chicken house burglar

There is a thread in Misc where folks are talking about shooting at 4 wheeler riders for trespassing, maybe the property owner has been reading the TD forums?

From what I gather he was stealing copper wiring, and rushed at the owner when discovered. I guess we'll just have to wait for more details.

You yhink the shooter over reacted?? What if you came home to find that a burglar had broken into your house and ripped the wiring out of the wall and was still there? You would probably feel the same way. This guy was just defending himself and his property and took the law into his own hands, if he hadnt the guy would have been long gone by the time the sherriffs dept. arrived. Why should you let someone get away with stealing because the court systems are not going to do anything to them besides slap them on the hand and turn them back loose. Do you think that he might learn a lesson this way a little better than a slap on the wrist??

I guarantee you he wouldn't have been shot if he'd been acting legally. Think about it...if he was stealing copper wiring, he's a meth head.

quote:

Originally posted by 1002:
You yhink the shooter over reacted?? What if you came home to find that a burglar had broken into your house and ripped the wiring out of the wall and was still there? You would probably feel the same way. This guy was just defending himself and his property and took the law into his own hands, if he hadnt the guy would have been long gone by the time the sherriffs dept. arrived. Why should you let someone get away with stealing because the court systems are not going to do anything to them besides slap them on the hand and turn them back loose. Do you think that he might learn a lesson this way a little better than a slap on the wrist??

I totally agree. Let someone come sneaking around my home and they will get shot too, no mater what they are trying to steal.

quote:

Originally posted by AtticFeline:
http://www.timesdaily.com/arti...g-into-chicken-house

Maybe the man was hungry? Sorry, but I think the shooter may have overreacted just a bit. I understand the right to protect your property, but some people are just plain trigger happy. Maybe I'll be proven wrong when more details come out.

Thanks for realizing you don't shoot anyone running AWAY from you.

quote:

Originally posted by Zuter:
I guarantee you he wouldn't have been shot if he'd been acting legally. Think about it...if he was stealing copper wiring, he's a meth head.

I've heard of a lot of teenagers who were "good boys" stealing copper wire. Its worth quite a bit. Some might be meth heads, but not all.

Hungry? No,he was on meth and out of his head to charge the property owner.

quote:

Originally posted by Matted Down Weirdo:

quote:

Originally posted by AtticFeline:
http://www.timesdaily.com/arti...g-into-chicken-house

Maybe the man was hungry? Sorry, but I think the shooter may have overreacted just a bit. I understand the right to protect your property, but some people are just plain trigger happy. Maybe I'll be proven wrong when more details come out.

Thanks for realizing you don't shoot anyone running AWAY from you.

I read the article as saying the thief ran after being shot and was caught in a field. I agree the TD never writes where you're sure what happened.

Latest update says he was shot twice in the back and once in the foot.

Kinda knocks the wind out of the "charged the shooter" claim. Backing up is not the preferred method of "charging at" someone.

quote:

Backing up is not the preferred method of "charging at" someone.

LOL

quote:

Originally posted by 1002:
You yhink the shooter over reacted?? What if you came home to find that a burglar had broken into your house and ripped the wiring out of the wall and was still there? You would probably feel the same way. This guy was just defending himself and his property and took the law into his own hands, if he hadnt the guy would have been long gone by the time the sherriffs dept. arrived. Why should you let someone get away with stealing because the court systems are not going to do anything to them besides slap them on the hand and turn them back loose. Do you think that he might learn a lesson this way a little better than a slap on the wrist??

Exactly. I've never shot anyone, but I would in a minute on my own property if I felt threatened. Oh, and if I had a gun.

quote:

Originally posted by AtticFeline:
http://www.timesdaily.com/arti...g-into-chicken-house

Maybe the man was hungry? Sorry, but I think the shooter may have overreacted just a bit. I understand the right to protect your property, but some people are just plain trigger happy. Maybe I'll be proven wrong when more details come out.

What was he gonna do? Eat a raw egg or chicken?

quote:

Originally posted by Sassy Kims:
Latest update says he was shot twice in the back and once in the foot.

Kinda knocks the wind out of the "charged the shooter" claim. Backing up is not the preferred method of "charging at" someone.

Who's to say that he didn't charge the man and when he seen he had a gun then turned and ran?

quote:

Originally posted by HadEnough:

quote:

Originally posted by Sassy Kims:
Latest update says he was shot twice in the back and once in the foot.

Kinda knocks the wind out of the "charged the shooter" claim. Backing up is not the preferred method of "charging at" someone.

