'When has it ever become legal to shoot someone because they’re pulling off in your car?'

depends-if they pointed a gun at you or brandished a knife-you ought to shoot them if you can

 

cops are civilians and are held to the same standards under the law though many judges cut them breaks

 

I don't value my property that much. My pets are a different story.

If a person is not acting in a way that is an imminent threat to your life or the life of others, then shooting that person ought to at least be investigated as a crime.

 

Right, because any one of us can put on armored suits, load up with weapons, and break down the doors of people we suspect are doing things the government deems verboten.

In a growing police state like the one under which we live, cops are not civilians. They are the enforcement arm of the political class.

 

You don't know why soldier only go off to war, and not civilians?

 

Certainly not among conservatives who hypocritically claim to be Christian.

 

They use to hang horse thieves and cattle rustlers back when America was great.

I'm old enough to remember when both cops and civilians could shoot a fleeing felon in the back if it was believed that the fleeing felon would commit other crimes in the future if he wasn't caught.

Back in the day only really bad hombres would flee from the police.

 

Cops are trained on how to react.
Many civilians have no clue. We don't need uneducated John Wayne's running around shooting people they think might be doing something wrong. But that is where this will head to. And some innocent will be killed.
But 1 dead innocent vs how many bad guys is acceptable?

 

Given that we do have many thousands of successful DGUs every year, I'll ask you how many innocents are you prepared to sacrifice to keep civilians from using/carrying firearms in self defense?

 

your faith in cops demonstrated how little you understand about this subject and demonstrates a phobia towards armed citizens.

 

gun banners/restrictionists don't admit there is any value to honest citizens being armed

 

I'm ok with it. The story says the car owner stood in front of his vehicle and the thief obviously was willing to run him over, since the shot was then thru a side window.

In this, we know the car thief, while actively engaged in a felony, was willing to commit murder to not be caught nor discontinue his criminal episode. Thus, shooting was 100% acceptable because it assured the criminal did not succeed in murdering anyone with the vehicle he was stealing.

Thieves are slavers. They force other people to work for them for free - and in the case of a vehicle are forcing the victim to be their slave for many months if not longer.

Theft of a vehicle can destroy a person's life and that of their family, leading to lost job, eviction, and being forced upon the street. Only little children or as petty as minor shoplifting, I have no problem with thieves being shot if that is what it takes to stop the theft from being successful. If the thieve drops the property and keeps running? No. But if the thieve is fleeing with the stolen property, yes.

Major theft is more than a property crime as it can also destroy a person or even murder a person, such as leaving the victim unable to pay medical expenses or for necessary prescription drugs.

 

The fact is an innocent person is six times more likely to be shot and killed by police than by an armed civilian/non-police, though far more non-police are armed.

 

Of course they are, but they often do not react as they are trained. They react according to their experience with bad guys. This often leads to innocent people being treated like heavy criminals.

 

What training is undergone by law enforcement officers, that teaches them to stay outside the scene of an active shooting incident at a high school where innocent individuals are being murdered by an armed suspect?

 

POORLY trained, for the most part.

Private citizens have a better accuracy percentage and far lower mistaken identity shootings per incident than police do, and their track record only continues to improve.

 

For those who are interested in the truth, the following is a citation of the law of the state of Illinois regarding self defense, and the use of deadly force.

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilc...&ChapterID=53&SeqStart=8200000&SeqEnd=9700000

(720 ILCS 5/6-4) (from Ch. 38, par. 6-4)
Sec. 6-4. Affirmative Defense. A defense based upon any of the provisions of Article 6 is an affirmative defense except that mental illness is not an affirmative defense, but an alternative plea or finding that may be accepted, under appropriate evidence, when the affirmative defense of insanity is raised or the plea of guilty but mentally ill is made.
(Source: P.A. 82-553.)

(720 ILCS 5/Art. 7 heading) ARTICLE 7. JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE; EXONERATION

(720 ILCS 5/7-1) (from Ch. 38, par. 7-1)
Sec. 7-1. Use of force in defense of person.
(a) A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or another against such other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, he is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or another, or the commission of a forcible felony.
(b) In no case shall any act involving the use of force justified under this Section give rise to any claim or liability brought by or on behalf of any person acting within the definition of "aggressor" set forth in Section 7-4 of this Article, or the estate, spouse, or other family member of such a person, against the person or estate of the person using such justified force, unless the use of force involves willful or wanton misconduct.
(Source: P.A. 93-832, eff. 7-28-04.)

(720 ILCS 5/7-2) (from Ch. 38, par. 7-2)
Sec. 7-2. Use of force in defense of dwelling.
(a) A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate such other's unlawful entry into or attack upon a dwelling. However, he is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if:
(1) The entry is made or attempted in a violent, riotous, or tumultuous manner, and he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent an assault upon, or offer of personal violence to, him or another then in the dwelling, or

(2) He reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the commission of a felony in the dwelling.

