911 Call Describes Killing Over Stolen Xbox 360
911 Call Describes Killing Over Stolen Xbox 360
July 5, 2008
WHIO-TV in Dayton, Ohio has posted a video which includes portions of a 911 call in which a man reports that his roommate shot a man who was stealing his Xbox 360 and then hid his body in the basement.
The 911 caller told a police dispatcher that 30-year-old Mark Burwell shot and killed 24-year-old Johnny Robert Hyde, Jr. as Hyde was in the process of pilfering Burwell's 360.
Burwell, who is being held on a quarter-million dollars bail, has pleaded not guilty.
A PUBLICATION OF THE ECA
SUBSCRIBE
LOGINGamePolitics ShoutBox
Posted 08/30/08 at 01:04am
Brokenscope: No they can't legally drink. But the bars near most bases don't give a fuck.
Brokenscope: No they can't legally drink. But the bars near most bases don't give a fuck.
Posted 08/29/08 at 11:11pm
Dark Sovereign: @zip: I believe that military can drink at 18 in the U.S. And these are trained soldiers. It was their personal decision to join
Dark Sovereign: @zip: I believe that military can drink at 18 in the U.S. And these are trained soldiers. It was their personal decision to join
Posted 08/29/08 at 03:21pm
ZippyDSMlee: Dark Sovereign: because they are hurt/disabled and can't drink yet, I know lower the drinking age!! Make im real adults. :P
ZippyDSMlee: Dark Sovereign: because they are hurt/disabled and can't drink yet, I know lower the drinking age!! Make im real adults. :P
Posted 08/29/08 at 02:50pm
Dark Sovereign: I have one question: Why are soldiers constantly treated as victims and children?
Dark Sovereign: I have one question: Why are soldiers constantly treated as victims and children?
Posted 08/29/08 at 02:45pm
Dark Sovereign: @thefremen: Glad to see you haven't left the past yet. I'll wait until you're in 2008.
Dark Sovereign: @thefremen: Glad to see you haven't left the past yet. I'll wait until you're in 2008.
Posted 08/29/08 at 02:18pm
Meggie: *doing
Meggie: *doing
Posted 08/29/08 at 02:17pm
Meggie: Dr. Phil is going an Everquest addiction episode, this a repeat?
Meggie: Dr. Phil is going an Everquest addiction episode, this a repeat?
Posted 08/29/08 at 10:52am
ZippyDSMlee: feeman:DS is saying goverment would exspand more if the duims get in, he's probly right.
ZippyDSMlee: feeman:DS is saying goverment would exspand more if the duims get in, he's probly right.
Posted 08/29/08 at 10:51am
thefremen: LOL, yes, the government has not expanded at all in the last 8 years, especially not for the benefit of corporate entities.
thefremen: LOL, yes, the government has not expanded at all in the last 8 years, especially not for the benefit of corporate entities.
Posted 08/29/08 at 10:51am
thefremen: LOL, yes, the government has not expanded at all in the last 8 years, especially not for the benefit of corporate entities.
thefremen: LOL, yes, the government has not expanded at all in the last 8 years, especially not for the benefit of corporate entities.
Posted 08/29/08 at 10:43am
ZippyDSMlee: DS- http://forums.theeca.com/showthread.php?p=84679#post84679 In OT BTW
ZippyDSMlee: DS- http://forums.theeca.com/showthread.php?p=84679#post84679 In OT BTW
Posted 08/29/08 at 10:32am
ZippyDSMlee: Dark Sovereign: Sure ^^
ZippyDSMlee: Dark Sovereign: Sure ^^
Posted 08/29/08 at 10:29am
Dark Sovereign: @zip: Make the thread. I'm just not active there.
Dark Sovereign: @zip: Make the thread. I'm just not active there.
Posted 08/29/08 at 10:28am
SimonBob: Heh, I was just playing with the semantics for my own amusement, not trying to shoehorn my way into the argument.
SimonBob: Heh, I was just playing with the semantics for my own amusement, not trying to shoehorn my way into the argument.
Posted 08/29/08 at 10:28am
ZippyDSMlee: Dark Sovereign: Iwish you would join the forums so we can have a full conversation these shouts are stifling!
ZippyDSMlee: Dark Sovereign: Iwish you would join the forums so we can have a full conversation these shouts are stifling!
Posted 08/29/08 at 10:27am
ZippyDSMlee: Dark Sovereign:force them into the wilderness to die off...this is the reality of not taking into account what to do with the lower classes.
