Said Jamie Torres, a Denver city councilwoman, quoted in "Boy, 12, Is Fatally Shot by Owner of Stolen Car in Denver, Police Say/The boy was in the car when the vehicle’s owner found it using an app and 'exchanged fire' with the people inside, the police said" (NYT).
Was this vigilantism?
From the Wikipedia article on the topic:
Can an owner of a car use an app to go in search of his stolen car? If he does, is it wrong to be armed? If, on finding his car, persons in the car point guns at him, isn't it self-defense to shoot the gun? I understand that the authorities like the idea of leaving it to them to decide what to do about crime, and I can see why they generally prefer that people not risk a confrontation, but I don't think it's "vigilantism" to go to retrieve your own property and to engage in legal self-defense.According to political scientist Regina Bateson, vigilantism is "the extralegal prevention, investigation, or punishment of offenses."[1] The definition has three components:
- Extralegal: Vigilantism is done outside of the law (not necessarily in violation of the law)
- Prevention, investigation, or punishment: Vigilantism requires specific actions, not just attitudes or beliefs
- Offense: Vigilantism is a response to a perceived crime or violation of an authoritative norm
I don't know the facts of this case. I'm merely trying to picture what the words "exchanged fire" mean, and I note that the shooter has not been arrested. And I don't know the extent to which the Denver police have been effective in dealing with car theft.
Of course, the biggest problem is that a 12-year-old became involved in car theft. It led to his death. We're told that after he was shot in the head he "drove the car about two blocks" and "It was not clear if the boy had been driving the car before the shooting." Those are puzzling facts. Could he have moved into the driver's seat after being shot in the head? It seems more likely that he stepped on the gas to escape and as he was getting shot in the head and the car propelled itself 2 blocks.
It's very sad that a boy is dead and that his life was such that it ended the way he did.
Posts
76 comments:
"Exchanged fire?" You mean the 12-year-old was packing heat?
The police have proven completely ineffective at stopping car jacking, car thefts, and thefts of catalytic converters, in Denver and around the country. As the police won't do the job, the general public is the last line of defense against criminality.
It's sad when a 12-year-old dies. I'm not sad when a criminal dies during the course of committing a crime. Perhaps this unfortunate death will dissuade other youths from a life of crime.
One of the primary reasons for police is to protect the criminals.
Of course, it doesn't help that auto theft has been so out of control on the Front Range that officers don't respond even when they are shown the app giving the location of the car. (My guess is the Councilwoman quoted voted to reduce the police department budget.)
THE PURPOSE of police, and courts, and laws.. IS TO PROTECT THE CRIMINAL
that is, Their Only Purpose.
Throw away law, and welcome the Vigilance Committee, or as they say in Montana 3-7-77
Vehicle tracking devices will become ubiquitous. Police need to get on top of recovery operations.
I seem to recall there was a time when spring guns were getting out of hand and killing kids and a crack down followed.
As the law retreats, criminals and vigilantes both fill the void. Nobody wins, but the law-abiding are not simply going to give in. We are being led backward to a violent, mean society.
If their job is to protect the criminals, Gilbar, why do they beat the hell out of them so often?
If he would have gone onto private property armed, wouldn't the people who shot at him also have a legitimate self defense claim?
Seems we've arrived at the "Defund the Police" sour spot. The police are not effective at preventing crime or apprehending criminals, but they are effective at protecting criminals.
In many places obeying the law is regarded as a voluntary and optional.
When you let the police handle a stolen car situation:
https://youtu.be/v7acD4q0lp0
Leads?
Prevention and investigation are NOT vigilantism.
Are door locks the mark of a vigilante?
Expect more of this as the governments everywhere de-emphasize prosecuting theft. And if I am on the jury for this car owner- he gets an acquittal vote from me.
More facts needed about the car owner’s discovery of the vehicle and actions toward the occupants; and their actions toward the owner. What was said and by whom? Who was armed? Who fired?
Of course, waiting for facts to emerge (and be tested, corrected, confirmed) is slow going. Much more fun just to spout off like this junior official.
Another pestilential feral animal was exterminated. Oh, he happened to be a young one. Boo hoo. A civic improvement.
