Guy Gets caught breaking into trailers, Killed

[shadow7663]

How would YOU stop a thief? Fixing the system will take decades. The cops can't do it. He is in your house now, how do would YOU stop him, right now, this minute?

You're comparing apples to oranges. The thief was stealing from a trailer as stated here many times. The 4 employee's made a decision to engage the suspect who at the time was NOT an immanent threat to cause anyone great bodily harm, rape them or cause death (Which by the way is the only time you have a legal right to take another humans life). Therefore these 4 employee's should have simply called police and not engage in their form of vigilante justice.

Now as to your second animated situation of an intruder in my house and my response would depend on many different factors and I really don't care to engage in that debate as your singe response will be a thief is in your house, shoot to kill.

P.S. I also live in Michigan (like you), have a C.P.L. along with a very large collection of guns. Just because I am pro gun and carry concealed doesn't give me the right to take another humans life because said human is stealing my personal property. Do not mistake your right of gun ownership with a license to kill.

 

[layoutshooter]

You're comparing apples to oranges. The thief was stealing from a trailer as stated here many times. The 4 employee's made a decision to engage the suspect who at the time was NOT an immanent threat to cause anyone great bodily harm, rape them or cause death (Which by the way is the only time you have a legal right to take another humans life). Therefore these 4 employee's should have simply called police and not engage in their form of vigilante justice.

Now as to your second animated situation of an intruder in my house and my response would depend on many different factors and I really don't care to engage in that debate as your singe response will be a thief is in your house, shoot to kill.

P.S. I also live in Michigan (like you), have a C.P.L. along with a very large collection of guns. Just because I am pro gun and carry concealed doesn't give me the right to take another humans life because said human is stealing my personal property. Do not mistake your right of gun ownership with a license to kill.

Not once have I said that firearms ownership was a "license" to kill. I do, however, reserve the right to protect my family, my self and my legally owned property. IF that requires the use of a firearm, so be it. No one has a right to steal.

My house in England and in Michigan were robbed. In both cases I was not at home. Had I been home, in either place, it is a very logical assumption that our lives would be in danger if someone invades our home.

We ALL the the right to take a human life. The right of self defense is one of the most basic of human rights. It is a right I would chose not to exercise in all but the most extreme circumstances. Home invasion is such an extreme. On the street, at my age and condition, use of force is about my only defense against a punk who would attack, car jack etc.

We have "kids" on the street, knocking out people as a game. I cannot out run or out fight those kinds of "people". If you can, more power to you.

IF I wait for the cops to stop a robbery at my house I might as well help the thieves load the stuff up. The normal response time out as far as I live would be around 20 minutes, unless there just happened to be a cop care in my part of the county.

We should not even have to be having these discussions. We should all be 100% safe in every aspect of our lives. People make choices, that CHOOSE to become criminals, for what ever reason. There is no right to steal, rob or attack others lives or property. The cost of such crime is staggering. The damage even a simple break in does is horrible. It is not the loss of property, it is the loss of feeling safe in your home that is the biggest loss.

 

[shadow7663]

Again you're bringing in many animated factors to the original story. You are also make many assumptions and they are pointless and not relevant to the original post.

The facts remain the same. Yes there was a thief, He was NOT an immanent threat to ANYONE. Thief died after being beat by 4 employee's. That's it very simple. In fact I can even take this a step further to protect the thief by now saying he had a right to defend himself against the 4 employee's who were obviously there to commit great bodily harm to him and he had a right to defend himself. Now that the tables are turned, What do you say ? Again remember to stick with the facts. The suspect was unarmed, on private property (doesn't matter who owns it) and in your own words he has a basic right of self defense. His obvious intent was to steal for what reason is unknown and he was not a threat to anyone until he was approached.

 

[runrunner]

May be, but probation is not enough. I say cut off a hand!

Sent from my SCH-I605 using EO Forums mobile app

That's what the Arabs do.

Execution Central: Saudi Arabia's Bloody Chop-Chop Square

 

[runrunner]

Not once have I said that firearms ownership was a "license" to kill. I do, however, reserve the right to protect my family, my self and my legally owned property. IF that requires the use of a firearm, so be it. No one has a right to steal.

My house in England and in Michigan were robbed. In both cases I was not at home. Had I been home, in either place, it is a very logical assumption that our lives would be in danger if someone invades our home.

We ALL the the right to take a human life. The right of self defense is one of the most basic of human rights. It is a right I would chose not to exercise in all but the most extreme circumstances. Home invasion is such an extreme. On the street, at my age and condition, use of force is about my only defense against a punk who would attack, car jack etc.

We have "kids" on the street, knocking out people as a game. I cannot out run or out fight those kinds of "people". If you can, more power to you.

IF I wait for the cops to stop a robbery at my house I might as well help the thieves load the stuff up. The normal response time out as far as I live would be around 20 minutes, unless there just happened to be a cop care in my part of the county.

We should not even have to be having these discussions. We should all be 100% safe in every aspect of our lives. People make choices, that CHOOSE to become criminals, for what ever reason. There is no right to steal, rob or attack others lives or property. The cost of such crime is staggering. The damage even a simple break in does is horrible. It is not the loss of property, it is the loss of feeling safe in your home that is the biggest loss.

