your own kind of retribution...........not defense. As a victim, would I pick up an axe, a gun, a machete, a baseball bat or anything else I could use to defend myself. Oh yeah! My first instinct would not be to kill the thief, my first instinct would be to show a sign of force and resolve to capture the guy. I don't want to kill anyone.....even a lowly thief. I may be no better...

[BlackHeart]

Theives will break into many homes and cars before being caught in the act once. So lets just say for guestimation sake, 40 incidents of profit before being caught in the act once. Also being caught in the act is not necessarily means being caught by the police. So it could be another 40 B&Es before the next caught in act. Again unless the homeowner stops your escape or the police arrive in time, they will get away.

So the rewards/profit can add up for quite a while before the theif has to pay the price. Now what is the price? Probably probation for a first offense.....repeat the above and then the price is maybe a month in jail and probation.

So where is the deterent. We all work/play/live/invest with the concept of risk versus potential rewards. So do theives. Currently there isn't much risk for the rewards, so once they get into the business, they probably wonder why they didn't do it sooner.

But if you apply a new type of risk to the situation, like personal injury, lack of teeth, even potentially death and the rewards start to not look so good for the risk involved.

Until there is sufficient risk, we will not solve the problems of crime in our society, and that problem comes with great cost, like insurance premiums, justice systems, prisons, parole systems, reintergration and other social agency costs, etc. So the cost to society is not just a few trinkets, but saps our productivity and potential.

Now I am not advocating death, for all theives, but the risk should be there for them. And definitely for three of them entering a home.

Where could the situation have gone if there had been a nice looking 16year girl at home alone......would your opinions change....yeah I know there wasn't...but the guys breaking in didn't know that at the time and could have been suddenly into a whole nother senario.

[Okotokian]

Originally Posted by BlackHeart

Now I am not advocating death, for all theives, but the risk should be there for them. And definitely for three of them entering a home.
.

Agree totally. I just think the risk should be serious jail time, not whatever the home owner feels like at the time.

And as I said before, if you are actually being threatened, by all means hatchet away. Use the sharp side for goodness sake.

[DustDee]

Taber is prime redneck country...God bless em.

Hey, I'm from Taber, and I resemble that comment!!!

The thiefs better be glad that Singleton got to them, cause if they'd made it to my uncle's place, a hatchet would'a been kind treatment.

Like was stated earlier in this thread, the thief was using his vehicle as a weapon threatening the life of his wife as well as the garage door. The hatchet was used to break the driver side window in an attempt to remove the driver from the vehicle and neutralize the threat (the moving vehicle). The injuries to the face were a result of the follow-through after breaking the glass (ie swing hatchet, break glass, hit face, all in one swing).

I think it is rediculous that he is being charged. There is no way that it will go through, but he will still have to spend money and time to be in court for it. Once again, making a criminal out of a law abiding citizen (sounds like our gun laws).

[deerhuntercentral]

Originally Posted by paul1964

Let it be a judge or a cop that came home. see what would have happened
when the perp. was trying to drive away yet over them. Just to get away, not giving a sht about who they hit.

A big +1 here. Cops shoot people when they feel threatened by a vehicle. Hypocrisy at it's finest. It is your right to defend yourself and protect your property and if the RCMP weren't such a joke they would conduct their investigation based on peoples rights, not based on the bleeding heart policies of the organization.

[rugatika]

...calling someone a criminal for defending his property is a liberal viewpoint. Sorry if you don't like the moniker. Whether he was defending himself, his family or his property makes no matter to me. A criminal was on his property and had been caught breaking and entering. If the farmer at the time felt that an axe to the face was what was needed to stop the escape of the criminal...fine and dandy with me. It obviously wasn't lethal and I'm not advocating nor have I advocated the death penalty for theft (or any other crime for that matter). This was an uncontrolled situation and a property owner has every right to secure his property (or should have in a free country) in the manner he deems necessary to ensure his safety and that of his family and property. Your contention that an axe to the face is lethal is disproven by the very unfolding of events that took place in that farmyard. Obviously the farmer wielded the axe in such a manner that it was NOT lethal.

This is a pretty simple equation for most liberty loving folks to cipher. You don't want to get hit in the face with an axe whilst trying to abscond with the fruits of someone elses labour...don't steal. There was a time when someone getting hit in the face with an axe for stealing would have counted his blessings and shut the heck up. Nowadays there seems to be no shortage of liberals whining about how it's not fair Joe Scum got injured whilst stealing from an honest hard working family. Never mind they already fork over half their labour to a bandit of a different sort who is supposed to be helping to secure their right to liberty and property rather than aiding and abetting those that would so freely take it.


Are you guys that support the thief actually arguing that a thief has the right to break into someone's house and steal their property without fear of injury?? Because that is exactly what it sounds like you are arguing to me...and if it isn't please explain how it's not.

[Okotokian]

Originally Posted by rugatika

..
Are you guys that support the thief actually arguing that a thief has the right to break into someone's house and steal their property without fear of injury?? Because that is exactly what it sounds like you are arguing to me...and if it isn't please explain how it's not.

Nope, I think you have misinterpreted what we, or at least I, said. First off, no one is "supporting the thief".

I also don't think anyone is denying the right to use force to protect yourself, your family, or even your home from being broken into. The argument seems to arise from the facts of this particular case. Let me explain.

