Charged with a felony for protecting your property? In Mn?

[ZomBrady]

It's not even in California!

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=2844101

Enjoy!

 

[DrMoab]

When I got my CCW permit in Utah they made it very very clear that if someone came into your house you had every right to shoot them...no questions asked but if they were breaking into your car in your driveway, call the cops.

The law doesn't look at trespassing as something worth using deadly force over.

Although I believe that theft should be a capital offense and anyone stepping onto my property intending to steal anything should be shot, the farmer should have known the law. Wrong or not.

 

[ZomBrady]

When I got my CCW permit in Utah they made it very very clear that if someone came into your house you had every right to shoot them...no questions asked but if they were breaking into your car in your driveway, call the cops.

The law doesn't look at trespassing as something worth using deadly force over.

Although I believe that theft should be a capital offense and anyone stepping onto my property intending to steal anything should be shot, the farmer should have known the law. Wrong or not.

Too true.

I'm totally with you that theft should be a capital crime.

 

[xj-grin]

Colorado has the "make my day" law, allowing the use of lethal force in your home, and pending before the legislature is the "make my day better" law, which would allow the use of lethal force in defending your car or your business...

 

[DrMoab]

I could be friends with a murderer more then I could be friends with a thief.

They are only one very very small step above a rapist and maybe two steps above a pedophile.

 

[Ray H]

Its been a number of years since I had a CCW and even longer since I was a deputy, but if I recall, and this is a very basic and general statement, I think citizens have basically the same rights as a law enforcement officer concerning the use of force. Meaning that a LEO can use deadly force only to protect himself or another person from an imminent threat but not to protect property.
To protect property, he can use only the level of force needed to detain a suspect and no more. I believe the same is true for private citizens.
Im guessing they arent pressing felony charges against the farmer not because they are nice guys, but mainly because of public outcry and because they realize they dont have a case and he should never have been arrested in the first place.

 

[jeepinandy]

I think they should deputize the man, and give him a medal. After all he did call it in.

 

[olivedrabcj7]

I hate to be a stick in the mud but I have to side with the law here. Id say his actions were outrageous and unjustified. He endangered not only his own life, but that of countless other people including a 3 year old child.
a High speed chase and holding someone at gunpoint, risking your life over $5 worth of gas??? come on....

Even worse is his shotgun wasnt even loaded. What was the plan if the other guy pulled a gun on him first???

I know in Arkansas, the law allows you to use lethal force to protect your life, another persons life, or....get this.....your property. For example my CCW instructor told us that if someone is in your house picking up your TV about to take off with it, you can justify that shooting in many ways because he is stealing your crap AND because based on his actions, you had reason to believe he was about to chunk a 60 pound tv (potentially deadly weapon).

I still think all that over $5 worth of gas, this guy deserves to think about his actions. He could use a stiff fine. Felony? no. Misdemeanor assault? yes.

 

[ChiXJeff]

This has gotten some pretty serious airplay around here.

What most folks are conveniently forgetting..... is that it was his neighbor's property, *NOT* his.

Granted, the suspect did have a history of theft there, but that still does not justify Mr. Englunds actions.

 

[98XJSport]

I doubt that he even knew what the thief was stealing, just knew he was stealing something from the car. I think he was using the right force to detain the thief, and it was the thief that endangered the wife and kid, nobody else.

 

[Ray H]

What most folks are conveniently forgetting..... is that it was his neighbor's property, *NOT* his.

.

I didnt conveniently forget it, its conveniently irrelevant.

 

[Rev Den]

Sorry guys....


Chasing the dude at 70 kinda negates any self defense thinking.

he should just called a cop.

Rev

 

[Ray H]

Sorry guys....


Chasing the dude at 70 kinda negates any self defense thinking.


Rev

I agree, but did he actually use deadly force if the gun was empty. He basically chased them down and threatened them with a stick. The unloaded gun is definately a perceived deadly threat but is it an actual deadly threat when in the hands of a 70+ year old man?

 

[98XJSport]

From what I read, he did call the cops, was on the phone with them during the chase. Not likely the cops would have caught the thief if he had just let him drive away.

 

[DrMoab]

I hate to be a stick in the mud but I have to side with the law here. Id say his actions were outrageous and unjustified. He endangered not only his own life, but that of countless other people including a 3 year old child.
a High speed chase and holding someone at gunpoint, risking your life over $5 worth of gas??? come on....

It's people who think like you that are making this country such a dangerous place. Granted he broke the law but the law is stupid.

Think the guy would have been steeling gas if he knew the farmer was armed and had the right to shoot him for stealing it? I doubt it.

I have said it before....arm everyone then petty theft would cease to be a problem.

 

[DrMoab]

I agree, but did he actually use deadly force if the gun was empty. He basically chased them down and threatened them with a stick. The unloaded gun is definately a perceived deadly threat but is it an actual deadly threat when in the hands of a 70+ year old man?

The law doesn't look at a loaded weapon any different then an empty one.

Loaded or empty its still a deadly weapon.

 

[ChiXJeff]

I agree, but did he actually use deadly force if the gun was empty. He basically chased them down and threatened them with a stick. The unloaded gun is definately a perceived deadly threat but is it an actual deadly threat when in the hands of a 70+ year old man?

Absolutely WRONG. The only person who knows it's unloaded is whoever is holding it. It is *ABSOLUTELY* a threat. You've said that you're a CCW holder. You, of all people, should know what it means to hold a firearm on somebody.

As of Wednesday morning, the felony charges against Mr. Englund were going forward.

And the fact that it's his neighbor's property (and yes, he *DID* know exactly what was being stolen) makes him a vigilante, he is purposely putting himself in the situation. I can possibly stretch and understand him feeling threatened if his property was being burglarized, I but not on his neighbor's. And if his neighbor was shouting for assistance, that would also change the situation drastically.

 

[Ramsey]

I hate to be a stick in the mud but I have to side with the law here. Id say his actions were outrageous and unjustified. He endangered not only his own life, but that of countless other people including a 3 year old child.
a High speed chase and holding someone at gunpoint, risking your life over $5 worth of gas??? come on....

completely agree. That man is senile.

 

[Ray H]

The law doesn't look at a loaded weapon any different then an empty one.

Loaded or empty its still a deadly weapon.

Dont confuse the threat with ability. The law doesnt see the difference as far as defending yourself or others against an empty gun. It does see a difference as far as using it to commit a crime. An example would be if I held up a bank with an empty gun. The bank guard would have the right to treat my firearm as loaded and deadly but when I go to court to defend myself, it will make a difference that it wasnt loaded. It shows that I had no intent to harm. Its like the difference between saying you have a bomb and actually having a bomb. Either one would be assult but would they both be assult with a deadly weapon?

 

[DrMoab]

Either one would be assult but would they both be assult with a deadly weapon?

I don't think the law cares. It doesn't matter if you are "actually" using a deadly weapon or not. The only thing that matters is how the law interprets it.