People are putting Air Tags in their cars. I wonder if the car owner had called the police first to tell them he could track it and know fairly precisely where it was. I read a story recently (maybe on reddit) where someone said the police were able to find and get their stolen car this way.
Maybe Denver police don't have the time or are unwilling to help with this. Or the car owner felt that they would be.
I was going to say that I expect more information to come out (I thought "Sunday" might have meant shortly after midnight this morning), but this happened last Sunday and the story itself is just coming out now. I still expect more information to come out, but it will be much more controlled and manipulated.
Some Denver news sources show the child's photo, but it's at least a couple of years old, making him look very much like a child instead of an adolescent. They used the same photo in news stories when he was 10 to say he was missing and in need of medication. I don't know if using that old of a photo is an attempt at making the readers think he was a young, innocent child or if his family cared so little about him that that's the only photo anyone has of him.
Colorado radical democratical leftists have made crime legal.
We have legalized crime.
so guess what - the people are going to fight back.
Bart: Uh, say, are you guys crooks?
Fat Tony: Bart, is it wrong to steal a loaf of bread to feed your starving family?
Bart: No.
Fat Tony: Well, suppose you got a large starving family. Is it wrong to steal a truckload of bread to feed them?
Bart: Uh uh.
Fat Tony: And, what if your family don't like bread? They like... cigarettes?
Bart: I guess that's okay.
Fat Tony: Now, what if instead of giving them away, you sold them at a price that was practically giving them away. Would that be a crime, Bart?
Bart: Hell, no.
Their policies explicitly encourage this. What do you think happens when “normal people” can no longer be secure in their homes and cars while the Elite flit around with armed guards? I’m surprised there’s not more flirting with vigilantism.
The ONLY reason we have police is to protect the criminals. The police don't STOP the theft of vehicles. They ostensibly investigate them afterwards. But what if they REFUSE to investigate them? What if they just don't give a damn? My car cost $44,000. You think if I walk into a bank and steal $44,000 the FBI isn't going to hunt me down?
Is it vigilantism when someone who stole your stuff shoots at you and you are forced to shoot back?
What a ridiculous question to even ask.
I encourage the city council WOMAN to stick to her knitting and let the men handle the criminals the city of Denver refuses to put into jail. People are going to kill them given half the chance. The armed robber in Houston was shot 9 times, then the armed citizen put one right in his brain pan, just to make sure. We're done playing games with these alleged people.
As Paddy Paddy Chayefsky wrote: "We're mad as hell, and we aren't going to take it any more."
And I can't wait until some "progressive" prosecutor attempts to charge someone protecting their life AND property. Watch how fast that prosecutor goes down in flames. And then gets his car stolen.
One of the biggest surprises of going to a big name law school was how much the professors wanted people NOT to, say, go looking for their stolen car. You should leave everything to the authorities. Ever since then, I've noticed a pattern. "Professionals" want you to have to go through them. And if they control a regulatory agency, they will try to make independent action illegal. So when tests for the HIV virus were developed, the FDA made it illegal for the testing companies to tell the patients what their results were. It was only legal to get the result from a doctor so the doctor could "counsel" you.
Mark said...
If their job is to protect the criminals, Gilbar, why do they beat the hell out of them so often?
Lefty Mark is all in on defunding the police. This is what you get, lefty Mark.
The stolen car apps don't work too well in Tucson. One guy I heard of had a "LoJack" tracking device in his car. When his car was stolen and the cops turned on the LoJack, the car was 60 miles into Mexico.
The breakdown of civilization in the United States.
Some people have been given a message that they have the right to the possessions of others. "Free" government handouts via taxpayer pockets. No harm no foul if you steal under $1k, looting is reparations, you are owed so very, very much. Eliminate penalties, even the fear of being identified, for crimes and crimes get more common.
Some other people have worked, and worked hard for their possessions. It's just not "stuff" it's what the fought for and sacrificed for. It is what they hope to provide for their children. They have watched the police scrub their hands (thanks to politicians) of concern about their possessions.
When group one gets large enough to be in contact with group two with any frequency trouble will follow. Gun sales are through the roof.
It's very sad that a boy is dead and that his life was such that it ended the way he did.
