[Partisan Ranger]

Here is a story in my local paper about a gun owner who chased a teenager who stole his car and them shot her :scrutiny: Not a real smart thing to do, unless sitting in a jail cell is your goal.



Suspected Car Thief, 15, Shot in Head
By Tim Allen
The Winchester Star


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A 15-year-old girl was shot in the head after allegedly stealing a man’s car early Saturday morning.

Capt. John Heflin with the Frederick County Sheriff’s Office said that Shane Henry, 29, of the Burning Knolls subdivision in Frederick County, was arrested and charged with shooting into an occupied vehicle after he allegedly shot the juvenile suspected of stealing his car.

Heflin said the girl was taken to Winchester Medical Center, and he believed she was treated and released. He did not release her name because state law does not allow the release of the names of juveniles.

WMC, citing federal privacy law, will not disclose information about its patients.

At about 2:20 a.m. Saturday, Heflin said, Henry noticed his vehicle being stolen from his residence at 121 Broad Ave. off Senseny Road. He pursued the car in another vehicle he owns.

The chase crossed Senseny Road into the Sovereign Village subdivision, where the girl and another juvenile passenger traveled into a cul-de-sac, Heflin said.

After the vehicle turned around in the cul-de-sac, Henry allegedly shot the driver as he met the vehicle, Heflin said.

Heflin said the car ended up on Dixie Belle Drive and stopped after hitting a fence.

Heflin said no charges were filed against either of the two juveniles by Frederick County Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court officials.

“They said the two juveniles did not meet the criteria to be detained,” Heflin said. “They have a points system, based on the seriousness of the offense and the criminal history of the subject, that determines whether they choose to detain a subject.”

Henry is being held in the Regional Jail pending a bond hearing today in Frederick County General District Court.

The investigation for forensic evidence continues, and Heflin encouraged anyone with information about the incident to call Investigator Dave Ellinger with the Sheriff’s Office at (540) 667-0240.

[hops]

What? Steal a car or shoot the sob's who are stealing my livelyhood?

Oh, never mind. We're supposed to use public transportation anyway.

[Erik]

State laws may vary, but shooting someone for stealing property, especially while they are outside of your home, is a big no-no in most places, for better or worse.

[Partisan Ranger]

I would reckon that both activities (stealing a car, and shooting at someone who stole your car) are most decidedly unwise things to do. That gun owner should know that you cannot shoot someone for stealing your property.

[Gordon Fink]

Whether the shooter was right or wrong, legally or otherwise, there is now one less car thief in the world.

~G. Fink

[El Tejon]

Don't play Batman.

Problem #2 is no fun.

[Delmar]

I guess its okay to slave your rear end off for what you have, only to have some punk take it-thats quite all right punk, just take it and do what you will-the courts don't think its a crime. Just a suggestion-why don't you steal the judges or mayors car instead???:fire: :fire: :cuss: :cuss: :scrutiny: :banghead: :barf:

[jsalcedo]

There are places here in the US where you are within your rights to shoot someone in order to protect your property.

Young and old alike need to know if you steal someones property, death could be a very real consequence.

[Carlos]

That gun owner should know that you cannot shoot someone for stealing your property.

Perhaps where you live. Here, I can, but I would not be stupid enough to take chase and shoot very far from home.

[El Tejon]

Del, no, it is not O.K., but just because you have a firearm does not mean one gets to use deadly force whenever one decides.:uhoh:

[4v50 Gary]

Concur. