Charlotte man 70 shoots fleeing thief 3 times.


PDA






jsalcedo
December 14, 2005, 03:38 PM
Charlotte man, 70, shoots intruder

Charlotte-Mecklenburg police say a 70-year-old man confronted two intruders who had broken into the tool shed of his southwest Charlotte home Monday morning, shooting one at least three times.
The incident occurred on Sleepy Hollow Road. According to police reports, the homeowner confronted three men in his driveway shortly after 10 a.m. as they carried power tools and fishing rods out of his shed. As the men jumped into a sport-utility vehicle, Bailey shot at the driver with a handgun, police reports said.The men drove away but later crashed near the 5000 block of South Tryon Street, according to police records. Alvin Quintin Douglas, 42, was taken to Carolinas Medical Center and treated for gunshot wounds, reports said. No arrests were made; police said the district attorney's office would determine whether any charges will be filed, police said. -- April Bethea

If you enjoyed reading about "Charlotte man 70 shoots fleeing thief 3 times." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
jsalcedo
December 14, 2005, 03:40 PM
I hope this guy isn't charged.

We see many discussions here on THR about the legality and morality of shooting when there is no immediate danger.

Lupinus
December 14, 2005, 03:41 PM
Good for him, if this happened more people would begin thinking twice before robbing people. Course since they proved no immediate danger since they were fleeing the scene he will likly end up in court :cuss:

Thefabulousfink
December 14, 2005, 04:09 PM
Shouldn't it be enough that he was protecting his home and his property. Far to often things like this end up in court and people seem to forget that the ones who got shot were COMMITING A CRIME.:banghead:

1911Tuner
December 14, 2005, 04:18 PM
He'll probably wind up in court. The thief was no immediate danger to him or to those he is authorized to protect.

That said...it illustrates perfectly the difference between the mindsets of the
"Old Man vs the "Young Man."


Youg man says:

"I'm gonna mess you up! I'm gonna bust yo' head and dare you ta holler!
I'll slap the taste right outta yo' mouth! Come on down here and GIT some!
It'll be worth payin' yo' doctor bills and a fine!"

Old Man thinks:

"Well...I've lived my life, and I ain't really got anything that I wanna do except sit around the house. Time goes real fast these days, and I probably ain't gonna have too much longer to deal with this old world. If I go to prison,
they've gotta feed me three squares a day...gimme a place to sleep...and I can just lay around in the cell 24/7/365 if I want to. I'll have free medical and dental...and I don't hafta pay bills. Hell...Why NOT shoot the thievin' little S.O.B. ??"

Best leave old men alone.:evil:

Alex45ACP
December 14, 2005, 04:21 PM
"They came right at me officer. I was in fear for my life."

:D

Phyphor
December 14, 2005, 04:24 PM
He'll probably wind up in court. The thief was no immediate danger to him or to those he is authorized to protect.

That said...it illustrates perfectly the difference between the mindsets of the
"Old Man vs the "Young Man."


Youg man says:

"I'm gonna mess you up! I'm gonna bust yo' head and dare you ta holler!
I'll slap the taste right outta yo' mouth! Come on down here and GIT some!
It'll be worth payin' yo' doctor bills and a fine!"

Old Man thinks:

"Well...I've lived my life, and I ain't really got anything that I wanna do except sit around the house. Time goes real fast these days, and I probably ain't gonna have too much longer to deal with this old world. If I go to prison,
they've gotta feed me three squares a day...gimme a place to sleep...and I can just lay around in the cell 24/7/365 if I want to. I'll have free medical and dental...and I don't hafta pay bills. Hell...Why NOT shoot the thievin' little S.O.B. ??"

Best leave old men alone.:evil:


Thus, is proven the ancient quote "Age and Treachery will always beat youth and skill. " :neener:

Waitone
December 14, 2005, 04:48 PM
NC CCH law does not permit the use of deadly force to prevent property crime. By the statutes, he's pretty much in deep yogurt.