Something very similar happens dozens of times every weekend in every major city. Nobody gives a shit. #Blacklivesmatter
There’s an obvious fact hidden in plain sight: the car’s owner did not believe that the police would do anything to help retrieve the vehicle, nor did the car’s owner believe that the courts would punish the carjackers. There is one absolutely necessary condition for the establishment of Committees of Vigilance, and that is the belief that the legal system — police and courts — cannot or will not protect the honest citizens.
Now a question. Is this only case where gunfire was exchanged with the car thieves? Or is this only newsworthy among dozens or scores of shootouts because a 12 year old was a member of the car thieves and died because of it?
And an observation. The car’s owner is probably going to be able to claim self-defense, though that is not the slam dunk that Kyle Rittenhouse was, but the case of Hattori v Peairs (I think I have it right) may mean that the car’s owner will be liable if sued by the parents of the deceased 12 year old. When the car’s owner went looking for his car, he was also “looking for trouble.” This is why people who buy guns for home defense need to be educated on the laws related to self defense. You can defend yourself; you can defend family, friends, and even strangers; but you cannot go looking for trouble.
BIII Zhang said:
"And I can't wait until some "progressive" prosecutor attempts to charge someone protecting their life AND property"
See George Alan Kelly Arizona rancher among others. The prosecution is the punishment for protecting yourself, your property or your family.
Stealing a car while in possession of a gun or while in the presence of someone in possession of a gun is not the same as just stealing a car. More facts have to come out but the kid was playing a dangerous game with dangerous accomplices.....Related topic: There was a recent New Yorker article by Alec MacGillis about "violence interrupters". After a shooting or some other type of gangland violence, some cities are sending in "violence interrupters". Violence interrupters are convicted felons, murderers mostly, now out of prison. They are sent in to counsel minors about refraining from violent reprisals. The theory is that they have street cred and can offer worthwhile advice about how to not get caught up in the cycle of crime and violence. Progressive city officials in Baltimore and Chicago think that this program might be more effective than just a police presence....What can go wrong with sending convicted murderers to counsel children. Lots of things. Some of the counselors took the opportunity to organize drug distribution programs in community outreach offices. Other counselors apparently lacked the tact and diplomacy needed to counsel at risk minors and got shot by those at risk minors.... Well, the Wright Brothers didn't launch a transatlantic flight first time out. The writer seemed to think that the program has definite promise. Indeed it does. If you want to transfer tens of millions of dollars from city coffers into the pockets of convicted murderers and community organizers, such a program is the way to go.
Perhaps this unfortunate death will dissuade other youths from a life of crime.
?????
Are you completely unaware of what is happening in our inner cities? Dozens of boys are dying every weekend in our cities, and no one, not even them, gives a shit.
If you can’t do the time, don’t do the crime.
A 12 year old involved in car theft? How - quaint. I taught senior citizens (16 years old and still in 7th grade) with long rap sheets way beyond car theft.
One day, several decades ago, I was at my teacher desk doing paperwork when a new student showed up in class and handed me his paperwork. He had a beard and an ankle monitor. I signed him into the class and he took a seat in the back. At lunch I stopped by Guidance and asked who the new adult student was and why was he wearing an ankle monitor. I was told he was an old 16, almost 17 and until he turned 17 I wasn't allowed to know anything about him other than he was a new student in my class and he had a "right" to be there. The next day I simply asked LeCharles why he had an ankle monitor on. He replied: "Aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, assault and battery, breaking and entering. They told me that if I go back to school all I'll get is some more probation so here I am. I'm not gonna' do any of your work. I'm just looking for another baby momma. I got two already." Social justice dumb-assery writ large. Rumours had it some that lady teachers carried pistols in their purses.
The police have no interest in recovering stolen cars. I had one stolen in 1996. They had no interest then.
Did the vehicle's owner shoot the kid? How many people were in the car? How many had guns? Was the kid accidentally shot by a co-criminal in the excitement?
Maybe a window of the car was blown out and the kid realized he was going to be driving around with a garbage bag duct-taped over the hole and he shot himself.