This is America,those men beat that thief to death,because they had an excuse,they could have held him till the police arrived. It is up to the courts to punish a criminal,you know ,justice for all.

A patriot doesn't just wave the flag,they live the principles. In this great land,people are promised a fair trial, unless an angry mop beats them to death.

 

[layoutshooter]

This is America,those men beat that thief to death,because they had an excuse,they could have held him till the police arrived. It is up to the courts to punish a criminal,you know ,justice for all.

A patriot doesn't just wave the flag,they live the principles. In this great land,people are promised a fair trial, unless an angry mop beats them to death.

This is America, we have the right to own and protect our lives and property. Justice? In THIS country? The punk, crack heads who broke into my home here had a record a MILE long. They keep putting them back out on the street. The ONLY one of the TWO who broke in, was ONLY given 5 years, in spite of his criminal past, and was out in one, committing crimes again. There is no justice. There is no concern for public safety. Mobs are the result of non-existent justice. Want it to stop? I do, it won't until we start locking these thugs up for good.

 

[xiggi]

Reading this thread is the only time I've felt a warm wind in months.

sent from my Fisher Price - ABC123

 

[OntarioVanMan]

Oh now it's time for personal justice.....the same system your defending, you are critical of....YES your belongings deserve protection..BUT you don't shoot or beat a man to death...you have no right to do that.....what are you protecting in an unconscious person?...

Now your a vigilante?....despersing your own justice at the expense to that thieves rights to a fair trial...ALL American are equal under the law...even that thiefs.....the same constitution you are claiming to be defending....but only the parts YOU like...

 

[usafk9]

Not once have I said that firearms ownership was a "license" to kill. I do, however, reserve the right to protect my family, my self and my legally owned property. IF that requires the use of a firearm, so be it. No one has a right to steal.

My house in England and in Michigan were robbed. In both cases I was not at home. Had I been home, in either place, it is a very logical assumption that our lives would be in danger if someone invades our home.

You weren't robbed. You were burglarized. Huge difference.


Sent from my DROID RAZR using EO Forums mobile app

 

[layoutshooter]

You weren't robbed. You were burglarized. Huge difference.


Sent from my DROID RAZR using EO Forums mobile app

Yes, you are correct. BOTH crimes are equally ILLEGAL. Those crack head punks should not have even been on the street in the first place with multiple felony convictions. No matter what BOTH were in MY house, which they had NO right to be in. They were not there by accident or mistake, they are scum punks, period.

 

[layoutshooter]

Oh now it's time for personal justice.....the same system your defending, you are critical of....YES your belongings deserve protection..BUT you don't shoot or beat a man to death...you have no right to do that.....what are you protecting in an unconscious person?...

Now your a vigilante?....despersing your own justice at the expense to that thieves rights to a fair trial...ALL American are equal under the law...even that thiefs.....the same constitution you are claiming to be defending....but only the parts YOU like...

In a JUST world I would not need locks. There would be no crack head punks breaking into houses. In a JUST world I would have no need to defend our home or safety, there would be no criminals.

Justice includes freedom from crime. We do not have that.

NO one need fear me, I will NEVER start ANYTHING, I only will react to your actions.

The rights of the every day citizen are NOT being protected. Not by government, not by the criminal.

There is NO valid reason for anyone to suffer a loss, either of property or health, due to the actions of common scum. Crime is 100% a choice, not a "mistake".

When my house was broken into there was NOT a "fair" trail. One punk got no time at all, because he ratted out the other punk. Got away with everything. The other punk only got 5 years, even with multiple felony convictions, and was out in two. How is that "fair? How is that "justice"? The biggest losers were law abiding citizens. Why? The same two punks were right at it again. NOTHING changed.

When does it end?

My brother just got off of jury duty, the convicted the thug on attempted murder charges. Several of the jurors where threatened with violence if they convicted. Two, not my brother, had "love notes" on their windshields telling them that they would be killed if they convicted. ALL had to be escorted to their cars. Their lives are now in danger and NOTHING will be done to protect them. The thug will be out in a couple of years and free to go after them all. IF they defend themselves, well, you know.

 

[runrunner]

In a JUST world I would not need locks. There would be no crack head punks breaking into houses. In a JUST world I would have no need to defend our home or safety, there would be no criminals.

Justice includes freedom from crime. We do not have that.

NO one need fear me, I will NEVER start ANYTHING, I only will react to your actions.

Justice, is being held for court and tried by a jury or a judge,not being beat to death at the scene.

 

[layoutshooter]

Justice, is being held for court and tried by a jury or a judge,not being beat to death at the scene.

Justice is not being subject to crime in the first place. Short of that, there is no justice.

There is no justice for law abiding citizens. Now matter what happens, when they are the victim of a crime they ALWAYS lose. Justice goes FAR beyond the courts, a "just" society needs not fear criminal activity. Justice would insure that there could NEVER be the career criminals we have today. IF there were this "justice" we would not see people resorting to this, for they would know that THEIR rights would be protected. Right now the KNOW that they are not.