ZippyDSMlee: Dark Sovereign:force them into the wilderness to die off...this is the reality of not taking into account what to do with the lower classes.
Posted 08/29/08 at 10:26am
Dark Sovereign: @zip: What are you talking about? Less government means less taxes. Less taxes means more money in average Joe's pockets.
Dark Sovereign: @zip: What are you talking about? Less government means less taxes. Less taxes means more money in average Joe's pockets.
Posted 08/29/08 at 10:26am
ZippyDSMlee: Dark Sovereign: you DO realize there were roving shanty towns and poor hosues before social secuty was started? they were hives for poverty and disease,hell with todays "cleanliness" in housing code you can not have them anymore and states will just forc
ZippyDSMlee: Dark Sovereign: you DO realize there were roving shanty towns and poor hosues before social secuty was started? they were hives for poverty and disease,hell with todays "cleanliness" in housing code you can not have them anymore and states will just forc
Posted 08/29/08 at 10:22am
ZippyDSMlee: Dark Sovereign: noobies and their silly definition ^_~, but I ahve to ask how do you keep millions off the streets, taking twice as much money from states without social security and health care?
ZippyDSMlee: Dark Sovereign: noobies and their silly definition ^_~, but I ahve to ask how do you keep millions off the streets, taking twice as much money from states without social security and health care?
Posted 08/29/08 at 10:22am
Dark Sovereign: You ASSUME that not giving tons of handouts to people will make them poor. America itself shows you are wrong.
Dark Sovereign: You ASSUME that not giving tons of handouts to people will make them poor. America itself shows you are wrong.
Copyright © 2007 ECA. All rights reserved.
Game Politics and Game Politics logo are trademarks of the ECA.
Game Politics and Game Politics logo are trademarks of the ECA.
Comments
Alright then.. I suppose Ohio isn't one of those places where anything goes..
~You Could Be Mine, But You're Way Out Of Line..~
Theft is theft anyone has the right to protect themselves or their property even though killing him was a bit extreme he should have just shot him in the leg tied him up and played it in front of him until the police arrived...
"he should have just shot him in the leg"
If you're trying to stop a guy from running away, you're not gunna waste your time trying to aim for a smaller target (leg, shoulder, etc) when you can aim for a larger target (torso). It's what the cops do then they have to shoot (at least, I'm pretty sure I read that somewhere). Larger target = less likely to miss. Real life doesn't have keyboard and mouse precision.
As for the article itself, it sounds like a self-defense argument, but the fact that the guy hid the body might affect the outcome of the trial. I'm no expert, though, so I could be wrong.
Also while in the movies people shot in the leg or shoulder will survive, in the real world it's not like that.
Your leg is full of very important arteries, if you get shot through one of them, they may as well have slit your neck because you can bleed to death very, very quickly.
(Same for the shoulder)
You are only allowed to use equal force in self defense cases. Thus if the theif was unarmed you can expect at least mansluaghter.
That really depends in what state you are. Recently, a man in Pasedena got of the hook because the jury said "selfdefense", when he shot a couple of of unarmed burglars in the back.
in my state, if the burglar is in your house, anything goes. If he leaves your house, he's protected by law from unnecessary force. There exists a loophole allowing you to drag him back in though.
岩「…Ace beats Jack」
Here in the UK you can't own a gun and you could get imprisoned even for beating up a burglar ^^
the no-gun law I understand, but the burglar-protection law? Well, every place has at least one dumb law.
岩「…Ace beats Jack」
As far as i recall the law states that it is illegal to use violence if one is not threatened. So you cant beat up the burglar if he is running away - you can restrain him though and make a citizens arrest.
But yeah - laws can have weird side effects. Remember that burglar who fell through a roof window in the states and sued the owners?
thats the stupidest thing ive ever heard, and the UK is stupid for having that law
No the law in the UK is that you can use "resonable force" which is rather vague, but basically it means that any that charges you with a knife with intent to kill, you quite lawfully kill them and claim self defense.
The same applies in the street, if someone attacks you you have a right to defend yourself, but the division bell is where self defence transfers to kicking someone while they are down. In the case of being attacked on the street, that is where you peg it, but in the case of the home, the advice I have heard is not to try and confront the burgler, because they behave like a cornered animal when confronted, but instead call the police and make a lot of noise, but if confrontation takes place, it is important to remeber that is self defence and not too preemptive.