Addendum: For decades I kept newspaper clippings of my current and former students who were shot, killed, wounded, incarcerated, caused criminal mayhem, etc when their crimes hit the local daily. I actually laminated them into a "Wall of Shame" poster and had it hanging in my garage. It was quite large. One day, towards the end of my career, I took it to school and put it up on the bulletin board for my current students to see. It was a sensation! The lady social justice warrior principal had a meltdown. The male vice principal thought it was a great idea but wisely kept his mouth shut. Verbal reprimand and a warning never to show the truth again.
Mark said...
If their job is to protect the criminals, Gilbar, why do they beat the hell out of them so often?
So Often? Please explain your concept of "often"?
Also, are you now implying that YOU Think the police do their job correctly? Really? You Do?
Seriously, Mark; i realize that you are mentally stupid.. But are you REALLY so stupid that you think the police do their job correctly? Do You?
"Can an owner of a car use an app to go in search of his stolen car?".
Well, you provided a definition of vigilantism, which included "investigation". So, by your definition, that would be "vigilantism". But yes, clearly, the owner of the car not only could use an app in that fashion, he did.
All clear, now? You know, definitions are written by people. So, unless they are part of an ordinance, they are really just some asshole's opinion. They don't settle anything, unless everyone agrees with them. And I am fairly certain that if you look up "some asshole" in the dictionary, you will find a picture of political scientist Regina Bateson.
A friend of mine had a 1989 Jeep Cherokee with a faulty wiring harness. 1988/1989 Jeep Cherokees are just rolling money pits (mine was a 1988), requiring frequent repairs. It was stolen several times, but the thieves had to abandon it when the faulty wiring harness stopped the engine from working. He'd get a call from the cops to come and pick it up. He was always cursing that wiring harness because he could never permanently get rid of that car.
"I understand that the authorities like the idea of leaving it to them to decide what to do about crime"
Most of the time, nothing. And of course progs really want to define crime down in the first place.
"I can see why they generally prefer that people not risk a confrontation"
So can I. Prog authorities prefer the public to cower in fear and favor the bad guys.
Here's the story from Denver.
No surprises.
There are several issues here.
Auto theft is skyrocketing in major cities. In Denver, it is up something like 25% in just the first quarter of the year. Colorado has the highest auto theft rate in the nation, and it continues to rise. The trend began with marijuana legalization. Just saying. Also, illegal shootings have risen 300% in Denver since 2017.
Policing is way down, not because of police but because of leftist prosecutors and legislators and judges just cutting people loose. So it was reasonable for the man to expect no immediate help from calling 911. But in fact he did call the police between the time the car was stolen and he found the car.
Many car thieves are now spree criminals: they steal and abandon multiple cars in a day. So the owner had a reasonable expectation that if he tracked the car, he might find it abandoned already. He also might lack the funds to deal with higher insurance rates if he reported the car stolen.
What does "exchanged gunfire" mean? If he shot first, you can be sure the media would be reporting it.
As a result of decisions made by the feds to not secure the border (illegals steal a lot of the cars and cause an inordinate amount of accidents in SW states -- and also where I live, north of Atlanta) and decisions by prosecutors and judges to not enforce laws, every law abiding citizen in such places pays massively higher auto insurance due to theft and uninsured motorist coverage. Two major insurance agencies announced this week that they will no longer insure several Kia models, like mine, because they are the most popular cars to steal. So my car is now worth almost nothing.
Denver Councilwoman Jamie Torres is a longtime activist for eliminating police and an advocate for illegal immigration and other lawlessness. She and her constituents and all Democrat voters are the people who made the decisions that ended in the boy's death. She is responsible, not the crime victim.
What if the "vigilante's" actions are popular?
Well, if the Chinese Spy Balloon episode is any guide, the authorities will abandon their heretofore lax enforcement and start impulsively shooting down every car thief, in the belief it might improve their poll numbers.
Mark, Out of 60+ million contacts with civilians annually and 10 million arrests, police discharged their firearms with deadly force .003% of the time. 98% of arrests involve no use of force, and half of the other 2% involved no or minor injury.
You're ignorant. Or perhaps worse, just lying.
Take a knee, beg, wait for an antiFascist Occupation, perhaps an SS BLM incursion.