Mob rule will end, when and only when, the "justice system" starts being one.

Mob rule is the result of the lack of justice.

 

[skyraider]

I must be in a good today. I would normally jump in with cannon and grape shot, but not today. I'm still stuck on the mob killing a dude for breaking into the trailers. Yes, stealing is not good, but beating this guy to death may not play well in court. Just my 10 cents worth..

 

[Brisco]

Again you're bringing in many animated factors to the original story. You are also make many assumptions and they are pointless and not relevant to the original post.

The facts remain the same. Yes there was a thief, He was NOT an immanent threat to ANYONE. Thief died after being beat by 4 employee's. That's it very simple. In fact I can even take this a step further to protect the thief by now saying he had a right to defend himself against the 4 employee's who were obviously there to commit great bodily harm to him and he had a right to defend himself. Now that the tables are turned, What do you say ? Again remember to stick with the facts. The suspect was unarmed, on private property (doesn't matter who owns it) and in your own words he has a basic right of self defense. His obvious intent was to steal for what reason is unknown and he was not a threat to anyone until he was approached.

You sure have come up with a LOT OF FACTS from these 2 articles......the ONLY 2 articles.......published about this guy allegedly being beaten to death by mob rule.....

ST. LOUIS • St. Louis police are investigating the death of a man beaten by employees of a trucking company who believed he had been breaking into trailers.

Authorities identified the man on Monday as Charles Lee Bell, 55, of the 4500 block of Alice Avenue.



Homicide detectives were called at 7:35 a.m. Sunday to Central Transport International at 540 Gimblin Road. The company, off Hall Street in north St. Louis, hauls freight across the country.

Employees at the company told police they caught a man breaking into trailers. They told police that the man indicated that he was armed with a gun. Police said a struggle ensued and three or four employees were able to subdue the man until police arrived. No weapon was recovered.

The man was taken unresponsive to a hospital, where he was pronounced dead.

Police ID alleged thief who died after being beaten by employees at St. Louis trucking company : News

ST. LOUIS (KSDK) – The man who died after getting into a confrontation with Central Transport employees while he was breaking into trailers on the property has been identified as 55-year-old Charles Lee Bell.

Employees say Bell, when confronted, said he had a gun. A struggle ensued, and they were able to restrain him until police arrived.

Bell was unresponsive, and later pronounced dead at a local hospital. No weapon was recovered from the scene.

Authorities haven't yet determined the cause of Bell's death. The Homicide Unit is leading the investigation.

No additional information was immediately available.

Man killed after confrontation with Central Transport employees identified

Kinda like to know where you're getting YOUR Facts from................Cause I sure CANNOT find any more information about this case ANYWHERE.

All in all........we've all taken a more personal approach to this one story..........me included.

I still feel like other Medical Conditions caused his Death.....and NOT the beating itself. Suspects die every day while fighting with Police when the Police were trying to Subdue them........and 90% of the deaths are due to over exerting a Medical Condition while fighting with their Subdue-rs.

I bet this whole DFW area had 12 cases last year alone where the Criminal Element died shortly after fighting with Law Enforcement where the Families.....and so called "Witnesses".......Spread their Hate all over the TV Channels saying the Police "BEAT" the person to death.......Only to have the Medical Examiner totally refute their claims with the actual cause of their Death........in other words.........THE FACTS.

Either way.......Charles Lee Bell is Dead......His Death was instigated at his own hands when he decided to commit a criminal act......and the whole city of St Louis......HELL.....the whole STATE of Missouri......is now just a tad bit safer THANKS to the actions Charles Lee Bell himself put in play that day.

 

[Turtle]

Was he actually trying to break into trailers? Was he actually trying to steal anything? Even those facts are yet to be determined.

 

[OntarioVanMan]

Was he actually trying to break into trailers? Was he actually trying to steal anything? Even those facts are yet to be determined.

absolutely...could have breaking in just for a place out of the wind for shelter....yet to be determined...can you imagine the travesty?.....

 

[jujubeans]

one of the quotes on the news article says it pretty well.... "An investigation needs to be conducted. However, I have been taught that when you make choices on your behavior, you don't get to choose your consequences."

 

[layoutshooter]

"Company employees told police they caught a man breaking into trailers, and a struggle ensued after he told them he was armed with a gun."


I guess, assuming of course that this is all true, that IF a man is breaking into trailers and he SAYS he is armed with a gun, that "A" you should believe it, and "B" IF you are going to DO something about it, all bets are off. HE said he was armed.

AGAIN, ASSUMING THIS IS ALL TRUE,

we KNOW that:

The man was on private property

The man was caught breaking into trailers on private property

The man claimed he was armed with a gun.

That would make him a threat to the company, the employees lively hood, and since he stated that he was armed, a direct threat to those employees lives. They neutralized a REAL threat. One does not have to see the weapon to act on the "FACT" that he claimed he had it. It it MORE than reasonable to assume that IF a criminal is committing a crime and openly states that he/she/it is armed, that threat should be taken seriously.

 

[zorry]

Who says the criminal said he was armed ?
Only the people that benefit from that statement ?
Hummm....