And on the gun point, I wouldn't want to be able to own guns because it leads to exact same problem that the country has with knives.
I live in the UK and have six guns in my house all legally owned. Four rifles and two shotguns and have around four hundred rounds of ammunition
Here in the UK we have much stricter gun laws but we can own guns.
"in my state, if the burglar is in your house, anything goes. If he leaves your house, he's protected by law from unnecessary force. There exists a loophole allowing you to drag him back in though."
this, and it's the case in ohio too. The problem is the guy hid the body
Actually, it significantly varies from state to state depending on the law, as far as self defense or protection of property goes.
However, not immediately reporting the incident to police, dumping the weapon in the garbage nearby, and then attempting to hide a body... pretty sure that's not legal no matter where you are in the US, and it likely changed the circumstances and the legal charges applied, even if the shooter was within the law when he shot the robber beforehand.
But I doubt we're getting the full (or truthful) story from the defendant at this point, and I'm not sure if we will ever hear what actually happened leading up to the shooting. There are a LOT of details missing. (Was the victim armed? Was there alcohol or drugs involved? Why just an xbox? Etc, etc...)
(Also, want to point out that the victim had a mugshot and previous record. Which, to me, says that we're not exactly dealing with your average group of normal law-abiding citizens to begin with. Just sayin')
Considering the man was running away when the Xbox owner shot him, I would consider his actions excessive force. I know that being robbed sucks and all, but I still don't think that gives you the right to take another man's life. Personally, I don't think I would be able to kill unless I was in some serious mortal danger. I don't know, I just cannot grasp the concept of killing another human being over a $400 peice of gaming hardware. The fact that he hid the body tells me he knows what he did was wrong.
What you think is "right" or "un-graspable" is irrelevant. The law is all that matters.
That's pretty much how I feel about it. I had my xbox stolen, I wanted to inflict some serious bodily harm to the SOB who robbed me and might have done so if I caught him in the act. But when you aim a gun at someone, you do so knowing that this action might very well kill him. Having fired a gun, aiming for a leg or smaller part of the body is very difficult, unless you've had training. The fact that he hid the body means he knew what he did was illegal, hence the reaction of trying to cover it up.
Did the shooter know this guy? The report made it seem like the guys knew him.
Most shooters will instinctively aim for the target's center mass.
I agree. After all, I'm pretty sure you need a sniper-rifle to hit the leg of a deer.
岩「…Ace beats Jack」
Okay, call me nuts but if someone is trying to steal something from your house, and you shoot them on the way out, you shouldn't be arrested for it.
I don't think that's the part he's arrested for, although it might be a part of it. I'm banking part of it is because he didn't call the cops when it happened. I mean, the cops would need to investigate something like that, and if you clean up the place and hide the body downstairs, you're technically destroying evidence, so I guess in this case, they could treat it like it was a possible murder and not self defense. Destroying evidence is a big no-no.
call me nuts but I dont think its worth taking someones life over a $400 item, especially when the guy is running and you cheaply shoot them in the back.
that is what insurance is for.
As someone previously said we don't know all the details. He could've shot to wound and hid the body out of panic.
You're nuts. Losing a Xbox does not justify killing or grievously wounding anyone. Thief or not. This is why we have laws.
Well the shooting would all depend if that guy was an invited guest or a trespasser. Even still I don't think the use of deadly force would have worked out. Unless you plant a knife or give him a baseball bat...police trick.
Why does USA let people have guns if they can't use them to defend their themselves or their property? If it is a crime to use a gun it should be a crime to have a gun.
That's a woefully naive and simplistic way to view the situation. There's a whole spectrum of actions between "not having a gun" and "killing someone without cause with your gun". There are many legal reasons to own a gun and legal activities to carry out with one.
The real question is whether or not deadly force was merited in this situation.
There's also the situation that when something like that happens, that becomes a crime scene, and if the guy cleaned up the area and hid the body, it now counts as a whole list of things that could get him in trouble, like tampering with a crime scene.
If this was Texas I imagine that it would be perfectly acceptable to kill someone stealing your property (Now, even your neighboors property). Sadly, many other states don't really follow this pattern and actually punish people for defending their property.
Hiding the body was his first mistake. Shooting him seems like the right choice to me though.
Yes, depending on where he was. He has to be trespassing while robbing in order to use deadly force. The real problem here is that he hid the body.
