Oklahoma man shoots woman trying to steal Nazi flag from his home, authorities say

[xtry51]

Fair enough, I guess. Not something I understand, but whatever. You have more faith in peoples' judgement than I do, that's for sure.

It's not that I have faith at all. Look I'm sure this Nazi guy is a shitty person. Clearly I think he has poor judgment. That's said, he was the victim here. He wasn't attacking anyone. The woman trespassed with clear intent to steal and did so. She got what she should have known was a possible outcome.

The entire point of not restricting lethal force is deterent. Less people would commit theft if they knew with 100% certainty the homeowner had blanket authority to kill you and the government would stand behind that victim.

Instead we have created a crazy legal world where criminals are shielded from escalating force. That's absurd and unsustainable long term. Just look at SF. Perfect example of what eventually happens when you let the camels nose under the tent.

 

[xtry51]

What concerns me is that your "might-makes-right" view of property assumes that every property owner has good judgement, unerring decisionmaking abilities, and excellent aim...

In my experience, most people have none of those.

I simply don't feel sorry for thieves. It's got nothing to do with judgement of the victim because the thief already is exercising poor judgement.

 

[Picton]

It's not that I have faith at all. Look I'm sure this Nazi guy is a shitty person. Clearly I think he has poor judgment. That's said, he was the victim here. He wasn't attacking anyone. The woman trespassed with clear intent to steal and did so. She got what she should have known was a possible outcome.

The entire point of not restricting lethal force is deterent. Less people would commit theft if they knew with 100% certainty the homeowner had blanket authority to kill you and the government would stand behind that victim.

Instead we have created a crazy legal world where criminals are shielded from escalating force. That's absurd and unsustainable long term. Just look at SF. Perfect example of what eventually happens when you let the camels nose under the tent.

But you're leaving life and death decisions in the hands of people you're acknowledging have "poor judgement."

How on earth is that NOT "absurd and unsustainable," too?

 

[xtry51]

But you're leaving life and death decisions in the hands of people you're acknowledging have "poor judgement."

How on earth is that NOT "absurd and unsustainable," too?

Because your alternative is giving government power. The ultimate absurdity. I'm choosing the clear lesser of two evils.

 

[Frizzle Fry]

Okay.

How about trespassing? If a kid is taking a shortcut from the cul-de-sac behind your house to the main drag, and happens to "invade your home" while he does it... same deal? Blow him away?

I'm aware I'm on a tangent, so feel free to ignore me. I'm just curious, and slightly incredulous. Some of you seem very, very eager to take a life, and I don't understand that.

Where? In 2/3 states where I live there's a good understanding as to how you need to mark private property, and who's allowed on your property otherwise. Trespassers are allowed a little leeway in daylight hours in ME and NH, and a homeowner is protected from liability when it comes to trespassers, whether the land is marked or unmarked. There are more nuances.

Your tangent seems more like a serious journey, however... a kid cutting across your lawn is not IN YOUR HOUSE. He's also not a grown adult creeping up to it in the dead of night. Let alone being in the act of vandalizing, stealing, or potentially assaulting anyone.

In an ideal world, and in almost all of the US prior to the last 50-70 years, that 6'5" drunk and drug addled "kid" who "knocked on the door" (read; smashed) in Chicopee a few years ago could have been blown away on the lawn, never mind at/in the door.. And I would not have shed a single tear. I'm eager for MORE people to start taking lives - useless scumbag lives, at least when it comes to the slope we have been slipping down in American society where the home invaders have more rights than the home owners, and the police response times keep getting longer (or in the middle of a race riot, non existent). In argumentation, a slippery slope is a fallacy - in law and government it is a certainty.

Actions have consequences. Clearly "going back to jail to see your friends, to eat 3 square at no charge and lift weights" and "not losing some rights because you already lost them last time" have not been enough of a deterrent to stop dirtbags from wandering on to others property to do their crimes... these scumbags know that in many cases the victim isn't allowed to do much of anything, and they count on it. It's not a "punishment" it's a "deterrent". Stay off of other people's property or you will lose your f***ing life. Period.