Who's to say that he didn't charge the man and when he seen he had a gun then turned and ran?

You not not shoot a person running away from you. We have police who can make these decisions

quote:

Originally posted by 1002:
You yhink the shooter over reacted?? What if you came home to find that a burglar had broken into your house and ripped the wiring out of the wall and was still there? You would probably feel the same way. This guy was just defending himself and his property and took the law into his own hands, if he hadnt the guy would have been long gone by the time the sherriffs dept. arrived. Why should you let someone get away with stealing because the court systems are not going to do anything to them besides slap them on the hand and turn them back loose. Do you think that he might learn a lesson this way a little better than a slap on the wrist??

So just take matters into your own hands without waiting for the cops to show up, eh? I like it.

I'm for going back to the Old West style of doing things. Total anarchy.

quote:

Originally posted by HadEnough:

quote:

Originally posted by Sassy Kims:
Latest update says he was shot twice in the back and once in the foot.

Kinda knocks the wind out of the "charged the shooter" claim. Backing up is not the preferred method of "charging at" someone.

Who's to say that he didn't charge the man and when he seen he had a gun then turned and ran?

Then he was no longer a danger to the owner. And if such is true, there was no justification for use of deadly force.

Well I'm glad the owner did what he did. If he had waited on the Cops the guy would have gotten away scot free. If more of the crack heads knew they would be shot they might rethink what their doing.

Just shoot, I know where I live for every thing reported stolen it is at least 20 more. I know I live in a isolated area, but things left out by your barn or some other safe place are no longer safe.

If I find someone on my property stealing, I would assume, they would be as well armed as me. It seems nothing is safe nowadays. I would have done just what the man did to the perp.
If more people protected their property as such, it might cut down on these thieves.

First of, my post was made when this was "breaking" news, at 11:08 am, to be exact. The TD edited the story and added more to it later. All the story said when I read it is that a man had been shot for breaking into a chicken house. Not a word about copper wiring or any previous break-ins. For all I knew the man was stealing chickens because his family was hungry. Second of all, you don't shoot a man in the back who is running away from you. Ever. Unless you're a yellow belly. Or some backward thinking redneck like many of you seem to be who think it's fine to shoot anybody for any reason if they're on your property.

I don't believe you have the right do use deadly force to protect property. You have to believe you're life is in jeopardy before you can shoot them, and you would be well advised to shoot them only once. Oh yeah, and not in the back.
Didn't you address this a few weeks ago Lawguy?

Everyone assumes the thief was running away. Did you ever consider he might have been turning to get a weapon?

Bwahahahahahaha. Like the paper wouldn't have said something if that were true. Keep reaching. If his back were turned, how would the shooter know what he was /wasn't "reaching" for? I think he was running away. I mean, the old coot even shot him in the foot, for Pete's sake.

Just from the information provided at this point, it will not surprise me to see the owner of the property charged. The courts tend to value life over property. It's going to be really difficult justifying shooting the suspect in the back (twice).

Oh, but SG, he was on his property. Don't you know we Alabamians have a right to shoot trespassers? Da gubment say so.

Run faster...I hear banjos!

quote:

Originally posted by AtticFeline:
Bwahahahahahaha. Like the paper wouldn't have said something if that were true. Keep reaching. If his back were turned, how would the shooter know what he was /wasn't "reaching" for? I think he was running away. I mean, the old coot even shot him in the foot, for Pete's sake.

Wow, a man has been robbed of $10,000 and you call him an old coot while taking up for the thief. You keep reaching, maybe you can find a life somewhere.

the owner shot the thief in the foot to stop him, then his firearm malfunctioned and discharged two additional rounds, that's my story and i'm sticking to it...

OK, lets all be real now. In this country, there are things that are acceptable and things that are not. One thing that is not is shooting someone in the back for being on your property. Or even for stealing. Deadly force is acceptable in self defense, but that does not seem to be the case here.

There are places in this world that have some unusual punishments for thieves (and rapists, murderers, etc). Maybe thats where those of you that think its ok to shoot someone in the back for stealing should consider moving. Heck, the Taliban don't even shoot theives in the back, they just cut off their hand. How many of you ever thought that the Taliban would be considered more humane than you are?

There are to many conflicting reports. One report said he was shot in the foot, then twice more in the torso. Torso is not the back. It sounds like he shot him in the foot to stop him, and that didn't work. Who knows yet what happened. One thing is for sure, had he not been on the man's property to rob him, there'd be no debate on where he was shot.

