I guess by shooting that guy in the "hip and buttocks area" the hunter must have struck a vital organ, the robbers brain perhaps? Maybe now people will call for the outlawing of bow and arrows for hunting?

I fail to see your point.

Are you saying that that murder was a good thing? Or are you being ironic?

Actually, whether or not it was murder or justified self-defense is up to the Grand Jury. And, Hunter, I have seen a man killed by a knife wound to the groin. It severed the femoral artery, among other things, and he bled to death.

One man's "proof" ??? is another man's OPINION - you have the right to bear arms or the right to ram bears - whatever

or arm bears - LOL - spotted my typo just after I hit the post button - too funny :D - think I'll leave it in.

I am trying to be sarcastic ,as in his brain is in his buttocks, but I guess it didnt work. I am not saying that murder is a good thing , but if someone gets killed trying to rob someone they dont get any sympathy from me. Some might say that the hunter in the article could have done something diffrent and not shot the guy stealing his car. I say the car thief could have been less of a scummo and not stolen anything in the first place.

Nope. This guy's going to jail. In a case like this, the grand jury will likely have no choice. The guy killed someone to protect PROPERTY. Not allowed in any state. Self-defense of property does not exist. Even in Texas. ;) Now if it fits that wierd "criminal mischief in the nighttime" exception down there, the guy has a chance.

LOL. Tell me Davros. What do you actually do in your spare time? :D (Couldn´t help myself. Sorry Davros [img]smile.gif[/img] ) And don´t tell johnny about ramming bears, he´s a collector :D

Uh, Timber, the original poat did say that the robber threatened the bowman with a gun. Would that make a difference? I have seen storekeepers shoot wolud-be robbers and the Grand Jury decline to indict.

The thief was sitting in the car, just moments away from leaving with it, when the hunter found him. How can he be about to leave, and pointing a gun at the hunter?

Why is it that the detective mention the thief's car, but never talk about a gun?

I don't know about you, but if I had a bow, and someone was pointing a gun at me, I think he would have the time to shoot me before I do. How could he have the time to draw his bow, and shoot him multiple time?

I think what happened is that the hunter saw the thief in his car, took his bow, and shoot the thief.

But this is just my theory and it is not important.

What is important is that someone killed someone over a car, that's sad. What are we? Animals? Why is it that no one respect life anymore?

LOL. Tell me Davros. What do you actually do in your spare time? :D (Couldn´t help myself. Sorry Davros [img]smile.gif[/img] ) And don´t tell johnny about ramming bears, he´s a collector :D </font>[/QUOTE]I am fluent in all types of typo :D - I have a typo licence - just ask Moderator Wyvern at the Wizards and Warriors Forum ;)

Nope. This guy's going to jail. In a case like this, the grand jury will likely have no choice. The guy killed someone to protect PROPERTY. Not allowed in any state. Self-defense of property does not exist. Even in Texas. ;) Now if it fits that wierd "criminal mischief in the nighttime" exception down there, the guy has a chance.</font>[/QUOTE]<font color="#66cc99">legal and just mean nothing, it just depends on how good his lawyer is. We don't really have a justice system, if we did, people injured or killed during the comission of a crime would be written off to a darwinism and that would be that.</font>

<font color="#66cc99">I can hear this guy at the pearly gates..
St. Peter: how did you die.
Crook: I was shot in the ass with an arrow.
St. Peter: And you died from that?
Crook: Yes sir.
St. Peter: You go to hell.

[img]smile.gif[/img] </font>

It makes all the difference in the world ;)

If the hunter was threaten with a gun, then defending himself with a bow will not qualify as unnecessary force.

<font color="#66cc99">Luvian is probably right, the guy has probably changed the story to support his side of it. As Timber said, it is fine for people to steal your stuff, we don't allow you to protect your belongings, only your own life. Personally I believe this is Bull droppings but hey, the people in charge of the law are worried about the rights of the criminals.</font>

Material can be replaced, a life can not.

The thief was sitting in the car, just moments away from leaving with it, when the hunter found him. How can he be about to leave, and pointing a gun at the hunter?

Why is it that the detective mention the thief's car, but never talk about a gun?

I don't know about you, but if I had a bow, and someone was pointing a gun at me, I think he would have the time to shoot me before I do. How could he have the time to draw his bow, and shoot him multiple time?

I think what happened is that the hunter saw the thief in his car, took his bow, and shoot the thief.

But this is just my theory and it is not important.

What is important is that someone killed someone over a car, that's sad. What are we? Animals? Why is it that no one respect life anymore?</font>[/QUOTE]If the hunter saw the thief sitting in his car about to drive off, wouldn't it be hard to hit him in the butt?