It’s been a long time since Denver PD was very responsive. It was maybe 40 years ago, I was at a party of some college buddies, and someone noticed a burglar skulking around, and breaking into a house across the street. This was a very nice part of town, a couple blocks from the Mamie Dowd House, where young professionals lived in relatively large old homes. Even a city councilman (we knew his son) a couple blocks away. Well maintained houses and yards, yuppie cars like Volvos and BMWs, etc. Still nice, last I knew. So, we expected a response, and moved our chairs out on the front lawn to watch. Then, almost an hour later, a half dozen DPD cars converged on the house, with lights and sirens. Of course, the burglar was long gone. Then, maybe 5 years later, an hour and a half north, in Fort Collins (back when it was reliably very conservative), I was assaulted by my business partner, I was assaulted by my business partner. I locked myself in an office and called 911. About 5 minutes later, while I was still on the phone with the 911 operator, I started hearing an echo of the call approaching on the other side of the door. It was FCPD listening to the 911 call in real-time. He was caught, charged, and out on bail by the end of the day. Never did time, but I was able to use the incident in my civil suit against him. It was like day and night.
It was like day and night, between the two. Suburbia for me, every time. We now spend half the year in one of the nicest parts of PHX, with the biggest problem being people who haven’t picked up their dog’s shit, weeds in the yard (HOA was on it - got a nastigram for weeds w/I a week of them sprouting), and coyotes. World class healthcare (Mayo Clinic) - except for gunshot wounds (they don’t see them in the ER). Only real problem is FD response, since they haven’t built the promised fire station a couple blocks away. Then, the other half the year, we spend in rural MT, which is underpoliced, due to the low population density and long distances, where everyone is armed, and know how to use their guns. The Justice of the Peace (who tries misdemeanors and does initial felony appearances) teaches gun classes on the side. We aren’t supposed to carry concealed into the courthouse, but no worries, since the people who work there have been through his classes, can, and do. And, yes, he carries a G19 under his robe. Good guy, except last time I took his class, he was insistent about my using an equilateral stance, and I am stuck with a modified Weaver, due to a hereditary tremor on my left side. No armed car jackings, because, for one thing, the car jackers would probably not make it out of the county. Awhile back, someone robbed the convenience store in town. They were stopped by a roadblock of well armed concerned citizens, before they crossed the county line awhile later, alerted by the SD dispatcher. Some may call it vigilante action. Whatever. It works. No one was hurt, and the perps did some hard time. My worry is more about medical emergencies, with the hospital 20 miles away. Luckily, one of their ER docs moved into the neighborhood last summer, and lives a couple houses away.
I do worry about police response a bit in PHX, and medical response in MT. My partner’s mother is in a house in Las Vegas that they have owned for over 50 years now. Back then, it was a decent part of town. No longer, and hasn’t been for quite awhile. Luckily, for us, neither of us is likely to be around that long. I fully expect the quality of life in PHX to deteriorate over the next several decades, after the Democrats seized control of the state through rampant and egregious election fraud. That is never good for livability.
40+ comments in.
Virtually all of it the usual low-grade political blather; progressives defunding the police, librul prosecutors soft on crime, personal responsibility, fake news media...
Not one commenter raised the very interesting law school exam question raised in all of this. I will bet that it crossed Althouse's mind, because this is such a classic Crim Law problem: Can the car thieves be charged with felony-murder, even though they did not shoot the boy? They were engaged in a felony, and indeed it was a rather dangerous felony. Grand theft-auto, and, I presume, kidnapping. The kidnapping victim died in the course of the crime. Ticking off many of the routing checklists for charging felony-murder. But then, there is the question of whether the shooter-father may also have been engaged in a felony himself. Was it a separate and intervening crime, and cause of death? Does it matter? Discuss.
"Some other people have worked, and worked hard for their possessions. It's just not "stuff" it's what the fought for and sacrificed for."
Every time I hear someone say "It's just stuff" when some of it is stolen, I want to beat them with a stick- err... a piece of stuff. As noted above, this "stuff" is bought and paid for with somebody's time and labor- their life. When their stuff is stolen, it's the equivalent of having part of their life stolen.
Don't want to get shot for being a thief? Don't steal stuff. It's pretty simple.
Mike of Snoqualmie said...
A friend of mine had a 1989 Jeep Cherokee with a faulty wiring harness. 1988/1989 Jeep Cherokees are just rolling money pits (mine was a 1988), requiring frequent repairs. It was stolen several times, but the thieves had to abandon it when the faulty wiring harness stopped the engine from working. He'd get a call from the cops to come and pick it up. He was always cursing that wiring harness because he could never permanently get rid of that car.