Well the constitution may get him out of this, whilst I don't really agree with America's whole attitude towards guns, I do agree with the better rights to protecting one's family and property.
We'll have to wait and see what happens. But hey, it may be a good deterrant to those who think about robbing anyone in that area for a while...
I don't think the problem is that he shot and killed the theif, its that he tried to hide the body and not report it. But like others have said, I don't think we're getting the full story.
Pundits better not try to pin this on videogames making players more violent. This is a simple case of a man breaking into another person's home, and the other person defending themself. Although I don't see why he hid the body...
"Themself"???
I've never seen a singular thing become plural halfway through a sentence and then become singular halfway through a word before. It's "himself", dumbass! Even if the 'person' is a woman if we don't know her sex in English she's referred to using the masculine form.
Are you so anal that you have to correct a random stranger's grammar mistake on an internet comments section?
Doubt it, thought I'm sure they'll tie it to the incident with the man in Texas who killed the two men robbing his neighbor's house.
People who say he shouldn't have done it make me sick, you liberial pussys, grow some balls.
Why does it have to be "liberal" pussies?
Shooting an unarmed thief is clearly murder. Isn't that covered by one of the ten commandments the so-called 'Conservatives' love to swing around?
Yes it is, it is knowingly takeing the life of a human being, however there is what is called an "affirmitve defence" and such an act should (but because of people who take the side of criminals, doesn't work perfectly in some states...), and this clearly falls under the largest one, the defense of oneself, ones property or a third person (self defense). To claim that it is not approprite to shoot someone during the commision of a criminal act is beyond stupid.
By the way I am not a Conservative (although agree with the agenda on more counts then I do the left), nor am I religious (and seeing as how you brought them up, isn't one of them "do not covet your neighbors possesions" or "thou shall not steel"...),
Thou shalt not kill*
*Unless thou is using Affirmative Defence, in which case thou is in a grey area
You gotta look at the fine print guys!
There was a case like this in the UK where a farmers house was broken into he ended up shooting the burglars in the back as they fled. In this case they were two fourteen year old boys one of who died.
The effect of the case had a polarising effect on the British public some people said that he did the right thing while other said that he killed a child in cold blood.
Personally I think that shooting somebody in the back is cowardly what ever has just happened. Of course this all changes in the person actually attacks you.
It's pretty simple at that point.
Are you God? If so, we should hang out sometime, and you're totally alright to go around murdering people who break the 10 commandments.
If not, then you're not authorized by the bible to go around murdering people.
In fact, I think this Jesus guy had something to say about forgiveness, and turning the other cheek. He's just another liberal hippy though, so you should probably ignore what THAT guy says.
Before you guys continue with this monumentally ponitless flame war I'm sorry 'argument' can anyone tell me where in the story it said the man shot to kill and not to wound? Oh wait you can't, and until we have that piece of information all arguments over whether or not it was murder are ultimately pointless.
Actually the pussy in this story is none other than the shooter himself. If he had some balls then he would have called the police and not hidden the body in the basement now would he? But hey, you probably didn't read that far into the story now did you? You probably read just enough to feed your conservative neurosis.
Um... no. Just no. Are you honestly saying that he did what SHOULD have been done in the situation? He just stole a game system. We don't even know if the theif was armed from this.
Actually, we don't even know if there was a system involved at all, let alone if the guy was armed. The outstanding circumstances are very vague at best. So telling someone that the shooting was justified or not is a wee bit silly until further details develop in the investigation. The catch is, a good amount of this info is based on a single recording from a 911 call, and details might not be clear until the police have made an in-depth investigation. Until then, the shooter's motivation is only conjecture and assumption.
Not only that, but wether the shooter was in the right or not all became irrelevant as soon as he didn't report it to the police immediately, tried to toss the gun away in the garbage, and then tried to hide the body in the basement.
It makes you sick to know not everyone would kill someone over an xbox? Showing disregard for life isn't strength. Perhaps you should grow your own pair and at least attach your name to your comments.
Yes, because giving out personal information on the internet is a smart thing. Even then we wouldn't know if it was really that person or not, but someone just using another person's name.
feel kinda sorry for the thief his life had the equivalent worth of a 360 wat a lame way to go....and now im done feeling sorry.
I kind of feel sorry for the people who can't defend their property because idiiots like you think theifs should get a free pass .