I'm guessing you've never had your home broken into, or caught a dirtbag in the night...

 

[babygorilla]

I gotta say, that while I agree with property rights, petty theft does not warrant (potential) capital punishment.

You will notice, in my statement, it did not proclaim his innocence. But, she did PSGWSP, as did he. But his SG only started after hers. Again, don't start no shite, there won't be no shite. People need to learn this lesson, she did the hard way, as did he.
I guess you could say this is what happens when two stupes meet.....

 

[Picton]

I'm guessing you've never had your home broken into, or caught a dirtbag in the night...

You're guessing very, very wrong.

I'm just not terribly eager to take someone's life over... a flag. My guns are for people who are threatening my life. They're not for judging other people as being worthy of death. I frankly don't want that responsibility, nor do I want anyone to have it over me.

But hey. We've all had different life experiences, clearly.

 

[xtry51]

I'd like to add that we don't need conjecture about what happens when citizens are allowed to kill thieves becuase TX already has this law. In TX you can while victim or witness to a property theft, use lethal force to stop the thief.

I feel a lot of these discussions revolve around the extremes and ignore that we have a real life active government functioning with my basic premise as their active law. The sky has not fallen in TX. People are not dying in wide swaths. Children are not being mowed down. Most people will choose to not use lethal force. I'm all good with that. But what prevents crime from increasing is the threat of danger to the thief.

 

[Picton]

I'd like to add that we don't need conjecture about what happens when citizens are allowed to kill thieves becuase TX already has this law. In TX you can while victim or witness to a property theft, use lethal force to stop the thief.

I feel a lot of these discussions revolve around the extremes and ignore that we have a real life active government functioning with my basic premise as their active law. The sky has not fallen in TX. People are not dying in wide swaths. Children are not being mowed down. Most people will choose to not use lethal force. I'm all good with that. But what prevents crime from increasing is the threat of danger to the thief.

I get all that. Philosophically, I even agree with you to a point. My hangup is that your panacea is not sustainable, because property owners sometimes (NOT in this case, granted) think they're victims when they're really not.

I'm thinking about this right now because I just got back from my neighbor's house. USPS gave me some of his mail this morning, so I figured I'd go drop it into his mailbox. No harm, no foul.

Suppose, though, that he heard me on his porch, leaned out his front door, and saw me with my hand in his mailbox. I was dropping off, not picking up, but he didn't know that. Now, suppose he challenges me. "I'm just dropping off your mail, dude," I say, but in his mind he already suspects me: of course that's what a mail thief would say, so he pulls his gun and points it at me.

I flee. I'm clearly dealing with a freaking madman, and want to GTFO; I was just trying to get his mail to him. Or? I grab for his gun because I see he's about to shoot me; either way, I reinforce his wrong idea about what's happening. But either way, I beat feet.

So he shoots me in the back as I flee, which some people here say is perfectly kosher.

Your worldview says that's just fine and dandy. And that there's nothing my wife and kids can do about it, because the state shouldn't question him. And I'm dead now, so I can't tell my side of what happened.

Granted, as I said earlier, I'm on a tangent. I just think that your "solution to the problem" is just as wrong as any other.

 

[xtry51]

I think in that case the freedom of everyone else to act responsibly shouod never be called into question because you won the life roulette shit sandwich award from a crazy person.

I don't want laws to prevent actions by responsible people. You'd I guess get shot and he would later get prosecuted for shooting someone who wasn't stealing since there would be no evidence that's what you were doing?

 

[Picton]

I think in that case the freedom of everyone else to act responsibly shouod never be called into question because you won the life roulette shit sandwich award from a crazy person.

I don't want laws to prevent actions by responsible people. You'd I guess get shot and he would later get prosecuted for shooting someone who wasn't stealing since there would be no evidence that's what you were doing?

No. My wife, who sent me over with his mail, would be ITCHING to tell someone (a court, say) what happened. But your world allows no recourse for her, nor my kids.