My mother used to leave our Plymouth Valiant with 3 on the tree parked in front of my grandmother's house on Staten Island. No one ever stole it despite her best efforts to entice people.
Forty-two comments and no one has brought up the angle I immediately thought of: can the surviving car-thieves be charged with murder? I believe it's true in every state that if someone is killed in the course of a crime, the criminals can be charged with murder, even if it was one of them killed, and even if (e.g.) the cause of death was a police or security-guard bullet. If you rob a bank, and someone (you, or the security guard, or the police) starts shooting, and a teller or customer is killed in the crossfire, you can be charged with murder even if it was a police (or security guard) bullet that killed the innocent bystander. The point is that you started the violence by robbing the bank, and are responsible for its effects. I'm not sure you even need to have fired, or even to have a loaded gun on you: a toy gun, or a hand in the pocket and an "I have a gun!" may suffice.
So how is this different? If the criminals fired first, or if they tried to kill him in some other way (run over with him with his own car) he had a perfect right to defend himself, and any deaths are their responsibility. They need to charge everyone in the car with murder, unless they are too young or stupid to be responsible. (We know they brought a 12-year-old along: did they also have a 2-year-old or 6-year-old or Downs Syndrome grown-up in the car, who still doesn't understand what happened? They can go free, but anyone over 14 in the car needs to be charged with murder and held without bail.)
Liberal politics and Soros DAs incentivize crime. Criminals who get away with everything feel empowered to commit more serious crimes more frequently. People respond to incentives…
Vigilante isn’t the pejorative the left wants it to be when the left is intentionally incentivizing crime it is a reflection of their own incompetence…
"You're ignorant. Or perhaps worse, just lying." Never discount the power of "and."
Just for the record, my 1:09pm comment was written in ignorance of Chuck's 12:09, which had not appeared when I hit post. I would curse the moderation, but it's actually better to curse the particular sometime-commentator who made it necessary, and whose masses of vile and stupid comments demonstrate why it is necessary every time moderation is turned off.
"If their job is to protect the criminals, Gilbar, why do they beat the hell out of them so often?" Mark, above.
In the first place, it's not "so often." It's a big country and lots of things happen; what the media choose to make a continuing fuss about is what seems to happen "so often."
Secondly, most of the people who get beaten (or shot) by cops are fleeing or otherwise disobeying direct orders from them. It doesn't make it right, but officers don't like having their authority defied. That much less when they think Lefty DA's and AG's are just going to put miscreants right back on the streets.
People who cooperate with the police are unlikely to be seriously mistreated. Of course, if they have several outstanding warrants out against them they may not see it that way.
I wouldn't confront Car thieves. Call the police. Wait till they come. If you have an app that tracks the car, wait till the theives had left the car, and drive it away. "Exchange fire" is liberal MSM speak for the crooks fired first.
Remember the old guy in carjacking in SC? The carjacker shot him dead, because he was "afraid the old guy would shoot him". Even though the "old guy" didn't have a gun. A jury let him off. Black of course. If the Denver thieves had killed the "vigilante" no doubt they'd be walking free right now.
"...are you now implying that YOU Think the police do their job correctly? Really? You Do?"
Do YOU think that police beating the hell out of people are examples of the police doing their job correctly?
It's a rhetorical question; of course you do.
If the authorities won't do the job they're charged to do, don't be surprised when the citizenry steps in and does it for them.
You will see more of this behavior. Not less. Count on it. Honest people will only take so much.
What is the meaning of "it" and what is "it" using? Is "it" the stolen vehicle, then how is it using an app? Is "it" the gender neutral, um, "boy"?
It took me awhile to understand that the vehicle owner was "using an app" to find the car, which had a boy and other people inside. I was wondering how the vehicle owner's car was using the app to exchange gun fire with the people inside.
Does the NYT still hire editors? Is yes, what do the editors do?
"I do worry about police response a bit in PHX..."
I lived in Phoenix from 2010 to 2017, near downtown. I was awakened one night by the sound of my neighbor's home being broken into. I called 911 and the police were there almost before I got off the phone. They caught the guy- an undocumented economic migrant (this is the current politically correct terminology, I believe).
