Golf club thief picked the wrong mark - gets held at gunpoint

[mcanadiens]

3 hours ago, iacas said:

Bullshit.

I know people have said this a few times, but in my life I've had the police investigate a window smashing of my wife's car where the wife got away with < $400 in stuff (and $100 in damage). The thief was arrested.

My neighbor had a bike stolen and the police found it, returned it, and the criminal - a 14-year-old - was sentenced to public service.

I know of a kid who was arrested for shoplifting a candy bar. Theft of under $1. My brother-in-law works at Wal-Mart and they'll detain and have people arrested for stealing under $200 stuff.

That's great. I'm really happy for you. It just isn't reality in a lot of other places.

 

[iacas]

Just now, mcanadiens said:

That's great. I'm really happy for you. It just isn't reality in a lot of other places.

Cool. Nor is your reality the same reality everywhere, despite what several of you here keep saying.

Nor does "the police won't investigate" justify what he did, even if that was sometimes or even often true in his area.

[David in FL]

1 hour ago, JonMA1 said:

 If the issue of right or wrong doesn't click, maybe there should be some fear that the owner might be some crazy bastard. 

Outstanding!

That should be on t-shirts and bumper stickers!  

[Hardspoon]

1 minute ago, mcanadiens said:

That's great. I'm really happy for you. It just isn't reality in a lot of other places.

 

Letting a thief get away without any consequences is better than what that guy did. I can see why others would disagree, but I think the potential danger to bystanders, potential for lawsuits, and potential for escalation if real police showed up outweigh the benefit.

Similar example: police who are instructed not to engage in high-speed chases in certain situations. Sure, you let a criminal escape, but the alternative is too risky.

(I'm back - @drmevo has restored my faith in humanity )

[Aflighter]

I find it funny that this Montgomery kid says he just wants to do the right thing.A thief wanting to do the right thing wow.Even as hes having a gun pointed at him he says  havent done anything.I know we have laws but I swear when you break the law you gave up your rights.The man shouldnt have kicked him thats for sure.The ole guy definately needs to be talked to about seriousness of pulling a gun but his intentions were good and only way hes keeping that kid around till police arrive.

[iacas]

3 minutes ago, Aflighter said:

I know we have laws but I swear when you break the law you gave up your rights.

Nope.

[DrvFrShow]

Okay, I'll say it: Violent crime is on the decline in America. Statistics have supported this. The news likes to sensationalize every piece of violence. It makes us afraid. Making us afraid feeds various political agendas. 

Our retired peace officer made two mistakes:

1) He threatened to kill Montgomery. Using the gun to detain Montgomery wasn't the problem. The verbal threat to kill Montgomery was. That was serious.

2) While Montgomery was lying on the ground attempting to comply, Acree kicked him in the forehead.

He should have simply made the arrest and detained him for the police. There was no need for the threat or kicking him. Montgomery has grounds for legal action, even in Oklahoma, although I doubt any will be pursued.

Here's what I think will happen: Montgomery will be offered misdemeanor petty theft and community service in exchange for dropping the charges against Acree. 

[CarlSpackler]

8 minutes ago, Aflighter said:

I find it funny that this Montgomery kid says he just wants to do the right thing.A thief wanting to do the right thing wow.Even as hes having a gun pointed at him he says  havent done anything.I know we have laws but I swear when you break the law you gave up your rights.The man shouldnt have kicked him thats for sure.The ole guy definately needs to be talked to about seriousness of pulling a gun but his intentions were good and only way hes keeping that kid around till police arrive.

Not until you are convicted of breaking a law.

[DrvFrShow]

2 minutes ago, CarlSpackler said:

Not until you are convicted of breaking a law.

And even then you have rights guaranteed by the US Constitution. 

[Aflighter]

7 minutes ago, CarlSpackler said:

Not until you are convicted of breaking a law.

 

6 minutes ago, DrvFrShow said:

And even then you have rights guaranteed by the US Constitution. 

Yeah I imagine that kid will walk free to steal again or worse but I guess the older guy got his clubs back.