 

[xtry51]

No. My wife, who sent me over with his mail, would be ITCHING to tell someone (a court, say) what happened. But your world allows no recourse for her, nor my kids.

I think we're not on the same page. I clearly stated above there needed to be proof a theft was occurring or about to occur. So there absolutely is recourse if you get shot while not being a thief.

 

[Picton]

I think we're not on the same page. I clearly stated above there needed to be proof a theft was occurring or about to occur. So there absolutely is recourse if you get shot while not being a thief.

But who weighs that proof? Who decides?

 

[Chevy 2 65]

Real f***ing simple. Stay off peoples property and DO NOT steal their things. If you get killed, hurt whatever ...too f***ing bad.

 

[xtry51]

But who weighs that proof? Who decides?

I'm confused. The same people that do now. Police, prosecutors, judges and juries.

My position I felt was clear, but must have missed a point. My point is IF there is a theft or attempted theft, lethal force is justified. If there is not a theft, we have a law for that situation, it's called murder.

 

[Picton]

I'm confused. The same people that do now. Police, prosecutors, judges and juries.

So you're saying there's a need for those things? Even in your world?

Because you're now arguing in favor of PRECISELY what's happening in this case. The victim/citizen has been arrested and is being tried to determine whether or not he was right to do what he did. Police, prosecutors, judges and juries are deciding where the truth lies.

I'm saying that's exactly what should happen. You were saying on the last page that nobody should question his actions. But now you're acknowledging that there's a justice system whose role (CORRECT role) is to try facts and find proof? Just in case homeowners who shoot people in the back make the wrong choice when they do so?

Remember, being tried isn't the same as being convicted. If this guy's actions were reasonable, then a jury will agree and send him home to wave whatever flags he wants.

My take is that this isn't a "he's right, she's wrong" situation. Lots of times in real life, both parties are wrong. I think this is one of those times, you don't... fortunately, we've got a court system to figure all that out.

 

[xtry51]

So you're saying there's a need for those things? Even in your world?

Because you're now arguing in favor of PRECISELY what's happening in this case. The victim/citizen has been arrested and is being tried to determine whether or not he was right to do what he did. Police, prosecutors, judges and juries are deciding where the truth lies.

I'm saying that's exactly what should happen. You were saying on the last page that nobody should question his actions. But now you're acknowledging that there's a justice system whose role (CORRECT role) is to try facts and find proof? Just in case homeowners who shoot people in the back make the wrong choice when they do so?

Remember, being tried isn't the same as being convicted. If this guy's actions were reasonable, then a jury will agree and send him home to wave whatever flags he wants.

My take is that this isn't a "he's right, she's wrong" situation. Lots of times in real life, both parties are wrong. I think this is one of those times, you don't... fortunately, we've got a court system to figure all that out.

What is happening is not what I am proposing. Because the state in this case is not trying to establish if there was a theft or not. They skipped that part and went right to charging him. In my proposal the police and prosecutor would have to prove there wasn't a theft before any charges could be brought.

You are putting the cart before the horse and giving the gov way too much power up front to destroy a man's life over protecting his own property.

 

[xtry51]

You are in effect saying the government can assert, based on nothing but guessing, charges for assault (him shooting her). I'm saying the government must prove in court without arresting the victim (homeowner) a theft did not occur before you can charge and/or arrest him. Those are very different systems of government.

 

[Picton]

What is happening is not what I am proposing. Because the state in this case is not trying to establish if there was a theft or not. They skipped that part and went right to charging him. In my proposal the police and prosecutor would have to prove there wasn't a theft before any charges could be brought.

You are putting the cart before the horse and giving the gov way too much power up front to destroy a man's life over protecting his own property.

I don't know that they didn't charge her too, though. They should have charged both. I'll see if I can find out.

ETA: Not clear.

"The court filing also accused McVey of trespassing, larceny, 'hate crimes' and violating the Oklahoma Anti-Terrorism Act, though McVey has not been charged." That's from the Enid News, just this past February 22.

