Flyingifr

Who went more overboard? Collector or Debtor?

Who went more overboard?  

25 members have voted

  1. 1. Who went more overboard?

    • The Collector
      9
    • The Debtor
      3
    • Both of them
      5
    • Neither - it's Australia
      3
    • They both belong in an Insane Asylum
      5


Recommended Posts

This news story just in from Australia:

Man jailed for shooting debt collector 5 times

A 46-year-old man has been jailed for four years and eight months for shooting another man in the legs outside his home in the Perth suburb of Balga.

Darrell Mark Arthur was convicted by a jury of causing grievous bodily harm for shooting the man in the legs five times.

The District Court heard Arthur fired a total of eight bullets at the man who had earlier threatened to burn down his house if he did not repay a debt of $100.

In sentencing, Judge Schoombee said the offence was so serious that it warranted an immediate term of imprisonment.

His sentence was backdated to August.

Arthur will be eligible for parole in April 2011.

I ask again - who went more overboard - the collector who threatened to burn the debtor's home down over a $100 debt or the debtor who shot the collector 5 times and missed 3 times?

source: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/12/17/2448998.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lots of scum out there...can't put bullets in every idiot. Not enough bullets. No seriously, the guy deserves to do time. Verbal threats are a level 2 on a 1-10 scale. Shooting someone is a 10. This isn't a saloon fight in the Wild West!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The ONLY reason to ever aim a firearm at a another human being is if you intend to kill him/her and the only justification for killing someone is to protect your life of the life of another person (and yes, shooting someone in the legs can kill them even the shooter didn't intend it to go that far).

Having some jerk "threaten" to destroy your home (by burning it down) is simply not, by itself, justification for killing.

The idiot who made the threat is a scumbag; the shooter is an idiot and a criminal; IMAHO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The idiot who made the threat is a scumbag; the shooter is an idiot and a criminal
Agree 100%. There is a difference between mouthing off and physical harm. A big difference. And a deadly weapon requires very special circumstances to employ.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The ONLY reason to ever aim a firearm at a another human being is if you intend to kill him/her and the only justification for killing someone is to protect your life of the life of another person (and yes, shooting someone in the legs can kill them even the shooter didn't intend it to go that far).

Having some jerk "threaten" to destroy your home (by burning it down) is simply not, by itself, justification for killing.

The idiot who made the threat is a scumbag; the shooter is an idiot and a criminal; IMAHO.

Depends on where you live. Several States have "Castle Laws" that say you can use lethal force to protect your property as well. However I think you are off-base in the stated case. Threatening to burn down someone's home is a threat to more than just the building. There could be children inside taking a nap, an indigent grandmother or whatever. The article is also mum about if the threat was imminent or if the threat was to return later (possibly in the middle of the night when the debtor was asleep inside) to torch the place. In such case a threat to burn down someone's house over an uncollected debt is most certainly a threat against life and limb.

I would have emptied a magazine on the guy if it had happened to me as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Depends on where you live. Several States have "Castle Laws" that say you can use lethal force to protect your property as well. However I think you are off-base in the stated case. Threatening to burn down someone's home is a threat to more than just the building. There could be children inside taking a nap, an indigent grandmother or whatever. The article is also mum about if the threat was imminent or if the threat was to return later (possibly in the middle of the night when the debtor was asleep inside) to torch the place. In such case a threat to burn down someone's house over an uncollected debt is most certainly a threat against life and limb.

I would have emptied a magazine on the guy if it had happened to me as well.

You are talking about a very few states as far as castle laws go (of course, we aren't even talking about the U.S. as far as this story goes).

Of course, if the threat was more than bluster it's a different story but even then, you had better have some proof it's more than bluster...there is a big difference between someone on the phone 500 miles away making a threat and someone standing on your doorstep with a gallon of gasoline and a butane lighter in his hand. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What if the collector DID come back and set fire to the most obvious escape routes (doors)? And, if children were involved....

This is a 'what if' situation. I would have called the cops on him for threatening bodily harm.

But on the other hand... what if this was the straw that broke the camel's back? It doesn't mention whether or not the shooter was under extreme stress during these hard times.

