Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It will be interesting to see how the District Attorney handles this.
I don't see a grand jury returning an indictment against the shop owner. The D.A. will probably try to plea the case out. A savvy defense attorney will reject it and take his chances on the law abiding citizens of Orange County having sympathy for the shop owner if it even goes to trial. Vigilante cases are rarely prosecuted, at least via jury trials. This is only my useless opinion from a ravenous ID, true crime, and courtroom trial watcher/reader.
Were those mug shots taken before or after they were tortured for hours? I want to know the EXACT extent of what was done to them. (Any one remember the "Torture Photos"?). Is scaring them and threatening to shoot them now considered torture?
I know here, if you have ever been to jail/prison, they take your picture and its on file. They dont usually take a new one. So it could be this was an old photo OR they had never been caught and this was the new one.
The store owner is entitled to defend his property, as for what went on there are no independent witnesses, so the case would have to hinge on injuries sustained, unless of course there is CCTV, however no CCTV is mentioned.
You can't possible convict someone with evidence based solely on the testament of two people who were going to commit a burglary, unless of course they can demonstate injuries which can be directly linked to events.
Remember when dealing with the 'Criminal Law' there has to be over 99% certainty which must be 'beyond any reasonable doubt'.
If there WAS cctv, hopefully the owner destroyed it.
As far as being entitled to defend property, that depends on which state he's in. Some state's castle laws only allow you to use deadly force to defend a human life, not pets nor property. However, this guy apparently didn't use deadly force, and I don't know what the laws are that pertain to defending property using non-deadly weapons.
no sympathy for the burglars here!! But this also proves my point that yet again in 'murica that there's yet another half-a-man acting all big, tough and badazz because he has the gun on them. Not impressed with anyone here. 2 useless burglars and a coward thinking he's tough
So, the more manly thing to do would be what? Ask them to please leave and have a heart and not steal from the store? I'm certain the bad guys would just excuse themselves and move along.
And I'd hope the prosecution would take that into evidence.
The number of people here who support breaking the law as a punishment for breaking the law is curious.
I'm sure they would if they could prove it. Oops, I forgot to put a tape in darn it!
The first couple of times, he should let the law take care of it. And he did call, apparently. But LEO wasn't doing a very good job. It's hard to fault him TOO much for being angry and wanting revenge. When someone breaks into your place, you feel violated and helpless and fearful even if nothing is taken. If they're interfering with his income on top of the emotional havoc they wreaked, I can understand his feelings. That said, he probably did take it too far. Stripping them to their underwear is a bit odd I must say.
I can understand the shop owner's anger, but he would had been far better off simply detaining the two men he found breaking in and immediately calling the police or summoning help (I find the no-phone excuse a little hard to believe---apparently the police could not substantiate the shop phone's wires being cut).
By doing what the owner supposedly did, he not only causes legal trouble for himself and his two companions (who came in a hour after the two burglars were initially caught), but makes for a good possibility that the two men in question, the burglars, might not get as stiff of a punishment than they would had otherwise--the scene was of course compromised when he had the two men strip down, get beaten, etc. If he really wanted to see justice done, he would had been better off simply doing what you're supposed to do: get the authorities.
I have to disagree w/ this, I actually laughed when I read it thinking of what type punishment/slap on the wrist(probation, most likely) they would of got with our justice system vs. what the store owner gave them.
IMO the burglar's got what they deserved.
So, the more manly thing to do would be what? Ask them to please leave and have a heart and not steal from the store? I'm certain the bad guys would just excuse themselves and move along.
Perhaps you should offer to make them so cocoa before they leave. They must be very distraught having their fund raising activities aborted.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It will be interesting to see how the District Attorney handles this.