If he told him he had a gun and reached in his pocket, the hunter would probably have plenty of time. If he was caught unaware, trying to hotwire the car then the chances are he didn't have the gun in his hand.

If you tell me you have a gun and tell me you're going to kill me and then reach for your pocket, I'm going to do everything I possibly can to keep you from reaching that gun. If your lying to me in order to frighten me, you've made a serious miscalculation if I'm holding a bow, baseball bat, hammer, etc.

If your theory is true, it's murder over a vehicle, if what the hunter says is true it's self defense.

If the guy claimed to have a gun then the hunter could justifiably "be in fear for his life" and use lethal force to protect himself.

Of course since only the hunter is around to tell the tale... he has said the exact right thing to keep him out of trouble, irregardless of what actually happened.

I'd make a guess that there won't be any charges unless police can come up with some way to say the hunter is lying about the gun claims.

I agree, but look at this:

Maybe the door was still open, I don't know, but the only way I can see for the hunter's arrows to hit the thief where they did is if he was sitting, and shot from the side.

I agree, but I still think killing someone over a car is sad.

[ 10-21-2002, 09:57 AM: Message edited by: Luvian ]

I agree, but I still think killing someone over a car is sad.[/QUOTE]
<font color="#66cc99"> I agree but so is helping yourself to something that is not yours, especially you dont have any idea just how vital that item may or may not be to that persons own well being. You break the law, you should be ready to accept the risks. </font>

I still don´t get it. Maybe you have already found the answer to this but I couldn´t find it in here. This is what I´ve got so far:

1. The thief is ready to start the car (the car door is possibly open)
2. The hunter appears and apparently stands next to the car door? Or?
3. The thief threatens the hunter and the hunter shoots the thief.

OK, did I get that right? OK here´s what I´m not getting, the hunter manages to shoot the thief in the hip and buttocks? How? The hip I can understand but the buttocks? After getting shot the thief turns slightly away from the hunter or? Apparently his wounds are life threatening (I don´t see why, since he´s been shot mainly in adipose and muscle tissue. To hit a major artery the arrow had to go through the hip, break through the pelvis and the sever the artery, the iliac artery is in the anterior circulatory system.) but still the thief manages to jump out of the car and RUN away. With two arrows in his body? Maybe the solution is simple, I just can´t see it. [img]graemlins/confused3.gif[/img]

<font color="#ff00cc">Im with ya Willow, I just can't see a guy being shot in the arse up and croaking of it. There must have been more to it.

Im guessing the guy got shot in the backside as he was lunging away to reach his gun [img]smile.gif[/img] Or maybe he decided to Moon the guy as he drove off [img]smile.gif[/img] </font>

Sounds like a nominee for a Darwin award.

I suppose he could have threatened the hunter and reached into the passenger seat for a gun exposing his backside to the hunter.A hunting arrowhead is designed to shread tissue the more it is moved kinda like having four razors inside you slicing more and more as you move or put weight on it.It's also designed to keep the wound open and letting as much blood loss as possible so that could well be a wound that will kill.I think the case would hinge on finding the aledged gun as there is no other way to prove it likely he was threatened.As well as the autopsey because if the report showed he wasn't shot while sitting then the guy was outside the car and had his back to the hunter and then it's unlikely the hunter truly felt in his life in peril.

Since when was the death penalty a reasonable punishment for stealing a car?

Who made the Hunter judge and jury?

Without guns, the Hunter wouldn't have a leg to stand on. There would have been no threat to his life to base a dodgy defense on.

Two crimes were committed. One worse than the other. As Luvian said, property can be replaced, a life cannot.

Very true. But some lives are really not worth replacing if they make the lives of others less pleasant. Personally I have little to no sympathy for the robber, even if he didn't pull a gun. In my opinion it's like this: If you break the law, you've put aside all of your own rights by violating the rights of others. Don't whine if you or your stuff gets hurt in some way, you've brought it on yourself.

Yup.
Do whatever the hell you want with your existence provided you accept and deal with the repercussions of your actions. S'the way o' the world. The conquerors decide what's right and wrong.

Ramming bears! It's suddenly all clear to me!

Don't fundamental human rights override the laws of a nation, city or state?

Are we not arguing against a Nigerian woman being stoned to death for adultery? She broke the law and is being punished by the law.

Are we not against Chinese executing dissenters who break their laws in Tibet?

Human rights are paramount. Being killed for robbery is disgusting.

ROTFLMFAO!!! Dude, I've got this picture in my head of Yogi bear and... I'll say no more :D :D :D
Nicely put [img]graemlins/hehe.gif[/img]

Don't fundamental human rights override the laws of a nation, city or state?

