Man shoots unarmed black juvenile stealing from car, no charges pending

Why would there be charges? Man catches thief in the act, man shoots thief to protect his property. The end.

 

This would also be completely legal in Texas. Hell, we can use deadly force to protect a neighbor's property in this state.

 

Moral of the story, don't be a thief.

 

Exactly right.

What is the OP suggesting, that people be allowed to steal from you with no right to protect your property? That is an absurd suggestion.

Here is a better idea. Don't steal and stay in school.

Also, pants up, don't loot!

 

What are you suggesting, that a theft without violence should be met with the death penalty, and no trial?

It's not like there's a criminal justice system for something like this.

 

While probably legal, any person that has no problem shooting and killing a 13 year old over some material possession has issues.

 

You should not be allowed to determine how much another man's life is worth. The man valued his property over another kid's life, how is that not barbaric?

 

The death penalty is a court ordered sentence carried out by the state, I certainly wouldn't want that to happen to anyone over theft. That's not what happened in this case, the kid's death came while trying to victimize someone that then shot him. That's totally fair.

Moral of the story, don't be a thief.

 

Why wouldn't one value their property over the life of someone who would victimize them? Maybe you're just talking to the wrong person because IMO the life of a thief has no value whatsoever.

 

The criminal justice system was used to determine whether or not the man's actions were legally justified. Work to change the law if you disagree with it. I don't condone the man's actions morally, but as someone who was raised with an understanding of how you can die over property in Texas, I've sort of become immune to this type of tragedy relative to all the other types of tragedies that occur every minute.

 

I think that sucks, but if that's the law in Missouri, it's the law. I think we should abolish laws that allow the use of deadly force to protect property. That might be worth protesting about. But, I'm not clear how the authorities could press charges in this case.

 

In the shooter's defense, it's not like you can ask the thief how old he is and if he's armed with a weapon before you confront him.

 

Would there have been uproar if the car owner had tried to wrestle with the kid and subsequently the kid stabs him to death? The law is a bit harsh but is not the root of the problem.

 

The life of a thief has value to the thief's family, friends, etc. The life of a thief has value to society if that thief is punished/rehabilitated appropriately and learns from his mistakes. Property can be replaced, but someone's son cannot. Morally, this is wrong. Legally, the man shouldn't be charged for murder, but he should be charged because he overreacted to the situation leading to a death.

 

My first response is that the dead person is barely a teenager.

My second response is we do not know if the property owner believed or should have reasonably believed that he was only 13-14 years old.

It is a sad world we live in all the way around.

 

The story indicates the shooter was a " 60-year-old black man" so the answer to your question about massive protests is no.

Not a rich white guy, and not the "tool of the man" that is the police, so I don't see where there is any traction.

St. Louis, the city itself, actually has crime rates significantly higher than Houston on a per-resident basis, which is quite an accomplishment.

 

Legal ≠ Moral

 

The shooter didn't have to confront him. Nobody was in any danger and I'm pretty sure there was nothing in his car more valuable than a human life.

 

Exactly. Black on black crime has never merited any outrage among other blacks. Only in the much smaller % incidents when it happens to be a white person doing the killing.