Charlotte Mecklenburg DA's office is now in a quandry. Grandly underfunded, it seeks to provide the illusion of justice by pleaing down to virtually nothing. Problem in the Chief of Police is not a pro-second amendment type. He's the guy who lied about citizen complaints of citizens open carrying in uptown Charlotte. The DA's office is awash in gang crime and associated violence. Seems robbery is up 40+% over last year yet prosecutions have not increased.

So here we have a high profile shooting which if played right could be used to limit carry, yet it points out how a citizen had no choice but take care of his own business BECAUSE THE FREAKIN' GOVERNMENT REFUSES TO PROSECUTE BADGUYS.

Really an interesting dilema.

Standing Wolf
December 14, 2005, 04:51 PM
We'd be a happier, safer, saner nation if the criminals feared us as much as we fear them.

Rob1035
December 14, 2005, 04:57 PM
Waitone said it. In NC, this guy is in trouble.

What's fun to hear is the hear this years crime statistics for Charlotte/Mecklenburg County juxtaposed to the statements by the law makers and LE folks in the area.

kart racer
December 14, 2005, 05:45 PM
The part that is bad,he shot the guy three times in the torso and once in the back-the back is gonna be hard to 'splain.The news said yesterday,if charged it will be assault,not attenpted murder.

Manedwolf
December 14, 2005, 06:19 PM
Shouldn't it be enough that he was protecting his home and his property. Far to often things like this end up in court and people seem to forget that the ones who got shot were COMMITING A CRIME.:banghead:

Or the fact that the same criminal might try to break in AGAIN...
But it's the law. Can't shoot them in the back when they're fleeing and have gotten outside the house, or you're likely going to jail.

MechAg94
December 14, 2005, 06:33 PM
On the one hand, I know that I cannot shoot an assailant if he is running away. It is a matter of legal self-preservation.

On the other hand, if I were on the jury, there is no way I would vote guilty against that guy. It really wouldn't matter to me if he was a younger guy or an older guy (in these circumstances presented in the article).

This reminds me of a story from Florida a while back where an old Grandma kills the two guys who raped her granddaughter. The police weren't acting serious about the case in her opinion so she drives around the motels and such looking for suspects that matched the description. She finds them and drives her granddaughter over there to ID them, then she comes back with a shotgun and kills both of them. The DA said he wouldn't press charges since no one would convict and it would be a waste of money. :)

Hardware
December 14, 2005, 07:30 PM
Back about ten years there was a highly publicized court case in Durham, NC where a man was home with his child and heard noises from his garage. He grabbed a rifle and went to investigate. Upon opening the connecting door to the garage he found three young gentlemen ransacking his property. Upon seeing he had a rifle they tried to flee by going around the opposite side of the minivan in the garage. But the door they had kicked in had wedged on the minivan and all three of them had to reverse course. This meant they were running toward the homeowner. He started firing when he realized the danger and kill one from the front, one in the garage from the back and crippled the third with shots to the back after pursuing him out the door and into the neighborhood.

End result, prosecuted for murder and ADW. Prosecution tried to play the race card. Hung jury. No second prosecution.

Sunbstantially different circumstances but I hope the Charlotte DA learns a lesson and lets this one go.

IndianaDean
December 14, 2005, 07:35 PM
Laws need to be changed. I think thieves should expect to get shot if they get caught by the owner, whether there's danger to the owner or not.

1911Tuner
December 14, 2005, 08:15 PM
Laws need to be changed. I think thieves should expect to get shot if they get caught by the owner, whether there's danger to the owner or not.

Although I agree in part...I don't think I could bring myself to shoot somebody in the back. Catch'em in your house and if they don't hit the floor, sure. Shooting a man who's surrendered and attempting to comply with your commands seems a bit cold-blooded to me. Same goes for a man running with his back to me. Sorry. I just don't see it.

Lupinus
December 14, 2005, 08:37 PM
Laws need to be changed. I think thieves should expect to get shot if they get caught by the owner, whether there's danger to the owner or not.
100% agree.