Thieves dear boy thieves, that is the plural of thief. I understand you didn't pass first grade, but that spell checker is on your computer for a reason. I also don't think anyone said the thief should have gotten away scot free, but shooting him in the back and then hiding the body does make this whole thing more than a little fishy.
Never said anything about hideing the body (but with the way the system is these days, favoring appeseing criminal rather then allowing victims to defend their belongingings I can't blame him) but apparently you were too busy slinging insults to notice (and by the way, spell check doesn't work on GP because of how the comment writieng format)
It's a very simple thing to put a post through Word or whatever your preferred word processor program might be. Freak didn't say anything about giving thieves a free pass but that didn't stop you from throwing the first insult now did it? If you can't handle getting flamed back don't flame, very simple m'boy.
More to the point we don't even know if this case really was someone trying to steal the Xbox or if that’s just the story that the shooter thought up to cover for a murder. Defending your property should not include the right to kill a non-criminal as they flee. Self-defense is supposed to be about protecting yourself from danger, not killing with impunity.
But that wasn't the point he made, he stated he shouldn't have killed the man.
and "didn't pass the first grade" sounds like an insult to me...
There is an edit but just so you know, anyway I'll address both your points at once.
1. He said he felt sorry that the thief was killed over a 360, you then responded with a pithy insult. Again what you seem to be missing is your comment was about giving a thief a free pass from that I must infer that you believe that because Freak believes it was slightly sad that a man died over a 360 he believes that thieves should be given a free pass. You made that statement about giving thieves a free pass don't blame me if you were unclear.
2. I never said I didn't insult you I did; I very well may continue to do so unless EZK tells me to back off. It's rather stupid on your part to think you can just throw out insults and expect not to receive some back.
All of this can of course be disregarded if you are some other anon besides the one that I was initially responding too. If not, I still think your an idiot and am now fairly sure your typing by bashing your head against the keyboard.
People have been killed for a lot less. One local story I still remember from about 10 or 15 years ago was a group of teens killing a pizza guy for the $40 he was carrying. That's it, no other motive than to commit a stupid petty robbery.
Amazingly no press release from JT on how GTA caused it all....oh wait it's the weekend. We'll see it on Monday...
Semper Fidelis Tim Shull Cpl Ret USMC
His mistake like it has been said is hiding the body or whatever
I would of simply called the cops and said someone broke into my house and got shot for it.
But yea, For all of the people that say "Its horrible to take a human life!" and what not over property, this could of all been avoided had the person who was stealing had chosen NOT TO BLOODY STEAL.
don't wanna get shot and killed, don't bloody steal.
I live in Dayton, OH
Oh my...
I find it bullshit that you can't even shoot someone who breaks into your house and steals your property without ending up getting charged. That's the justice system for you. It favors the criminals over the victims.
Yeah, and then:
1. Not call the police immediately after shooting the guy.
2. Try to throw away the gun in the dumpster out behind the house.
3. Attempt to hide the body in the basement.
4. After waiting around for nearly a day, confessing to your roommate and then telling your roommate to call the cops instead of turning yourself in.
So unfair!
/sarcasm
I'm not sure you read the article, or the linked news piece or watched the video.
The guy stealing the xbox was not charged because he's dead.
Look, I'm all for defending property (including deadly force in the right situation), but the guy did just about everything wrong after (supposedly) defending his property, and the only thing the shooter did right in this situation was to turn himself in to the police.
See that's the thing, I have no issue with legitimate self-defense; guys breaking in you have to shoot him to protect your home and family fine, no issue. The problem is nothing about this case from the article or the 911 call seems like it was really self defense, it just seems like the shooter needed to come up with a fast excuse for why he shot the guy so he came up with the attempted theft.
If it turns out I'm wrong and the guy really was trying to steal his Xbox, fine I'll proclaim my incorrectness in the shout box. My problem is that this doesn't seem like self-defense, it seems like a guy trying to use self defense to murder someone.
In many cases, "Drop it or I'll shoot" is just as effective as actually shooting. If you do that, and the burglar reaches into his pocket or jacket, you can go right ahead and open fire in self defense. (Whether he has a gun or not)
But there's no reason to immediately kill someone for stealing something.
Exactly, in MANY cases, basic human tendencys show one is likely to go to the option most likely to work (for example, see the classic prisoner's dilemma)
Besides, it isn't a Nintendo Console, droping it would break it :)
Yeah but like a few people have already posted on here the option to shoot is only alowed while the criminal is on your property. So while you are taking the moment to warn him he is taking the moment to get to safe ground.
what is your problem with him getting away safley? unless you enjoy killing people the point is self defence, not saving you calling up the insurance company.