[CarlSpackler]

10 minutes ago, DrvFrShow said:

And even then you have rights guaranteed by the US Constitution. 

Yep.

[Lihu]

10 hours ago, Aflighter said:

Yeah I imagine that kid will walk free to steal again or worse but I guess the older guy got his clubs back.

 

It would be interesting to see the outcome, but often times the evidence is held by the police. I would hope that he gets them back, but he has the satisfaction that he actually captured the right person as it turns out.

People used to try to steal clubs at my home course, but are caught almost immediately by the hundreds of members who know each other. There was a break in of a car in the lot, and now they changed the way the employees do things such that they roll by all the lots every 10 minutes and have an ambassador cart to bring people in and out of the far parking lots. No break ins reported since employing the procedure and no stolen clubs for quite a while. No firearms needed to reduce crime there.

I also frequent a shooting range where no one steals anything even though the line safety people don't carry any weapons, and you can pretty much leave your weapons at one station and shoot at another station 100 yards away without worrying about anyone stealing anything. . . Many people do 3 gun, and need to walk to different stations, and they do so without worry. No weapons are actually used to dissuade crime. However, at another outdoor shooting range in a really bad neighborhood, someone broke into the office and stole a bunch of gun parts. They were caught, of course, as there was only one road down the mountain. Stupid thieves. . .

While I do think firearms are a great equalizer for older people who need to protect their belongings, I also think that they could simply go to places where they and their belongings are safer through non-weapons means as well.

The retired fire marshal pretty much went a bit over the top, but the story didn't reveal if he had kind of followed the perpetrator around the store for a while to determine guilt or not before the parking lot incident. That's very likely as he was a marshal who was basically a detective for the fire department (I am going by the title "fire marshal").

So, if this is found to be the case, the perpetrator will likely be indited (likely paroled and released without serving prison time, just jail time) and the marshal will get his clubs back in a year or so. . .

[disco111]

Have no idea what happened to a prior post about statistics / but I suppose I said something that was taboo........but again I'll attempt to rebutt a similar statement............. 

"Okay, I'll say it: Violent crime is on the decline in America. Statistics have supported this. The news likes to sensationalize every piece of violence. It makes us afraid. Making us afraid feeds various political agendas."

The above is of two fold interest and is kind of a contradiction..............Again the word statistics rears it's ugly head and then a further assessment on feeding political agendas. Folks that control these statistics, operative word here is control, most assuredly have or in league with an agenda segment..............Now one must acknowledge that these statistics are only coming from one source and there are / is no other viable counter source that could disavow any of the information that we're privy to. Now if one wishes to take this offered statistical offering as gospel, then so be it, but in the same vein, one cannot ignore the news (even if it's being sensationalized) because it's coming at us daily. Now i will admit that perhaps some areas of the country have seen a decline in overall crime, but they are not areas that in general generate serious amounts of crime in the first place. Nation wide, we've had way to many attacks on police, which unto itself can and will promote further escalation of crime. Here in my neck of the woods it's an every day occurrence of at least 1 to 2 shootings, several armed robberies, at least 1 car chase that ends in a crash and someone gets hurt and an ongoing litany of fraud, shop lifting, assaults an so on and I'm in the heart of the bible belt in what's considered a small to medium population center. There's an old saying........."can't see the forest for the trees".........      

Edited August 20, 2016 by iacas
Fixed Malformed Post

[Joe92385]

So anecdotal reports and media coverage is a more reliable indicator of crime rates than the FBI's Uniform Crime Reporting data?

Play around with this tool: http://www.ucrdatatool.gov/ 

Or if that's too much work, here's a chart: https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/tables/1tabledatadecoverviewpdf/table_1_crime_in_the_united_states_by_volume_and_rate_per_100000_inhabitants_1993-2012.xls

I don't think anybody's going to argue that a national decrease in crime rate means crime is down in every region.  I know where I live, we've already surpassed last year's total number of murders, and property crime has been on the rise for a while.  You can also certainly take issue with the FBI's data or methodology - but you can't credibly argue that the statistics are LESS reliable than anecdotes and news reports.

