DA: No charges against man who shot suspect (Charlotte: HOA, homes)

[SunnyKayak]

[susan42]

Originally Posted by Chromekitty

I did NOT call you susan until after your kitty kat comment and then having the audacity to ask Ani call you by your screen name.

Stop trying to play victim here YOU are the one who is taking this thread and violating TOS with your hostile comments to others.

You are wrong on both.
Your post where you called me Susan-#103
My post where I called you KK #104.

I asked her not to call me by Susan.How was that audacious?

Def not any sort of victim-just brassed off with lack of logical argument and person who hasn't got the spunk to post comments publically or send a DM so that I can respond.

You insulted me when you posted that I though it was a game rather than a tragedy

[gkleoni1]

Evidence that Mr McClure did not INTEND to kill or harm those boys:
When he caught up to them he fired once into the AIR. Again I say, had he wanted to hurt/kill/get revenge he would have probably fired several times at them. He only fired twice. Once into the air and once at the boy who turned toward him.

[brokensky]

Geeeeezzz. Let's get back on topic.

(ETA: GK - came back and saw your post and wanted you to know - this is NOT directed to you. It could appear that way b/c of the sequence.)

I mentioned it earlier but I think no one noticed.

The Grand Jury did not return an indictment.

That pretty much means case closed.

Do we need to go over the DA and his decisions as they relate to a Grand Jury? Cause if everyone understands what that means, then I believe folks can clearly see this was not a political decision on the part of the DA. And I am, as some of you know, no apologist for the DA as I stay upset with him about his Catch and Release, Hug-A-Thug mentality.

[NCyank]

Originally Posted by susan42

They found guns at a later time at one of the boy's home.

Surely you can’t believe that means something or proves anything?
What percentage of homeowners in Charlotte own guns?
I bet no one even has the true figures, that is how “well regulated” gun ownership is.

The guns they found INCLUDED the one stolen from Mr. McClure's home. Clearly the boys were armed when they fled the scene. It is not unreasonable for Mr. McClure to have thought he saw a gun or that one of the thugs actually threatened him with it.

Originally Posted by susan42

So now his intent does not even matter?? There are times when our society DEPENDS on heros doing more than what they have to. Mr McClure risked his life because it was right to try and stop the cycle of violence these boys were perpetraiting.

His intent was vital, but, from what I have read, what he states as his intent just doesn’t add up for me.There are just too many missing or contradictory facts.
I asked some questions to try and clarify things as I assumed those who applauded him might have the answers, however I have not received any FACTS that have led me to agree with the majority opinion here.

You have been given plenty of facts (not contradictory) and yet persist in your questioning, to no end. You know what we all know about his intent, what the DA knows, what the Grand Jury knows...and yet you can't add it up. I propose the problem is with you and not with the facts.

Originally Posted by susan42

If you can see Mr McClure as a hero, then we have a completely different view on the value of human life , but I think we’ve already established that.

You are right. All life is precious yet some people chose to risk theirs. There's nothing to be said when the risks don't pan out in their favor. I am sorry for the choices that young man made, that he didn't place more value on his own life or the life of Mr. McClure and his wife...that he participating in tying them up and threatening them with a gun. He clearly placed a different value on human life than I do.

Originally Posted by susan42

As I have said numerous times here (but I note you quoted only sentences in isolation, maj of which were questions, not statements) he was a victim of crime, but IMO when he left his house with a gun he took the law into his own hands.He must have been shocked and angry, was an elderly gentleman who had just been assaulted and he went off not knowing what he might be confronted with, but he was running on Adrenaline. He ended up killing someone.

It's already been established that you don't know the law, don't understand our basic constitutional rights yet you continue to maintain that he 'took the law into his own hands'. No, he didn't....as determined by the Grand Jury and DA (and supported by the community as well). THAT is the fact you refuse to acknowledge. He did not take the law into his own hands, he did not break the law at all.

Originally Posted by susan42

Something that no-one has mentioned-I wonder how he feels knowing he did that?
Will he have nightmares, be riddled with guilt, wonder who the boys family are ? If he is a Christian then I would have thought so.

I can't quite explain why this part of your post is so disturbing. Do you wish for Mr. McClure and his wife to suffer more than they have already? Would you feel better knowing he wakes up with nightmares or never fully recovers from the events of that day? What does being a Christian have to do with it? Are they somehow supposed to feel more remorse than the thugs who instigated the events of the day....who presumably were not Christians?
Are you wondering about the other 3 thugs and how they are sleeping these days? Are you wondering about any of their mothers....knowing what their sons did to this couple and knowing their actions led to this young man's death?

Please don't feel compelled to answer, I'm not sure the answers would be any less disturbing than the fact that you even thought of the questions.

Originally Posted by susan42

It is precisely because I feel it is a tragedy that I am here, however, I am amazed at how few people (I am sure many of whom regard themselves as Christians) have expressed any empathy for anyone except Mr McClure!
In fact the dead boy has been called a punk and a thug on so many occasions I lost count!
One poster (at least) cast aspersions about the dead boys mother.
I have a heck of a lot more insight than many posting here.