Are we not arguing against a Nigerian woman being stoned to death for adultery? She broke the law and is being punished by the law.

Are we not against Chinese executing dissenters who break their laws in Tibet?

Human rights are paramount. Being killed for robbery is disgusting.</font>[/QUOTE]The robber was not killed by the state, He was killed by another person. One that will be tried according to the law. ( MagiK I know in theory ;) )

<font color="#6699cc">I would really like to hear more about rammng bears [img]smile.gif[/img] </font>

<font color=orange>This guy in all likelihood won't see the inside of a courtroom. Unless the prosecution has other information, my guess is they won't prosue charges against him.

A similar situation happened here about a dozen years or so ago, when a man was shot and killed for being a peeping tom. He was shot in the back, while running away. He hadn't hurt anyone. The home owner was charged with murder and when it got to the Grand Jury, they tossed it out. Since then not many of these incidents here have been persued by the District Attornies office. They know it will just get through out.

My personal take on this was that it was murder. The guy was running away. Seems to me that the guy that got hit in the butt with the arrow was probably running away too. I have no problem with self defense... as long as it is self defense.</font>

Don't fundamental human rights override the laws of a nation, city or state?

Are we not arguing against a Nigerian woman being stoned to death for adultery? She broke the law and is being punished by the law.

Are we not against Chinese executing dissenters who break their laws in Tibet?

Human rights are paramount. Being killed for robbery is disgusting.</font>[/QUOTE]Weeeeeeeel, it kinda depends on the gun issue. If the guy stealing the car had a gun, then I believe that my basic human right to self protection allows me to take the pre-emptive move of killing him before he kills me. If he didn't have a gun? Much more muddied waters. Who is to say he wasn't going to steal the car, turn around and run the hunter guy over and kill him?

If a guy will steal your car, can you really trust him not to try and injure you with it once he has stolen it? Is it worth risking your life to see whether he's going to drive away form you, or over you?

The first case is clear cut - if he had a gun, he deserved to get killed. Yes, he *deserved* it, because he committed a crime while he was armed with a lethal weapon. The second case? More difficlt to decide.

This factual speculation we're making does not matter, in all likelihood. In most every state you can use lethal force in self-defense. But, in most states, you must retreat rather than use self-defense if it is at all possible. I can't image the guy couldn't retreat. That only happens when you are close to the attacker or the attacker is pressing the attack. This guy came back from hunting and saw the guy, who pointed a gun at him. Chances are he wasn't so close he couldn't retreat.

It's a simple assumption of the law in most states that life, even the life of a criminal, is worth more than property. This seems a basic assumption, but I agree with those of you who have found it is flawed. There is a dollar value on life - ask any attorney who has litigated fatal car crashes or on-the-job injuries. The law calculates the value of human life all the time. An asbestos exposure mesothelioma death from asbestos exposure is woth about $1M if you can find the company to sue (they're all bankrupt these days).

And I don't feel sorry for the guy. Nor does my wallet come tax time. Definately a Darwin - especially since he likely had plenty of time to shoot while Robin Hood was notching an arrow and drawing his bow.

As for the Grand Jury, they don't get to answer the question "do we prosecute." No, they get a questionnaire from the judge, the first portion of which will look like this:
****************************
Hunter v. Darwinite, Case No. 02-cr-00055554
Judge Whatsizname

1. Did Mr. Hunter reasonably fear for his life?
2. Did Mr. Hunter take every reasonable opportunity to retreat from the danger he faced?

If your answer to both of the above questions is YES, continue with this questionnaire. If you answer NO to either question, sign this form at the bottom where indicated and return it to the bailiff.
***************************

See - grand jury is preliminary fact-finder. The judge uses the questions to enforce the strictures of the law. :D

Of course you would :D ;)

one point most people tend to be glossing over is that the thief said he had a gun, the article didn't say one way or another about if he actually had a gun, but personally if someone was trying to steal something of mine, and said he was armed, I'd grab the sword off my wall and use it on him (or whatever else I had to do to render him unable to do grievous harm to me), and worry about whether he was telling the truth or not later.

In most States, saying you have a weapon in the comission of a crime, is considered the same as having a weapon.

I really hate thieves, as I catch them every day as part of my job, but even though they are stealing my bonus, I know that some dvd's and vidoe games, or any material item are worth less than a human life as well a s far easier to replace. That is merely a matter of conscience.

It is easy to justify any act if you dont use your conscience.

<font color="33cccc">We have managed to manufacture 6 billion odd Humans. Im pretty sure we can do without the thieves, murderers and rapists. We can afford to be merciful to the Bear Rammers though. </font>