There's nothing mentioned in the article here about torso OR $10,000. Please provide your sources.

quote:

He was shot twice in the back and once in the foot with a .38-caliber gun, according to authorities.

Last line in the article from the front page update...

Owner shoots man accused of breaking into chicken house

Notice that the headline doesn't say anything about attacking the owner, or even theft...only breaking into a chicken house.

quote:

Originally posted by AtticFeline:
There's nothing mentioned in the article here about torso OR $10,000. Please provide your sources.

There are other news sources other than the TD. When Is It Legally Acceptable To Use Deadly Force?

Posted: Sep 14, 2010 08:57 PM CDT


http://www.waaytv.com/Global/story.asp?S=13155077





A Colbert County homeowner shot a trespasser 3 times Tuesday. Officers continue their investigation. Such shootings often raise the question of when it's legally acceptable to use deadly force. WAAY 31 spoke with a criminal defense attorney to find out.

The shooter says over the weekend someone stole $10,000 worth of copper from inside his chicken house. So he was checking his property Tuesday when he found a trespasser.

Investigators comb the area around Ricks Lane in Spring Valley. Colbert County Sheriff Ronnie May says the owner of the property called 9-1-1 after finding 43-year old Timothy White in his chicken house Tuesday around 10 in the morning.

The owner says he held him at gun point waiting for authorities, until White charged at him. That's when the owner says he fired 3 shots hitting White twice in the torso and once in the foot. White was able to run away.

"We had officers come to the scene to search for him. When I arrived here, I came out on Ricks Cemetery Road and as I approached this gravel road drive, he stepped out in the road in front of me and I took him into custody and laid him down," said Sheriff Ronnie May.

Huntsville attorney Bruce Gardner could not speak specifically about this shooting, but explained Alabama's law of self defense and defense of your homestead.

"If someone is merely trespassing on your property, that would probably not allow a person to use deadly physical force," said criminal defense attorney, Bruce Gardner.

Gardner adds you don't have to retreat if someone is at your residence or on your property and you have reason to believe that person could potentially use deadly physical force against you. He says you are justified in using a weapon to defend yourself.

"If somebody is prowling around your house at midnight and scratching at your window and you have reason to believe someone is trying to break into your house, you have absolute right to defend that with the use of deadly physical force," said Gardner.

Sheriff May says the information about Tuesday's shooting will be presented to the DA, who will decide if this case should go to the grand jury.
The shooting victim was flown to Huntsville hospital. He's listed in good condition.

Reporter: Stephanie Beecken – sbeecken@waaytv.com

quote:

The owner says he held him at gun point waiting for authorities, until White charged at him. That's when the owner says he fired 3 shots hitting White twice in the torso and once in the foot. White was able to run away.

Would you not have shot at this man? He was NOT a Jehovah's Witness.

quote:

Originally posted by LELA:

quote:

The owner says he held him at gun point waiting for authorities, until White charged at him. That's when the owner says he fired 3 shots hitting White twice in the torso and once in the foot. White was able to run away.

Would you not have shot at this man? He was NOT a Jehovah's Witness.

Based on this report, yes I'd have shot him. It just sounds to me like he shot him in the foot to stop him and it didn't. You know the adrenaline was pumping, and imo all the victim was thinking was to stop the guy from harming him. Maybe we'll get updates and find out all the facts. Again, if he had not taken his a** out to steal from this guy, he'd have never been shot. I have zero sympathy for him.

Jennifer, I knew you would. I should have said YOU ALL.

quote:

Originally posted by Jennifer:

quote:

Originally posted by LELA:

quote:

The owner says he held him at gun point waiting for authorities, until White charged at him. That's when the owner says he fired 3 shots hitting White twice in the torso and once in the foot. White was able to run away.

Would you not have shot at this man? He was NOT a Jehovah's Witness.

Based on this report, yes I'd have shot him. It just sounds to me like he shot him in the foot to stop him and it didn't. You know the adrenaline was pumping, and imo all the victim was thinking was to stop the guy from harming him. Maybe we'll get updates and find out all the facts. Again, if he had not taken his a** out to steal from this guy, he'd have never been shot. I have zero sympathy for him.

Ditto.

Why did it suddenly get so quiet around here?

quote:

Originally posted by Sassy Kims:
Latest update says he was shot twice in the back and once in the foot.

Kinda knocks the wind out of the "charged the shooter" claim. Backing up is not the preferred method of "charging at" someone.

Don't know why that should be relevant, if someone is on your property stealing from you , I say just shoot the sob and have it over. Don't we have a new law now that says we can do that ?