Do you even understand what empathy is?
empathy- the intellectual identification with or vicarious experiencing of the feelings, thoughts, or attitudes of another.
No, I don't have any empathy for the dead boy or the others. I can't identify with why he would commit an armed home invasion. I can't vicariously experience with him as he was participating in tying up 2 senior citizens, ransacking their home, threatening them with a gun. I can't imagine what he was thinking as he fled the scene with Mr. McClure's gun and other possessions. I can't understand why he was there, doing those things. I don't know why he chose to be a 'punk' or a 'thug' or hang out with criminals, post those pictures on his web page and value his life and the lives of others so little.

I can empathize with Mr. McClure and his wife, imagine what it would be like to be attacked in my own home, the desire to protect myself and my family, the desire to see that the thugs were caught to prevent them from coming back to my house or any one else's or prevent them from using my stolen gun to commit other crimes. Yes, I can empathize with the victims in this case. It is disturbing that you can show empathy for the criminals. I don't know where that comes from.

[BagongBuhay]

^^^Bravo, NCYank! Well said!

[wheelsup]

This is an interesting topic as I am thinking about buying a gun soon and now live in NC. From the research I've done on the "castle law" you aren't allowed to take justice into your own hands any time you want. I didn't read the whole story but from what I can tell this older gentleman jumped into his car and followed the suspects.

This is a big no-no and private citizens can't be vigilantes. In NC, a gun is used to defend yourself in your home only from an intruder. There are some states with newer laws that extend that to your car and even if you are in a public area (like this one) and that is known as the "stand your ground" law. However it is my understanding that NC does not have that law in effect.

Furthermore, even if it did, it would probably not apply as this gentleman went after those thugs, they didn't come to him.

[Nativechief]

Originally Posted by wheelsup

This is an interesting topic as I am thinking about buying a gun soon and now live in NC. From the research I've done on the "castle law" you aren't allowed to take justice into your own hands any time you want. I didn't read the whole story but from what I can tell this older gentleman jumped into his car and followed the suspects.

This is a big no-no and private citizens can't be vigilantes. In NC, a gun is used to defend yourself in your home only from an intruder. There are some states with newer laws that extend that to your car and even if you are in a public area (like this one) and that is known as the "stand your ground" law. However it is my understanding that NC does not have that law in effect.

Furthermore, even if it did, it would probably not apply as this gentleman went after those thugs, they didn't come to him.

Total BS my man,If you were correcr we WOULD HAVE NO CC PERMITS DUH AND DOUBLE DUH! NUFF SAID

[wheelsup]

Originally Posted by Nativechief

Total BS my man,If you were correcr we WOULD HAVE NO CC PERMITS DUH AND DOUBLE DUH! NUFF SAID

BS? Really?

In North Carolina, Justified Self Defense is derived from North Carolina Common Law and a few statutory laws. North Carolina has the so called "Castle Doctrine". Read below for more details on this important home defense statute.

1. You are awakened in the middle of the night by the sound of breaking glass in your bedroom window. You grab your pistol and observe a man wearing a ski mask and holding a pry bar. He is standing just outside your window. Can you legally use deadly force against the person before he enters through the window or must you wait until he gets in?
ANSWER TO QUESTION 1:

NC GENERAL STATUTE 14‑51.1. Use of deadly physical force against an intruder. (This is commonly called the "Castle Doctrine.")

(a) A lawful occupant within a home or other place of residence is justified in using any degree of force that the occupant reasonably believes is necessary, including deadly force, against an intruder to prevent a forcible entry into the home or residence or to terminate the intruder's unlawful entry (i) if the occupant reasonably apprehends that the intruder may kill or inflict serious bodily harm to the occupant or others in the home or residence, or (ii) if the occupant reasonably believes that the intruder intends to commit a felony in the home or residence.

(b) A lawful occupant within a home or other place of residence does not have a duty to retreat from an intruder in the circumstances described in this section.

2. You are awakened in the middle of the night by a noise in your bedroom. You grab your pistol and turn on the light. You see a man at the foot of your bed. He is wearing a ski mask and holding your jewelry box in his hands. He sees you and turns to run out the bedroom door. Can you legally use deadly force against the person who has broken into your home and running awaywith your jewelry?

ANSWER TO QUESTION 2:

North Carolina law does not allow the use of deadly force solely to protect property, or to prevent theft, or to regain stolen property. An owner can defend his or her property using reasonable and necessary force, but not deadly force. A property owner cannot shoot a thief before, during, or after a theft. The same rule prohibits deadly force to prevent injury or vandalism to property.

3. You have just watched the evening news about a serial murderer and rapist. You go out to get the newspaper from your driveway, and see the murderer and rapist attempting to steal your car. Can you legally use deadly force against the killer who is attempting to take your car?

ANSWER TO QUESTION 3:

See answer to question 2. In addition, no matter how serious the crime, a citizen cannot shoot to stop a fleeing criminal.

CONCEALED CARRY CLASS - Concealed Handgun Carry, Inc.

Now, there is a law that allows the use of deadly force if you are attacked, however there is a disclaimer:

§ 14-18.10:

Use of Force in Defense of Person.

– A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that the conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:

(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony;

(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to G.S. 14-51.1.

In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force."

http://www.ncleg.net/Sessions/2007/B...PDF/H476v1.pdf

Following someone in your car would certainly not be "good faith".

[lumbollo]

NCYank, that was well written and worth the read. Thanks for taking the time to post.