I have said it before- Withen reasonable actions (can't shoot a guy on his knees begging you not to kill him, can't shoot a guy who in on the ground with hands behind his head, etc.) a home owner/property renter should be immune for prosecution or civil action resulting from an encounter with a person who has broken into his property.

gunsmith
December 14, 2005, 08:53 PM
I doubt he'll be convicted. In SF a year or so ago a fellow wrestled a gun away from the guys leaving his gargage and shot them in back...when the DA made noises about prosecuting the community outrage promted her not too.
If a young home owner in Frisco could shoot a fleeing felon in the back grandpa in NC probably could to.

Phyphor
December 14, 2005, 09:53 PM
Although I agree in part...I don't think I could bring myself to shoot somebody in the back. Catch'em in your house and if they don't hit the floor, sure. Shooting a man who's surrendered and attempting to comply with your commands seems a bit cold-blooded to me. Same goes for a man running with his back to me. Sorry. I just don't see it.


Same here. Once he's running, he's no longer a threat, at least at that time. Odds are, he will remember the mile-wide muzzle that was pointed at him (Yea, I know, in Tuner's case, it'd only be .45...but when one of those suckers is aimed at you, it LOOKS a mile wide, ) and he won't be back.

Of course, he might just decide to victimize someone else..... But one hopes they'll be armed as well...

MechAg94
December 14, 2005, 10:07 PM
I agree that I would not want to shoot a criminal in the back if I could help it, but that is one thing. Serving on a jury and deciding if I should vote guilty or not is quite another. Good Story Hardware!

Is seems to me that the problem with our laws is that there used to be traditions and "common law" that most Sherrifs and DA's did not prosecute such cases and judges respected the common law concept of self defense and defense of property. Now days, if it ain't spelled out word for word in the law, it don't exist. Common Law and traditions seem to be going extinct.

Rock and Glock
December 14, 2005, 10:12 PM
Thus, is proven the ancient quote "Age and Treachery will always beat youth and skill. " :neener:

Yep. :evil:

IndianaDean
December 18, 2005, 08:56 PM
Although I agree in part...I don't think I could bring myself to shoot somebody in the back. Catch'em in your house and if they don't hit the floor, sure. Shooting a man who's surrendered and attempting to comply with your commands seems a bit cold-blooded to me. Same goes for a man running with his back to me. Sorry. I just don't see it.

Surrendering is one thing. Fleeing is trying to get away, to live another day and attack someone else who may not be able to defend themselves.

Crom
December 18, 2005, 09:07 PM
Surrendering is one thing. Fleeing is trying to get away, to live another day and attack someone else who may not be able to defend themselves.

+1

drinks
December 18, 2005, 09:07 PM
He just picked the wrong state, in Texas ,the law allows deadly force to stop a person fleeing, if you are trying to prevent them taking something, and it would be hard to prove that the homeowner knew if/ that they had not taken anything.

:eek:

1911Tuner
December 18, 2005, 09:47 PM
Surrendering is one thing. Fleeing is trying to get away, to live another day and attack someone else who may not be able to defend themselves.

I ain't tellin' ya NOT to shoot...but I'm bettin' that if you do, you'll wish you hadn't before it's all over. As a wise man once noted: "Shoot. Don't Shoot.
Either way, you'll regret it."

As for me, I'm not too keen on dealing with my own conscience or the repercussions of shooting a man in the back who only wants to get away.
And there will be repercussions. If not legal problems, there's always civil
suits that'll likely bleed you dry. From the vicim if he lives. From the family if he doesn't...and even if you don't have to pay, there's always acts of vengeance by friends and family to consider, and these rarely come at you head-on when you can fight back. It's usually a molotov cocktail in the wee hours or violence against your family when you're not there to help. These things have a nasty way of going on for years...or for life. All this...with the notion of keeping him from something that he MIGHT do later...because he was stealing?

williamlayton
December 19, 2005, 05:25 AM
There is always the problem with adrenalin and instant decisions under the heat.
There is always the second guessing.
I like texas law--always have--YOU start it, I will finish it and it aint finished til I say.
Blessings

If you enjoyed reading about "Charlotte man 70 shoots fleeing thief 3 times." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!