So all you have to do as a crim is keep your back to your victims and you're golden? How about if you are double jointed and you bend over and threaten them with your face between your knees? Cool. PS I googled for a pic but all I got was a bunch of porn
Imo,the moral here is: Don't go through life trying to teach people a lesson. Oh, steal my trailer, I'll teach you a lesson. Same thing with road rage and hundreds of other injustices we endure thoughout life. As soon as you involve yourself in the "system" you are 'F'd. Stuff doesn't go according to plan, someone has a better lawyer more money or a "technicality" and you are screwed. Move on, forget about it. It's not your job to teach lessons. Vengence is mine says the Lord. Some old dude is going to prison or be hassled until he is dead over a trailer by a knucklehead who will outlive him and do it again. Swiping a trailer was nothing personal. The guy took it personal. Tired of getting your stuff stolen by whoever. Sorry, move to a better neighborhood. the gov't is not her to help you and (sigh) cannot protect you. Like another poster said, file an insurance claim. There's a hedge somewhere.
I'm also a long-time gun owner (and competitive shooter) and would NOT shoot someone stealing my property, especially if they were outside of my home. In most states (certainly in California where I live) you are only justifed in using deadly force if you or an innocent party are in danger of imminent harm. Pursuing someone outdoors when you could have stayed inside implies that you instigated the confrontation. Things have gotten so crazy here in California that if you shoot someone, even if you are justified, you are going to get hit with a civil suit. In a recent case a burglar came to someone's home and rang the doorbell to see if anyone was home. No one answered. So the burglar broke in and startled the homeowner. Little did the burglar know that when the homeowner heard the break-in in progress, he grabbed his gun. The burglar broke in through a window and confronted the homeowner who shot the burglar. The local DA called the shooting "justified" and did not charge the home owner with a crime. But that's not the end of the story. After the burglar got out of the hospital, he filed a civil suit for $1M against the homeowner claiming that if the homeowner had answered the doorbell, the burglar would not have attempted to break into the house. Therefore the homeowner is at fault and liable for damages. Here's the craziest part of the whole thing: a judge has agreed to hear the case. Only in California.
Lesson to be learned from above : If you are justified in using deadly force make sure that it is. 1) Intruders will be shot. 2) survivors will be shot again 3) repeat as required
Iin the 90s I lived in Pacific Beach San Diego for 5-7 years. There was a rash of car breakins and home breakins near mission bay in the mid 90s. One night my brother was crashed on the couch, a burglar stepped on him as he climbed through the window and then ran out the front door. We called the cops. A few weeks later the cops came back and told us the burglar was a kid still living at home and he was shot dead by a neighbor... We said shot dead? The cop said it was the third time this guys home was broken into. The burglar was shot in the back... and oddly had scuff marks on his shoes. The police said they were not going to pursue it but the homeowner probably dragged the burglar back into the house. My brother reminded me of that story last night. Our part of PB became safe again. The burglar put our lives at risk. Anything can happen at night.
I copied the article was it was written. I omitted nothing. I disagree that the question of whether or not the homeowner lied to police had any effect on his being charged. That would have been a possible additional charge, but it aded or subtracted nothing fron the original events. Soemone has to bepretty naive to believe the police's version of why they didn;t arrest these guys. They didn't arrest them because they wqere worried about political fallout form the hispanic/illegal immigration lobby. A "major car theft ring investigation" that didn't "pan out." How naive can people be? They moved on these dirtbags when they started getting heat in the media.
Smart plan. If they are outside your house you will be very lucky to escape criminal prosecution, along with a probable civil suit by the perp or his family. If they are inside your house and they don't have a weapon (ie, just burglarizing) you will have the most difficult task of explaining why your life was in imminent danger, once again facing possible criminal charges along with civil liability. That's the problem I was talking about that most people don't consider. Even if the local DA doesn't pursue criminal charges you will probably get hit with a civil suit where the burden of proof against you is much lighter. Then you might easily run up legal fees in the 6 figures defending yourself, and your financial fate beyond that could depend on the whims of a jury. In short, you and your families' life savings could be at risk even though you might have been fully justified. Unfortunately it's not only in California as these civil suits abound in just about every state. It's a mess, but it's the reality we have to deal with when making possible life-changing decisions. It's easy to talk tough, especially on an anonymous internet board, but like it or not we are no longer back in the days of the Old West and frontier justice. So no matter how much it bothered me I would bite my tongue and not consider using a lethal weapon against someone stealing or damaging property, for aside from possible moral issues it's just not worth it. On the other hand if I felt my life (or the life of a loved one) was in justifiably imminent danger I wouldn't hesitate to use deadly force, with extreme prejudice, and let the chips fall where they may.