[disco111]

So anecdotal reports and media coverage is a more reliable indicator of crime rates than the FBI's Uniform Crime Reporting data?

OK, I'm trying to understand your point of contention, but you actually contradict yourself. First you say, in a condescending way, that I should look at different gov charts and tables, but then you go on to say and I quote....... "You can also certainly take issue with the FBI's data or methodology"..........and in your area you've surpassed murders and property crime. Now did this information come from FBI statistical info or just from your local news sources? I would surmise that the later is the correct and most likely only source. 

"but you can't credibly argue that the statistics are LESS reliable than anecdotes and news reports."

Of course I can and I offered why..........to repeat, we have only one source and control venue for these statistics and your own admission stated we could take issue with it........ 

Edited August 20, 2016 by iacas
Fixed malformed post

[ghalfaire]

16 hours ago, DrvFrShow said:

I hope to God I never have to use a gun other than for sport shooting.

Absolutely.  I don't own anything I'd kill someone for.  But I would absolutely shoot someone threatening physical harm to me or my family.

[CyboNinja]

19 hours ago, Joe92385 said:

 - try to put yourself in that situation mentally, and consider what your real-world reaction would be.

I don't take my gun out of the house so I wouldn't have it with me. 

But even if I did for some reason have it with me I wouldn't draw it on him. I wouldn't try to detain him. My goal is to get my clubs back. Once I got my stuff back I'd just chase dude off. Well that dude at least (the thief's) cause I'm like twice his size. Then I'd go play golf cause I got my favorite clubs back. 

Maybe when I'm an old man I'll react differently although I doubt it. The way I feel is just give me my stuff back and stay away from me forever or I'll take it back and hurt you. If I need to use a weapon then that's on the thief. I'm gonna get my stuff. If the thief has a deadly weapon then I'd just call the cops and follow him until they arrive. It's not my duty or job to see that he gets punished. I just want my stuff back and I'll let that person's poor choices catch up to him down the road. Call the police, file the report and move on with your life and be glad you recovered your clubs in that kind of situation.

Maybe that's not necessarily the right way to react or feel about it, it's just how I would deal with something like that if it happened to me. 

The guy in the video however was a LEO, albeit a firemarshall. So in his case he felt it was his duty (and it kind of is) to see to it that the thief was detained and answered for his crime. He definitely got way carried away though and that's messed up. You can't kick and threaten someone who is compliant. 

[Joe92385]

7 hours ago, disco111 said:

So anecdotal reports and media coverage is a more reliable indicator of crime rates than the FBI's Uniform Crime Reporting data?

OK, I'm trying to understand your point of contention, but you actually contradict yourself. First you say, in a condescending way, that I should look at different gov charts and tables, but then you go on to say and I quote....... "You can also certainly take issue with the FBI's data or methodology"..........and in your area you've surpassed murders and property crime. Now did this information come from FBI statistical info or just from your local news sources? I would surmise that the later is the correct and most likely only source. 

"but you can't credibly argue that the statistics are LESS reliable than anecdotes and news reports."

Of course I can and I offered why..........to repeat, we have only one source and control venue for these statistics and your own admission stated we could take issue with it........ 

Before I respond, I apologize if I seemed condescending - definitely not my intention. 

But substantively, you still miss the point. I'm saying that yes, the FBI stats are fallible, and could have problems with their methodology. However, it is the most accurate and reliable source I know of. 

I did not contradict myself by telling my own anecdotal information. I simply used it to illustrate the point that national statistics don't reflect every locale. 

Having said that, your argument is "I see bad crime therefore crime is getting worse everywhere," which just not logical. Please correct me if I'm misunderstanding you though.

My point is that you can (and should) question any data source, but so far I haven't heard any specific criticisms of the FBI data, whereas reliance on media reports is inherently problematic due to two related issues: (1) their job is not to collect data, but to report specific stories of interest; and (2) the lack of impartiality since the goal is ratings, not study.