But then again..... you get the picture

Guess the collector will never do that again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The ONLY reason to ever aim a firearm at a another human being is if you intend to kill him/her and the only justification for killing someone is to protect your life of the life of another person (and yes, shooting someone in the legs can kill them even the shooter didn't intend it to go that far).

Have you changed your opinion on Joe Horn then Robert? I don't remember you writing statements like this in that thread.

But for the record, I do agree with you to a certain extent. I think both the debtor and the collector are total nutjobs.

If I had been in the debtors place I would have hung up as soon as I was threatened and called the police. I would have then filed a restraining order.

Or atleast that is what I hope I would have done. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I had been in the debtors place I would have hung up as soon as I was threatened and called the police.

According to the article, this wasn't a phone call. The collector physically showed up at the debtor's home and threatened to torch it...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
According to the article, this wasn't a phone call. The collector physically showed up at the debtor's home and threatened to torch it...

See I read the article as the collector threatened the debtor over the phone and then the debtor went and shot the collector outside the collector's home. Read the article again and see what you think. It's really not the most informative or well written article. :lol:

I tried to find more info on this story and wasn't really successful.

But yeah if the collector showed up at the guy's house then he had every right to shoot him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...

But yeah if the collector showed up at the guy's house then he had every right to shoot him.

Spoken like a true Texan! :p

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Have you changed your opinion on Joe Horn then Robert? I don't remember you writing statements like this in that thread.

I think I’m being consistent - I believe that everyone has the right to protect him/her self through the use of deadly force when that person (or another) is being threatened with physical harm. I also believe, as I said above, you don’t point a gun at anyone unless you intend to kill them.

As I recall, the argument about “Horn” had to do with what Texas law allowed and whether he got of on a “technicality” because of the legal states of the thugs he killed.

Personally, I would not kill someone just to protect property even if the law allows it; it’s just “stuff” and stuff can be replaced. However, I’m not Horn nor do I live in Texas but the DA in that Texas county felt Horn’s actions were allowed by the law – that’s good enough for me.

As to this thread’s situation; we don’t know how threatened this debtor actually was by the “threat”…if the collector was on his front lawn with a can of gasoline and a butane lighter and was moving toward the house saying he’s going to burn it down, I’d probably take that pretty seriously and if I or someone else was in the house then I would have every right in the world to shoot the so-and-so and would do so (although I sure wouldn’t be aiming for the legs).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think I’m being consistent

In the monster Horn thread, you defended him left and right and felt no remorse for two criminals being shot and killed over property, not personal safety. I just went back and re-read all of your posts in that thread just incase I was actually mistaken about your stance. I was just curious as to what the difference was in this case or if indeed you have changed your mind on Mr. Horn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In the monster Horn thread, you defended him left and right and felt no remorse for two criminals being shot and killed over property, not personal safety. I just went back and re-read all of your posts in that thread just incase I was actually mistaken about your stance. I was just curious as to what the difference was in this case or if indeed you have changed your mind on Mr. Horn.

I haven't changed my mind - I must have said a half-dozen times (there was more than one thread on Mr. Horn as I recall) that if the DA thought he was within the law that should be "good enough"...I don't believe the discussion ever turned to what "I" would have done. If you are referring to my not feeling overly sorry for the thugs Horn shot; you are right.

In any case, what I was initially referring to with my comment in this thread really had to do with shooting this collector in the legs...by virtue of shooting this guy in the legs, it sounds to me as if the shooter was unsure about whether he should or shouldn't shoot at all (making me wonder just how "real" this threat was and/or if anyone's life was actually in danger)...as I said initially, you shouldn't pick up a gun and point it at anyone unless you intend to kill them (and it should go without saying that you at least believe you have justification for killing the person you aim at).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In any case, what I was initially referring to with my comment in this thread really had to do with shooting this collector in the legs...by virtue of shooting this guy in the legs, it sounds to me as if the shooter was unsure about whether he should or shouldn't shoot at all (making me wonder just how "real" this threat was and/or if anyone's life was actually in danger).