So you are saying that killing in the protection of your property automatically makes you enjoy killing? The point of insurance is not to call it whenever the mood hits you, but when something completely unavoidable hits, kinda like a natural disaster. In this case, from the information given, the shooter was in the right, at least until he didn't call the cops et al.
Well geesh, from what I understand, you'd choose to kill the guy rather than letting him live if it was possible. I can understand thieves are scum but man, they do not deserve death over petty thievery.
That's why I keep a wootz Katana by my bed.
Hiding the body was certainly the wrong move.
Getting shot and killed while trying to steal an Xbox 360 certainly gives the phrase "Red Ring of Death" a new meaning.
Shooting an intruder? Maybe.
Hiding the body? No.
It all depends on the state law. Some states do allow for versions of the "castle defense" in which an invasion of property (i.e. home) can be met with deadly force even if there is no immediate threat to the defender. Different states have different laws in this regards, and it also depends on the specifics of the case . Yes, in Texas, an elderly gentleman was just cleared of all wrongdoing in a case in which he shot two unarmed men who had run across his yard after stealing property from his *neighbor's* home. Texas law allows this so long as the neighbor requested the person to protect their property in their absence (at least that's as far as I understand Texas law...I'm not a lawyer, so perhaps a lawyer could correct me if I'm wrong).
But, let me guess....this case is mainly getting press because there's an XBOX involved. If the dude were stealing a stereo, we'd hear nary a peep about this case.
Oh, but yes...to be clear, hiding the body afterward would be (at minimum) unlawful disposal of a corpse, and perhaps hindering a police investigation (and of course hints toward greater wrongdoing).
Here is how Jack Thompson will most likely reply.
The killer was clearly motivated by violent video games. Ban them all.
He is my response. He was motivated because somebody was trying to jack several hundred dollars worth of his property. If somebody broke into my house and took my mother's jewlery box and I had a gun I'd shoot the thief to. JT, it was not that it was a 360 that was being stolen but that it was expensive. If it cost $1 then fine, take it. But when someone tries to take things worth of $300 (depending on which version he had) you tend to defend your things. Sure he handled the aftermath wrong but the guy was scared of what would happen.
My only remaining question is: Does the xbox 360 still work?
Yep. Kinda like how fights start over car crashes, even if the damage is small. Also, people are very protective of items with sentimentle(sp?) value. But yeah, if someone tries to take something that valuable there is gonna be a fight of some sort. This time someone died.
-If shit and bricks were candy and tits, we'd all be livin' large. For information on games and psychology, look up: Jonathan Freedman(2002)Block & Crain(2007)Grand Theft Childhood, by Harvard Medical School researchers Larry Kutner and Cheryl Olson
Frank's right. Hell, if someone tried to nick my stuff and I caught them I'd probably chuck something HEAVY at them. If they die, they die, and I'll go to jail for life if that's what I get for stopping a burglary. But I swear if Miami Jack starts his shit that I knew in advance that the burglar was coming and trained on some violent video game to kill them, there will be two funerals that day.
Where I'm concerned, especially, I prefer to have nice people around, b/c my normality has me as a rather nice guy, and I have played violent games in the past. I've played Halo, Doom, a bit of GTA, and if someone wanted to shoot up my school they'd have to take me out first. Yes, Jack, take that to court if you can!
@GRIZZAM PRIME
It's "sentimental" for future reference.
I AM A LOST SOUL, CONDEMNED TO HAUNT THE DREAMS OF JOHN BRUCE "JACK" THOMPSON UNTIL HIS CRUSADE AGAINST VIDEO GAMES ENDS. SOMEONE, PLEASE! END MY SUFFERING!
Thank you.
-If shit and bricks were candy and tits, we'd all be livin' large. For information on games and psychology, look up: Jonathan Freedman(2002)Block & Crain(2007)Grand Theft Childhood, by Harvard Medical School researchers Larry Kutner and Cheryl Olson
Perhaps I'm just a stickler for the rules, but I'd have shot even if the X-Box was only worth $1. It's the principle of the thing for me, not the worth. If he doesn't respect my right to property, the only property of mine he's allowed to have is few grams of lead.
