Tractor flips

• Tractor flips

I'm tired of criminals to but after thinking about this accident I think we can almost hear his last thought. "I'll just raise the 3 pt a bit and it will give me more traction and tip the front of the safe up out of the mud a bit".

Either that, or he was pulling it from the top link.

Shoot, at the price of scrap just the weight of the safe made it worth hauling off.

I wonder how many remember when most businesses had safes and did NOT use banks for daily transactions? Funny one from my little home town was the safe at the feed store. Big heavy dude with those fat cast iron casters under it. This one probably had not been moved since the feed store was built. The casters were sinking into the wood. Couldn't have moved it if God said to. Which I think he did one weekend. It fell through the floor and dropped in the dirt below so it made a good end table. It may have still been there when they bulldozed the place.

1-The bad guy must have the means to cause injury (ie. He must have a knife)

2-The bad guy must have the ability to use it (He must be within striking distance with the knife. This is where the supposed 21' 'rule' comes from)

3-The threat must be imminent (If he is asleep with the knife in his hand next to you there is no imminent threat.)

Here is an excerpt from the current Oregon Revised Statutes:

161.255 (2) A private person acting under the circumstances prescribed in subsection (1) of this section is justified in using deadly physical force only when the person reasonably believes it necessary for self-defense or to defend a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of deadly physical force. [1971 c.743 §31; 1973 c.836 §339]

Anyone considering using deadly force should spend some time reading the laws and getting some further education.

While I can't speak for other states, Oregon won't let you shoot a fleeing felon absent an imminent threat of physical injury or death. Regardless of what others have posted I suspect their states have similar laws regarding the use of deadly force.

Here in Texas we are allowed to use deadly force to prevent a person from stealing personal property. If the person drops whatever they are stealing you must let them go...if they refuse and continue to try to leave you can kill them. Period. Just make sure the body is on your property when the law shows up. By the way you can shoot a person for criminal tresspass (inside your house) if it happens at night.

I'll be honest with you, for instance, when a preditor steals from someone else, and that victom maybe shoots and kills, or whatever, often the question I hear anymore is "Why would someone kill over an inadement (however spelled) object". Those kinds of questions make my blood boil. The way that I see it, someone gives up and sacrifices time from their life to get those "possesions", which means that if preditors steal those "possesions" that someone gave up a good part of their life and time for, then preditors obviously don't mind taking life - why should I mind someone returning the favor? I'm not convicting the kid, that's for forensic science to do.

Some years ago, some youngsters took their 4x4 wheeling through a neighbor's corn field. Doing figure 8's and destroying a lot of corn. Neighbor caught them at shotgun point, and held them until the sheriff came and hauled them off. The law says that my neighbor had the right to hold the vehical in leiu of having the sheriff having it impounded. My neighbor promptly got on the dozer and built a berm around the 4x4 so it wouldn't move or be moved. Big mistake. The law also says that as the land owner that holds/impounds/whatever the vehical, the landowner then assumes responsibility for the safety of the vehical. Someone(s) came over and strpped that 4x4 clean, so my neighbor was out the damage of the field, as well as that 4x4. Mmm Mmm.

When I saw the picture of the tractor, my first thought was "gotta watch that clay, tires'll spin a bit at first until the safe gets dug in, then they do - High Ol' Silver, away!".

Perhaps the young man's death is/was unfortunate, but then again, this world's out of his misery.

This has been an interesting discussion, I enjoy the comments of all so far.

--->Paul

I was voting for him to be caned, as he broke the law & that was the law there. Severe yes, but not capital punishment or removing a finger or something, so let the laws be applied.

--->Paul

--->Paul

Morally, it is pretty easy to figure this one out if you read the whole story. Legal & moral are 2 very different things in the USA, and I presume the UK, and elsewhere.

Legally, the estate is going to lose even more money because they were mixed up with this person. Unforunately, that is the legal way of things. In the USA anyhow.

The fact that he is dead and will not be persued legally for trying to steal something only improves the odds the estate owning the safe will be sued, as legally it will be difficult to blame a dead thief that has not been charged with anything.

Morally, it is a shame the kid died but it was of his own doing & greed, so my feelings go out the relatives of the safe's rightful owner, who have to live with the sadness of his death, & deal with possible greedy relatives.

Am I prejudging & guessing?

You bet.

I also bet I'm right.

Welcome to society. Been happening for a few 1000 years now at least. :)

--->Paul