(b) In no case shall any act involving the use of force justified under this Section give rise to any claim or liability brought by or on behalf of any person acting within the definition of "aggressor" set forth in Section 7-4 of this Article, or the estate, spouse, or other family member of such a person, against the person or estate of the person using such justified force, unless the use of force involves willful or wanton misconduct.
(Source: P.A. 93-832, eff. 7-28-04.)

(720 ILCS 5/7-3) (from Ch. 38, par. 7-3)
Sec. 7-3. Use of force in defense of other property.
(a) A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate such other's trespass on or other tortious or criminal interference with either real property (other than a dwelling) or personal property, lawfully in his possession or in the possession of another who is a member of his immediate family or household or of a person whose property he has a legal duty to protect. However, he is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
(b) In no case shall any act involving the use of force justified under this Section give rise to any claim or liability brought by or on behalf of any person acting within the definition of "aggressor" set forth in Section 7-4 of this Article, or the estate, spouse, or other family member of such a person, against the person or estate of the person using such justified force, unless the use of force involves willful or wanton misconduct.
(Source: P.A. 93-832, eff. 7-28-04.)

(720 ILCS 5/7-4) (from Ch. 38, par. 7-4)
Sec. 7-4. Use of force by aggressor. The justification described in the preceding Sections of this Article is not available to a person who:
(a) is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or

(b) initially provokes the use of force against himself, with the intent to use such force as an excuse to inflict bodily harm upon the assailant; or

(c) otherwise initially provokes the use of force against himself, unless:

(1) such force is so great that he reasonably believes that he is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm, and that he has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or

(2) in good faith, he withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

(Source: Laws 1961, p. 1983.)

The definition of what constitutes a forcible felony in the state of Illinois:

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/fulltext.asp?DocName=072000050K2-8

(720 ILCS 5/2- (from Ch. 38, par. 2-
Sec. 2-8. "Forcible felony". "Forcible felony" means treason, first degree murder, second degree murder, predatory criminal sexual assault of a child, aggravated criminal sexual assault, criminal sexual assault, robbery, burglary, residential burglary, aggravated arson, arson, aggravated kidnaping, kidnaping, aggravated battery resulting in great bodily harm or permanent disability or disfigurement and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual.
(Source: P.A. 88-277; 89-428, eff. 12-13-95; 89-462, eff. 5-29-96.)

Robbery and burglary are specifically classified as being forcible felonies, and the law regarding self defense in the state of Illinois states that deadly force is justified for the purpose of stopping forcible felonies, such as burglary or robbery. Since the incident in question involved the theft of a privately owned motor vehicle in the presence of the legal owner, the use of deadly force was legally justified even if the legal owner was not at risk of being run over in the process.

 

None. It's not up to me to determine innocence or guilt.
But anyone can defend themselves and their family with lethal force. So I've not suggested to keep civilians from using or carrying. Just from shooting willy nilly.

 

You think I don't understand the subject. While you promote untrained John Wayne's killing people willy nilly?

 

Then that is a local issue and problem.
But more trained the Johnny who can carry just by filling out paperwork.

I don't take your word for it.

 

And a person never trained?

 

Point to where such has actually been claimed.

The same training that is often blamed for law enforcement officers engaging in excessive force when such is found to be entirely unnecessary?

Training on the part of law enforcement is inadequate, especially when it comes to the safe handling of firearms. Firearms training for law enforcement is remedial at best, designed to be understood by those who have never touched a firearm before. Even then, qualification standards are abysmally low, and law enforcement applicants have equally abysmal accuracy ratings even when the target is stationary.

 

I don't know much about the circumstances to say whether or not the lieutenant should be charged. But going by the article posted by @HonestJoe and the fact that Chicago and Illinois aren't exactly the most gun friendly places in America leads me to believe that the Lt.'s life was in danger.

 

Boy killed, 3 others wounded when driver opens fire in Colorado road-rage incident, police say
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-colorado-road-rage-incident-20180615-story.html

Why not get rid of LEOs altogether then. If they are so incompetent and untrained Joe is better.

I know why, because it's NOT true.

 

The average armed citizen is better trained and practiced than the average cop. Sad, but true. Sure, there are exceptions; but when you look at the top competitors in the world only a few are or have been law enforcement or military.

There is a reason why some departments in this country have such atrocious records for accuracy; generally in the rabidly antigun areas where potential LEOs never touch a gun before they go to the Academy, such as the NYPD, which has a horrifying 18% hit ratio in gun battles.

Yeah, people like you do tend to shy away from facts and logic; anything said that doesn't fit your worldview gets a "I just don't believe it!".