The original story (not all the subsequent conjecture) told of the guy checking his house, not finding anything, and then going back to the driveway, seeing a guy in the car, and hitting him with the hatchet. At that time I said there was probably more to the story, but that immediately hitting the person when you don't know for certain why they are there seems like a crazy thing to do. Now if the facts of the case turn out to be that the crook was smashing his car into the home owners car, and his wife was inside and at risk, then I change my stand and say the hatchet attack was justified.

The other point we have been making is that while force is fine to use to prevent the crime from occuring, it's not up to the aggreived individual to use it for punishnt after the fact. Certainly these criminals need to be taught a lesson, but it's up to the legal system to provide that lesson. Now you and I can both agree that the system isn't stern enough, but that's another matter... one that requires political action, not vigilante action.

So to take the examples to extremes, you can use a baseball bat on a guy trying to get in your door, but you can't come home to find your door broken down, grab your bat, head over to the house of the guy who did it, and use it on him. This case came down somewhere in the middle.

That's my take anyway.

[stuckincity]

Hey rugatika, I think your last post (#55) is the best one yet.

I only disagree with you on one point - if a thief gets blown in half from a 12 ga while caught in the act, that's just too bad for HIM. And if the snivelling bleeding-hearts don't like it - GOOD!

BTW, I like your taglines.

How about :

"Doesn't it sometimes strike you as odd that all our governments who loudly proclaim to rule by 'the will of the people' are willing to run almost any risk rather than let their people have weapons........?" - John Wyndham

[rugatika]

I agree that once the thief is gone to his lair or wherever...the problem belongs to the police. This guy was still on his property and was subject to being held until police got there. Whatever force the homeowner deems necessary to keep him there until the police arrive is cool with me.

Also...if the guy was just sitting there in his car and got smashed in the face...bad. Obviously there was more to this though. His house was burgled and his property may or may not have been in this guys car. His dead dad's ashes may have been in there for all we or the homeowner knew. He has every right to secure the criminals and whatever property they may have stolen in their car AND he has every right to use whatever force HE deems necessary to secure those rights. He may very well have been fearing for his life, we have no way of knowing that. Once you have secured the prisoner then and only then should you be forced to be concerned about his well being. I don't think you should be able to torture him after he has been secured for example. But the use of force to capture and secure a criminal on your property is perfectly acceptable and reasonable to me. The police do it all the time. Granted they are given the proper tools and training to do so...but they can't be everywhere all the time. And even still...how many times has a criminal been killed in the act of being secured by police? The homeowner utilized what training and tools he had at hand to secure the criminal and whatever property he may have been trying to get away with. Good on him. He is to be congratulated in my books.



Oko...I understand your point of view and it is somewhat reasonable (we can bicker about the finer points). What I'm hearing from many others is the support of a criminals rights to ply their trade without fear of injury. I don't support that.

[CNP]

Originally Posted by rugatika

I agree that once the thief is gone to his lair or wherever...the problem belongs to the police. This guy was still on his property and was subject to being held until police got there. Whatever force the homeowner deems necessary to keep him there until the police arrive is cool with me.

Also...if the guy was just sitting there in his car and got smashed in the face...bad. Obviously there was more to this though. His house was burgled and his property may or may not have been in this guys car. His dead dad's ashes may have been in there for all we or the homeowner knew. He has every right to secure the criminals and whatever property they may have stolen in their car AND he has every right to use whatever force HE deems necessary to secure those rights. He may very well have been fearing for his life, we have no way of knowing that. Once you have secured the prisoner then and only then should you be forced to be concerned about his well being. I don't think you should be able to torture him after he has been secured for example. But the use of force to capture and secure a criminal on your property is perfectly acceptable and reasonable to me. The police do it all the time. Granted they are given the proper tools and training to do so...but they can't be everywhere all the time. And even still...how many times has a criminal been killed in the act of being secured by police? The homeowner utilized what training and tools he had at hand to secure the criminal and whatever property he may have been trying to get away with. Good on him. He is to be congratulated in my books.



Oko...I understand your point of view and it is somewhat reasonable (we can bicker about the finer points). What I'm hearing from many others is the support of a criminals rights to ply their trade without fear of injury. I don't support that.

Who is supporting a criminals right to ply their trade without fear or injury? I call BS on you again. Retreating and changing your line....this is a quote from back when we were commenting on the original post........when their was no indication of any physical threat at all......a guy sitting in a car in his driveway.

I say wail away. He should have been using an axe or something instead of a hatchet.

You seem to be distancing yourself from that statement now. I personally wouldn't be able to wield a hatchet or axe with enough control, while wailing away at someones head, to not kill them lol. You think this is possible? Wielding a hatchet or axe and wailing it at someones head is deadly force....a reasonable person ought to know that. He is damn lucky he didn't kill that guy. That would be sad and I'm not talking about the perp so much.......you're not even thinking about the consequences the guy with the hatchet would have had to deal with. Then insert some emotion and fantasy into it by talking about his dead dad's ashes....where do come up with that stuff lol (you would make a good liberal tactician ). That's just meant to stir up the "interweb bravado guys". Yeah high fives all around for you (not). You didn't express any need to secure the perp at the crime scene unless you think that wailing away at his head with an axe was an appropriate way to secure a non-threatening perp (remember that was how the OP posted it). Now you think it's not right to torture him? I congratulate you on your flop. You've come around. You aren't infected with the rage anymore. Good for you.

[on point]

You think if he was protecting his family he would of got a plate # and called the cops and kept his family away from the scene.
On the other hand if everybody started going after people with hatchets they might stop registering all the guns and start. registering hatchets and steak knives.