Car theft hurts to lower classes most. When 80% of the cars in America are 20 years old that means a large % of them are paid for and have no comprehensive insurance, only liability. That being the case, when the cars are stolen and distroyed it's a total lose for the owner. To many the auto is the only thing of value they own. They don't have huge amounts of money laying around and it can destroy them financially.
Criminals need to remember that cops balance arresting criminals and protecting criminals from the mob. The tipping point is near. (see gun sales)
I have some foggy memories of a political philosophy course I took at Yale some thirty years ago or so. Stuff about the fundamental purposes of government and what can happen when governments fail to fulfill their purposes. Some guy named John Locke came up a few times. I wonder if they still teach that course. If so, I wonder if any "modern" prosecutors or city councillors take it.
Hmm. I just googled for "John Locke" on Yale's website. One of the top hits was a 2021 undergraduate senior thesis titled, "'Hit the road, Jack': Dislodging John Locke from the Logic of Public Safety in the United States Toward Police Abolitionist Theory and Practice."
How long before a crime victim goes after a George Soros prosecutor or judge?
Dr. Weevil.
Felony murder is the law, but the law is not self-executing.
Gospace said...
My mother used to leave our Plymouth Valiant with 3 on the tree parked in front of my grandmother's house on Staten Island. No one ever stole it despite her best efforts to entice people.
The column shift; best car theft deterrent ever.
Dave Begley (3:40pm):
What are you talking about? Your remark is entirely unclear. Are you implying that I think the car-owner is allowed to punish the car-thieves for murder by killing one of them, which is the very murder he would be somehow punishing? That would be stupid, and I said nothing of the sort.
Just for the record, the question of whether to prosecute the owner of the car is entirely separate from the question of whether to charge the car thieves with murder for getting a 12-year-old killed in the process of stealing the car. It might well make sense to do both. I was only talking about the latter.
Robert Cook: even your graphic is pathetic.
"If it's not yours, leave it alone."
The sooner you learn this lesson, the easier your life will be.
>> Not one commenter raised the very interesting law school exam question raised in all of this. I will bet that it crossed Althouse's mind, because this is such a classic Crim Law problem:
So, we're back to sucking up to mommy/Mrs. Cleaver (why won't mommy love me??!!) and dissing all of the commenters mommy invites in but doesn't care to treat like moronic imbeciles the way someone sees them (unlike someone else we could name).
And perhaps/probably a bit of stamping of the feet and yelling loudly that, yes, yes, I *AM* a lawyer! See, see, how much I understand legal stuff and you don't, you ignorant morons!
This is a discussion on a general interest blog, not a law school exam. Why the f*ck do you think anyone would or should be talking about felony murder here? Let alone discussing "the very interesting */blaw school exam question/b* (needless to say, emphasis added, even though I didn't do it right) about that subject? I knew what felony murder was when I passed my final exam in Criminal Law at Harvard Law School (OK, I just had to throw that in) some 45 years ago. I haven't given it much thought ever since.
If you had to bring up this point, you could have just said something like, hey, I think this is an interesting question and an interesting way of looking at the situation. Does anyone else have any thoughts. Instead of putting it like an asshole.
Just grow up. And if you don't want people to be insulting and mocking you, then stop being an asshole.
But what exactly is your goal here? Your prior post about one of your goals here has recently been posted a couple of times. Though Althouse is presumably much too intelligent to see through your pathetic attempts to "drive a wedge" between her and her commenters.
--gpm
The purpose of law is to settle disputes and avenge crime and thus avoiding the people from seeking justice for themselves. Is this too basic for the elites to understand?
While no one is happy for the killing of a 12 year old, why the sentiment against the real victim, the car owner? This notion the the families of criminals should be able to sue for the death or injury arising while the crime is in progress is bizarre and needs to be dispensed with. While the criminal is committing a crime they are outside the protections of the law and thus should be automatically barred from seeking damages.
The purpose of law is to settle disputes and avenge crime and thus avoiding the people from seeking justice for themselves. Is this too basic for the elites to understand?