So no, she probably won't ever be charged. But she didn't deny that she'd stolen the flag; that's not in dispute. She told the cops she'd done it. It's in the affadavit, so the state DID determine a theft took place.

 

[xtry51]

I don't know that they didn't charge her too, though. They should have charged both. I'll see if I can find out.

Absolutely not. I'm saying my system would expressly prohibit arresting them both. Either she gets arrested or no one gets arrested. The homeowner shouod not be arrested unless the government can prove to a judge a theft did not or was not about to occur.

Yes, my position is an extremely high burden for the government because innocent until proven guilty.

 

[Picton]

Absolutely not. I'm saying my system would expressly prohibit arresting them both. Either she gets arrested or no one gets arrested. The homeowner shouod not be arrested unless the government can prove to a judge a theft did not or was not about to occur.

Yes, my position is an extremely high burden for the government because innocent until proven guilty.

See my edit above.

I don't think anyone's ever denied a theft took place. The question is whether his response was reasonable.

Oh, and she's also suing him for $75k.

 

[xtry51]

See my edit above.

I don't think anyone's ever denied a theft took place. The question is whether his response was reasonable.

Oh, and she's also suing him for $75k.

If a theft occurred, you don't get to ask if it was reasonable. That's my position. If a theft occurred, the state is barred from charging the homeowner.

Her suing him only reinforces my point that our current system in broken and defends criminals from victims.

 

[Picton]

If a theft occurred, you don't get to ask if it was reasonable. That's my position. If a theft occurred, the state is barred from charging the homeowner.

Her suing him only reinforces my point that our current system in broken and defends criminals from victims.

Well, your position is noted. It's also not Oklahoma law, so...

A court will look at the suit, too. Anyone can sue over anything; doesn't mean there'll be a judgement. But she's suing over medical bills and lost time, and IF (big if) the court thinks his actions weren't lawful, then of course he should compensate her.

She should pay her debt too, of course, whatever it is. Fine, imprisonment, community service, whatever. Just because she's wrong doesn't mean he was right, and vice-versa. They were both fools.

 

[Frizzle Fry]

Anyone can sue over anything; doesn't mean there'll be a judgement. But she's suing over medical bills and lost time, and IF (big if) the court thinks his actions weren't lawful, then of course he should compensate her.

If you get hit by a foul ball at a baseball game, you cannot sue for those things; being hit isn't likely, but it is understood to be a risk that is in the nature of attending a baseball game. There is no negligence; a reasonable person should expect foul balls as they are part of a baseball game.

It is absurd that these suits exist. Regardless of whether his actions were lawful, hers were not and she instigated the confrontation. Being shot (or hit, cut on broken glass, or tripping and falling) while burglarizing someones home should not entitle the criminal to civil damages under any circumstances; a reasonable person would expect something like that to potentially occur while committing a burglary.

 

[Picton]

If you get hit by a foul ball at a baseball game, you cannot sue for those things; being hit isn't likely, but it is understood to be a risk that is in the nature of attending a baseball game. There is no negligence; a reasonable person should expect foul balls as they are part of a baseball game.

It is absurd that these suits exist. Regardless of whether his actions were lawful, hers were not and she instigated the confrontation. Being shot (or hit, cut on broken glass, or tripping and falling) while burglarizing someones home should not entitle the criminal to civil damages under any circumstances; a reasonable person would expect something like that to potentially occur while committing a burglary.

You didn’t read my IF. If you had, you’d realize your baseball example makes no sense. There’s nothing unlawful about a foul ball occurring at a baseball game.

There might be something unlawful in shooting a fleeing thief in the back. Fortunately a court will figure that out, not you or me. What you or I think SHOULD happen, doesn’t matter one bit.

 

[Broomcorn]

Supposedly, we still have freedom of speach in this country but we are losing it a rate I don't think ayone believed was possible in their life time. You don't have to like how some people choose to express their 1A right but you should respect it.