I don't know. Even if I felt like the person intended to harm me, a part of me still says I should just do the minimum damage to him to incapacitate him.

Then again, if he's not dead, he might sue me for that, so maybe I should just kill him.

Tough call. I'd prefer to just incapacitate someone rather than kill them, but then I don't want to open myself to further harm in other ways. I could easily see myself going for someone's legs in a split second decision in not wanting to outright murder them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't know. Even if I felt like the person intended to harm me, a part of me still says I should just do the minimum damage to him to incapacitate him.

Then again, if he's not dead, he might sue me for that, so maybe I should just kill him.

Tough call. I'd prefer to just incapacitate someone rather than kill them, but then I don't want to open myself to further harm in other ways. I could easily see myself going for someone's legs in a split second decision in not wanting to outright murder them.

There is a big difference between "murder" and "killing"; not the least of which is that one is criminal and the other isn't.

A gun is a lethal weapon - its primary function is to kill. The only reason someone should ever pick up a gun and point it at another human being is if he is justified in killing that person.

All of us should be sober about the possibility of taking the life of another; even when it's justified; but trying to "scare" someone or wound someone to "stop" them is not a proper course of action and could well end up costing the life of an innocent party.

Bottom line is, if you aren't sure you are justified to kill, you have no justification for firing at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't buy some of that.

A gun only has the potential to be deadly. Just as a person trained in unarmed combat has the potential to be deadly with merely his hands. That doesn't mean this person should never hit someone unless they intend to kill them. I feel the same about any weapon:

they should only be used to defend yourself or others against immediate and obvious harm, and even then the wielder of the weapon should seriously consider whether killing the target is absolutely necessary. Obviously, any physical harm from a weapon of any kind has the potential to kill the person they are used against. However, there is a difference between intent to kill and intent to incapacitate. You are right, any time you pull or shoot the gun, you need to be prepared for that person to die, but death is not the necessary result of that action.

I've never shot anything other than a paper target, and I don't carry guns with me anywhere. The only time I can imagine using mine against a person would be if someone broke into my home while I was there. And even then, even if I have it out and have an intruder cornered, my first priority is to simply intimidate them into leaving. Only a person with a weapon, who refused to leave, would find a bullet heading their way. And the body part I aim for would depend on the weapon they have. I just wouldn't feel justified in going for a killshot if the person was coming with a knife. That being said, I would not be regretful if my shoulder or thigh shot ended up killing that person either; I know that I tried to give them a chance to live while still doing what was necessary, they chose to take the chance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can't even shoot someone for burglarizing your home. You can end up getting sued that way. So verbal threats, nah you can't shoot them, but you can report them to the police.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't buy some of that.

A gun only has the potential to be deadly. Just as a person trained in unarmed combat has the potential to be deadly with merely his hands. That doesn't mean this person should never hit someone unless they intend to kill them. I feel the same about any weapon:

they should only be used to defend yourself or others against immediate and obvious harm, and even then the wielder of the weapon should seriously consider whether killing the target is absolutely necessary. Obviously, any physical harm from a weapon of any kind has the potential to kill the person they are used against. However, there is a difference between intent to kill and intent to incapacitate. You are right, any time you pull or shoot the gun, you need to be prepared for that person to die, but death is not the necessary result of that action.

I've never shot anything other than a paper target, and I don't carry guns with me anywhere. The only time I can imagine using mine against a person would be if someone broke into my home while I was there. And even then, even if I have it out and have an intruder cornered, my first priority is to simply intimidate them into leaving. Only a person with a weapon, who refused to leave, would find a bullet heading their way. And the body part I aim for would depend on the weapon they have. I just wouldn't feel justified in going for a killshot if the person was coming with a knife. That being said, I would not be regretful if my shoulder or thigh shot ended up killing that person either; I know that I tried to give them a chance to live while still doing what was necessary, they chose to take the chance.

I suggest you take a had gun carry permit course; even if you never intend to get a CWP.

A gun's function is to kill; the fact that they don't always or that competitive marksmanship contests are fun notwithstanding...if you want to use nonlethal force, then mace or a tazar is what you should be using.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.