While no one is happy for the killing of a 12 year old, why the sentiment against the real victim, the car owner? This notion the the families of criminals should be able to sue for the death or injury arising while the crime is in progress is bizarre and needs to be dispensed with. While the criminal is committing a crime they are outside the protections of the law and thus should be automatically barred from seeking damages.
This is something you can expect to see rather more of, in the future. Not everyone is going to sign up for the whole woke program of doing without the police. Police serve a necessary and definite public service; if they're not there, people will provide for themselves.
Don't expect that to be any prettier or any more "fair" than the current system. People complain now about young black males being incarcerated for violent lawless behavior? Wait until that behavior earns them an automatic informal death penalty.
The woke are going to learn that if they will not fulfill the basic expectations of a civilized society, something else will come along, and it won't be anywhere near as civilized and decent as it is now.
Cops go away? Don't be surprised when informal vigilante or quasi-criminal organizations like the Mafia rise up to take their place; also, don't be real surprised when relatively humane things like prisons vanish into the lands of memory, as everything gets capital punishment as a preventative measure. Rob a store that's paying protection money to the local 'vigilance committee'? Guess what happens, then?
Lots of people don't seem to learn their history; the Mafia got started because there was nobody providing law and order in the various places that Italians lived. It began as a local fraternal deal, where the mob bosses started protecting their clients against the depredations of other criminals and the mostly-criminal governments that lorded over them. That's how they became what they are; the woke are, knowingly or not, bringing those days back.
Morons.
Jangan Ditunda lagi, lekas kunjungi Web kami di dominobet asia. Raih peluang menangkan sampai jutaan rupiah dalam keseruan bermain bermacam- macam game terbaik serta bonus yang menarik dari dewa poker. Perihal ini juga dapat dialami langsung oleh para member web login dewa poker yang terus memfasilitasi para membernya buat bermain serta mendaftar lewat web Dewapoker.
If he set out with the intent to kill the vehicle thieves, then that is vigilantism.
If he merely set out to recover his vehicle, then that is self-help. Apparently with a side helping of self-defense because the vehicle thieves tried to kill him.
Chuck, we know it's a classic criminal law question. We know the co-defendants who fled may be charged with felony murder. We still don't know enough information to accurately address the usual test question.
Ironically, you need to stop playing policeman of the comment thread.
If he merely set out to recover his vehicle, then that is self-help. Apparently with a side helping of self-defense because the vehicle thieves tried to kill him.
One of the non-paywalled articles I read claimed that the car’s owner knew from his app that the car was no longer moving. “Shadow of a doubt” says he was just attempting to recover his abandoned vehicle and not really expecting trouble. Hattori v. Peairs means he may still be liable for the 12 year old’s death in a civil case.
Mark said...
"If their job is to protect the criminals, Gilbar, why do they beat the hell out of them so often?"
If it happened often, it wouldn't be news when it does.
Just a quick scan of articles about this incident and I am not liking that the New York Times is the only paper claiming that the car owner shot the boy. Every other story says the boy was shot, but they don't say by whom. The "Exchange of gunfire" is a bit iffy too, since the car owner was not even arrested. I can't believe the police didn't at least collect physical evidence and fingerprints from the guy.
Xmas said:
"Just a quick scan of articles about this incident and I am not liking that the New York Times is the only paper claiming that the car owner shot the boy."
At this point, anyone expecting actual journalism from the Old Gray Whore of the left is delusional. Assumptions were made, no doubt, based on pre-existing bias and outright fantasy projection.
The New York Times has been bad in the past; nowadays? It's no longer even remotely credible as a source, and anyone citing them as an authoritative one is living in the past. I used to read their material and it would be worth the time to sort out the inherent bullsh*t from the actual information they might be relaying by accident. Since about 2008-ish, it's gotten to the point where the BS and outright lies have reached a point of no return; you know going in that there will be distortions and fabrications to the point where reality is obscured past all recognition.
I used to buy the Sunday edition of the Times with great eagerness, looking forward to spending some time doing a little quality reading. These days? It's about all I can do not to snort derisively every time I see the thing down at the local Starbucks, and I think the last time I bothered to buy a copy was sometime in the mid-noughties. Unless I need a bunch of paper for use in some project, or lining a birdcage? Likely never will, again.
Post a Comment