That said, anyone who is crazy enough to fly that flag openly on their property is not someone who you should be trying to test to see just how deep their resolve is with regard to their beliefs. As the saying goes, play stupid games win stupid prizes....

 

[Frizzle Fry]

You didn’t read my IF. If you had, you’d realize your baseball example makes no sense. There’s nothing unlawful about a foul ball occurring at a baseball game.

There might be something unlawful in shooting a fleeing thief in the back. Fortunately a court will figure that out, not you or me. What you or I think SHOULD happen, doesn’t matter one bit.

You didn't read what I wrote. If he needs to be charged with a crime, charge him with a crime. I'm talking about civil damages. There's civil negligence and there's criminal negligence. Prior to that particular baseball rule, now being used as an analogy, arguments were made that foul balls were criminal recklessness resulting in injury, or criminal negligence, or civil negligence. Not any more.

I'm talking about a civil suit. Period. A thief who enters the property of another person to steal should reasonably expect to be hit, shot, lacerated by the glass they broke, etc - there's no negligence on the part of the victim, and the CAUSE of their lost work or accumulated medical bills was engaging an activity that a reasonable person could expect to result in bodily injury. Like going to a baseball game with the understanding that one might be hit by a foul ball, but worse even because the act of burglarizing a home is a crime. The person responsible for the bills is the person who undertook the reasonably understood risk.

 

[Dadstoys]

I get all that. Philosophically, I even agree with you to a point. My hangup is that your panacea is not sustainable, because property owners sometimes (NOT in this case, granted) think they're victims when they're really not.

I'm thinking about this right now because I just got back from my neighbor's house. USPS gave me some of his mail this morning, so I figured I'd go drop it into his mailbox. No harm, no foul.

Suppose, though, that he heard me on his porch, leaned out his front door, and saw me with my hand in his mailbox. I was dropping off, not picking up, but he didn't know that. Now, suppose he challenges me. "I'm just dropping off your mail, dude," I say, but in his mind he already suspects me: of course that's what a mail thief would say, so he pulls his gun and points it at me.

I flee. I'm clearly dealing with a freaking madman, and want to GTFO; I was just trying to get his mail to him. Or? I grab for his gun because I see he's about to shoot me; either way, I reinforce his wrong idea about what's happening. But either way, I beat feet.

So he shoots me in the back as I flee, which some people here say is perfectly kosher.

Your worldview says that's just fine and dandy. And that there's nothing my wife and kids can do about it, because the state shouldn't question him. And I'm dead now, so I can't tell my side of what happened.

Granted, as I said earlier, I'm on a tangent. I just think that your "solution to the problem" is just as wrong as any other.

What if you are parachuting and drift off course and land on someone's property ?
What if you are attacked by an escaped gorilla and hurled onto someone's property ?
What if you are abducted by aliens and they drop you off on the wrong property after the probing ?
Every one of those scenarios have as much to do with the actual incident as what you just said.

A thief got caught and a thief got popped. that's what happened .
If you have an issue with it , don't shoot thieves on your property.
Conversely don't trespass and steal.
In either case , no one gets shot.

 

[Dadstoys]

But who weighs that proof? Who decides?

On my property or in my home , I do.
I realize personal space may not be recognized in the liberal /communist philosophy , but to some of us it's a very real thing.

 

[Picton]

What if you are parachuting and drift off course and land on someone's property ?
What if you are attacked by an escaped gorilla and hurled onto someone's property ?
What if you are abducted by aliens and they drop you off on the wrong property after the probing ?
Every one of those scenarios have as much to do with the actual incident as what you just said.

A thief got caught and a thief got popped. that's what happened .
If you have an issue with it , don't shoot thieves on your property.
Conversely don't trespass and steal.
In either case , no one gets shot.

Sure.

That's why I said, twice, that I was off on a tangent. And that anyone could feel free to ignore.

But given that what I described is a plausible scenario that could lead a homeowner to shoot a fleeing person, and your gorillas and aliens were not, I actually feel it had a little more to do with the scenario under discussion.

Again, feel free to ignore it.