My 360 was stolen out of my apartment two weeks ago in Columbus, OH. Had I been home, I would have smacked the crap out of the burglar with my Master Replicas Luke Skywalker lightsaber.
Unfortunately, I wasn't home and now I have no 360 and didn't get to actually beat someone up with a lightsaber. Double ouch.
As for this guy, I'm pretty sure it is not OK in Ohio to defend property with lethal force. Would have been much better off immeadiately calling police instead of the cover up.
I would have just chased the burglar and tackle him down, not too sure if the law would allow that either but I think its alot better than shooting someone for a 300 or 400 dollar Xbox 360.
To be perfectly honest, this really isn't self defense as the robber didn't attack the gunman(At least I think so from the article) and was in the process of running away, this is gonna be very troublesome for him since he was actually retarded enough to hide the body with a freaking eyewitness in his room.
Out where I live if someone illegally enters your home you're allowed to kill them. I'm not saying this was justified in this case though, considering it doesn't seem the guy had a weapon or tryed to attack him...maybe we'll get more details in a bit.
-If shit and bricks were candy and tits, we'd all be livin' large. For information on games and psychology, look up: Jonathan Freedman(2002)Block & Crain(2007)Grand Theft Childhood, by Harvard Medical School researchers Larry Kutner and Cheryl Olson
Oh, and I forgot to say, him hiding the body fucks up pretty much any defense, regardless of wether lethal force was justified in his area.
-If shit and bricks were candy and tits, we'd all be livin' large. For information on games and psychology, look up: Jonathan Freedman(2002)Block & Crain(2007)Grand Theft Childhood, by Harvard Medical School researchers Larry Kutner and Cheryl Olson
I hate to imagine what would happen if the body of a serial killer featued on America's Most Wanted was found hidden in someone's basement.
岩「…Ace beats Jack」
That would be kickass! In case there was a misunderstanding, I wasn't saying I dissaprove (or approve) of what he did, I simply was saying that legally, those actions fucked up any defense he might have had, even if the guy did turn out to be a serial killer. MAYBE if he turned out to be that guy that supposedly killed that marine. Maybe.
-If shit and bricks were candy and tits, we'd all be livin' large. For information on games and psychology, look up: Jonathan Freedman(2002)Block & Crain(2007)Grand Theft Childhood, by Harvard Medical School researchers Larry Kutner and Cheryl Olson
there was no misunderstanding, I just like to come up with extremely unlikely scenarios from time to time
岩「…Ace beats Jack」
The thing is, if this was over someone's car rather than a xbox, it wouldn't even be news except for "punk shot stealing man's car. attempted-theft victim receives award"
but because it's an xbox, he's another crazed gamer
But that's the thing; it's not in the news because the thief was shot, or because he was stealing a game console (although "game console" is the only reason it's on this site). It's on the news because the homeowner shot the thief, then bent over backwards hiding it. Had the attempted theft and the shooting that resulted not been hidden, it'd be pretty routine.
in the state of indiana, there literally is no self defense law. one of my co-workers has to go to court in a couple of days because he shot someone (non-lethally) that came running after him to try and kick his ass for whatever reason. his own lawyer told him that he should have just let the guy beat him up. -.-
as for the story: same as many others posted above; not enough info, and tampering with a crimescene, etc... simply put, he screwed himself over this time.
This is just my reply to all those who say it wasn't worth it over a $400 dollar piece of video game hardware. Four hundred dollars is over third of my pre tax paycheck, and a little less than half of my take home and I'm going to be married soon (later this month as a matter of fact). That is a sizable chunk of my hard earned money. $400 dollars dollars dosn't even cover my rent, and just covers my car payment. Four hundred dollars is A LOT of money. For me to save enought money to buy a four hundred dollar piece of equipment I would have to work and save for about four months with my current bills and obligations.
For those who say insurance should cover it. Well it should, but first you have to have insurance, second you have to prove you bought the thing. I'm willing to bet most of us here don't have the recipts or the credit card statments to prove that we bought the equipment. (Which would be the easiest way to prove you bought it, but what if you got it as a gift?)
For homeowner's insurance, there's a deductible, and it's typically more than the 360 is worth by a good margin. Mine's $1000, and it'd cost me another $350 a year to drop it down to $500, which is STILL more than the 360 is worth. I'd nearly double my premiums to get it down to the point that I'd only get back $150. Not to mention that any claim means your rate will go up - depending on your plan, it's often not worth reporting anything less than a thousand dollars over the deductible.
