Cops: Teens shot while breaking into
car outside SE Atlanta Waffle House

DeKalb County is a cesspool and this particular area is simply horrendous.

Very problematic. Unless there is jury nulification, a slender reed in Atlanta, given the almost certain race of the thieves, he will very likely be convicted. It will likely hinge on race. If the shooter is white and the thieves black, he's done. If all black, some jury may not convict. If he's black and they are white....he may get off with a racist black jury. As the facts are presented in the article (often not correct) he's toast. You can defend YOURSELF, you cannot legally defend your property. Long established law in most states. In Kansas the law clearly states that you CAN protect property, yet attorneys advise to never try to use that law, as you are highly likely to be convicted anyway. In one case a rural Kansas farmer shot out the tires of the car of two thieves, and they were nowhere near the vehicle. He was convicted and spent a year in prison on some 'unlawful use of a firearm' charge. He did NOT shoot at or harm the thieves. A lot of unhappy people, but he still went to jail. If you are in your car and YOU are threatened with great bodily harm or death, you can defend yourself or another person. But if you see someone stealing from your car, you can not harm them unless they are threatening YOU or another person with 'serious bodily injury or death'. People really DO need to either study up and BELIEVE the limits of the laws. Or take a good concealed carry course and listen closely to the instructor on matters of law. I used to teach this, and at least half, sometimes 2/3 of the class was quite incredulous when I first began to explain the laws on "justifiable homicide". If you own a firearm, you really need to understand in some detail what your state sets aside as the 'justification exception' in their laws. Some states require, still today, that you MUST retreat at all times when you are threatened, and can only use deadly force when you are cornered and no retreat is possible. This is where the 'stand your ground' laws actually come into effect. The media often says that they are in play when they have nothing to do with a situation. In 'stand your ground' states you can defend yourself without a requirement to retreat in a public place "where you have a right to be". In many states you can only defend without retreat inside your home (castle doctrine). Some states require retreat inside your home, including exiting the home, if possible, before you can legally use deadly force (no castle doctrine). Know your state laws. But in few or no states (I haven't studied all 50 state's laws in detail) is deadly force permitted when defending property when you are not defending yourself or another person. Ya'll be careful out there. If you shoot someone and kill them it WILL BE A HOMICIDE in all cases. The only question is whether the use of deadly force falls into a narrow, limited 'justification exception'. You really need to know the justification exceptions in your state.

Those boys are juveniles so they will not be charged with any crime, will maybe have a hearing in juvenile court where a judge will tell them not to get caught breaking into cars again and will send them on their way. The owner of the car is a moron, as he should have just called the police.

Trigger-happy shooter, klepto punks. Sounds like there’s enough stupid to go around.

#2. The car owner and shooter is a black guy. The teens trying to break into his car had their names and race withheld because of their age. When he walked out of the restaurant and saw two people trying to break into his car he had no idea what their age was, whether they were armed, if they intended to assault him, etc. What's the point in carrying a gun if you can't use it to protect yourself and your property?

Well at least he did as advised by Biden and shot them in the leg. Stupid, no car is worth surrendering your freedom over. I wonder how Joe recommends we avoid the femoral artery, although he does seem to have mastered the restriction of blood flow from the carotid arteries.

#2 is right. There was a sad case in Oklahoma several years ago where a pharmacist went to jail because he shot and killed a robber after the threat of injury from the robber had been ended by an earlier shot.

The "teens" were identified when they dropped their Sons Of Norway membership cards.

Biden would have handled this much better. He said to stay inside and shoot them through the door with a shotgun.

#5, you CAN use deadly force to protect yourself. You CANNOT legally use deadly force to protect property. Those are the laws. I live in reality, and regardless of whether I like it or not, those are the laws. If you want to change the laws, I wish you well, hope you are able to do it. My bet is that there will not be a law permitting defense of property with deadly force any time soon.

This is the same reason why the Capitol Shooter should have been charged. You don't get to kill unarmed people.

Asia and Shaddi? The Atlanta urinal? You believe these two writers? For this radical left news rag? TEENS SHOT!!! The victim was a man of color The perps were men of color Should let this be a lesson to other “TEENS”.....

I would not vote to convict the shooter in this case. The so called teens are terrorists and got the justice they earned.

#11 Unarmed people murder several hundred US Citizens each year. Every human possess an inalienable right to self defence. Exodus 22:2... God has a stated position on this specific property protection situation.

One of my favorite visits to the US was looking outside my Holiday Inn window and across the street was a Waffle House with the W burned out. Obviously pronounced Awful House.

Getting shot during the commission of a burglary should simply be considered and treated as an "occupational hazard".

#10, you can in Texas. I direct your attention to Texas Penal Code Sec. 9.42: Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property: (1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and (2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary: (A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or (B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and (3) he reasonably believes that: (A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or (B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

I worked in S. Dekalb County in public health in the 1990s. It was the da 'hood then, as well. Sounds like nothing has changed.

Yes, the shooter was clearly black. If not, it would have been breathlessly reported and the Waffle House would already be in flames like the nearby Wendy's last summer. #2 makes some good points and I fully understand that if you so much as draw your weapon outside of your home you're already on thin ice with the law. But given the restrictions on civilian use of firearms in defense against a crime, odd how the police get to shoot just about any fleeing suspect in the back and rarely face charges. Not defending any perp - it just seems like a huge leap in authority.

Where are the parents and maybe they need to be shot, too. What part of what I own is not yours have they not been taught?

#11, unarmed or armed is irrelevant. Given a large 'disparity of force', say a 25 year old linebacker type against an elderly person who is frail, an unarmed attack can be cause for use of deadly force against an unarmed attacker. A criminal breaking into your car with a gun in his pocket is armed, but you may not shoot him unless there is a credible threat of serious bodily injury or death. Armed can be a significant factor, but unarmed is not "undangerous". Roughly 20% of people who are murdered are killed with no weapon other than hands, feet, elbows, etc. "personal weapons" is how it is categorized in the DoJ stats. Not nearly as simple as "you can't shoot an unarmed person".

#17, I strongly urge you talk to a lawyer with criminal defense experience in Texas. Kansas has a similar law that clearly makes deadly force in defense of property legal. And yet, people can and DO go to prison for trying to protect property with force. Just because it is a law does not mean that it is enforced as written. I may well be enforced that way, I do not know, but perhaps not. Two lawyers in Kansas have advised me that "Yes, the law says it is legal. But you WILL go to prison if you do it." I'm not interested in being a test case.

What was the owner suppose to do ? Hand them the keys ? Parents ? Are you kidding ? Most of their mothers are on drugs, in jail or dead and grandma can't control them. But hey, if you keep throwing free stuff at them, keep telling them they are black and have rights, they will become doctors /s

I don't disagree, #23, but if you use a gun on them, YOU will go to prison. Personally, it's not worth it to me.