In my state, if a burgalar breaks in your house, you can shoot him, same for car jackers
Dont wanna get shot....dont steal shit
Louisiana
I remember hearing about a guy in South Africa who put flamethrowers under the sides of his car (the Blaster) to teach carjackers a thing or two. It's completely legal there too.
岩「…Ace beats Jack」
This is an interesting commment thread but I am less interested in this proposed scenario then I am by how far people are willing to go to defend their property rights with deadly force.
Most of these laws that state you have the right to kill someone illegally in your home are based on the level of threat the homeowner is feeling. Someone who breaks into your home while you are there is inherently assumed to be posing a life-threatening danger, therefore the homeowner is given the benefit of the doubt. But what if this guy stole the console, car, jewelry or whatever when you weren't there. If you find this guy on the street, is anyone willing to defend someone's right to kill this person to get your stuff back? The same scenario is open with some guy running out the door with his back turned. Does he represent a life-threatening danger anymore that requires death as punishment? Even if you say yes to both of these there are non-judicial consequences of shooting someone dead that might be worth more than a XBOX in the end, and I'm pretty sure you are still going to be charged with some form of illegal killing saying yes to the first case. When determining whether to actually shoot someone or not, reasonable restraint is always welcome.
Actually, no, few, if any of these laws have the "threat clause". If he is on your property for illegal purposes, you can shoot him. Your ability to use deadly force usually only extends to your own property(except, apparently, in Texas, for some reason) So long as he is on your property illegally, you may kill him. It doesn't matter if he's running away. Hiding the body, on the other hand, is not acceptable.
You also fail to realize that people in these self-defense situations do not have time to carefully weigh the moral obligations they are under while the crime is in progress. You/your property are being attacked. You may kill the intruder so long as the perp(s) stay(s) on your property. You have one second to choose whether to neutralize him or let him go.
Once again we have no way of knowing if the shooter shot to wound or to kill and until we have that piece of information such discussion are kinda pointless.
Depending on the state you live in, if it has Castle Doctrine, you can kill someone for being in your home uninvited.
The hiding the body part is probably what will make him lose this case.
Yes, if there is Castle Doctrine, you can kill them whether you feel threatened or not, if they aren't supposed to be there. While other states you are expected to flee.
I don't know what I'd do in that situation. I do have hunting guns in the house. If some strange person came into my house while I was there and started taking stuff, and I had one of those guns handy, I might start shooting too.
I would argue the threat of violence is implied with anyone crazy enough to start stealing your stuff. With how easy it is to conceal a weapon, it'd be very hard to just assume they are unarmed too. They did come in with the intention of committing crimes, why would one assume they aren't armed and ready to commit more serious crimes? Especially when corned or caught in the act.
If it was someone I knew grabbing stuff trying to sneak it out and I caught them, that would be a bit different. I don't know that self-defense would apply there. And trying to hide the body was probably the biggest mistake if you're going to claim self-defense.
I don't know, I guess the biggest lesson here is not to steal stuff. I can't say I fault the homeowner too much here.
I have to side with the killer on this one. Based on the facts we've been presented with it sounds like someone defending their property. Then not having any idea what to do and trying to hide it. Florida has the Castle Doctrine. :)
I feel like I could kill someone for being in my home. Or at least shoot them. I don't own a gun, but I plan to get one when I turn 21 this year. But I've never really thought of what I would do afterwards. I'd like to think I'm way smarter than to hide the body, don't get me wrong. But out of the 2 billion people out there, it could have happened to one of the dumbest. I wish I knew how long he had the body hidden before the roommate called the cops. That would be a big thing.
The lesson here people, don't steal.
The killer had no right to kill over property, that is a legal fact.
Self defense won't work because of the fact that he hid the body and attempted to get away with it. On that note, if he would have planted a knife or something and called the cops, then that would have been a different story.
Lastly, if someone tried to steal my xbox 360 i probably would have done something about it, obviously-who wants to lose $300+ to some chump? next time, pistol whip.
Some people in this thread are being stupid as hell. Let me get this through to you, if a guy is stealing your xobx, shooting him in the back is not self defense. If some people had their way in this thread, we would be back to the old wild west, where killing someone for insulting you was acceptable. Get with the itmes, you can't kill someone cause they make you mad, your xbox is not your life, you are not defending yourself for protecting your poor defenseless xbox.
Post new comment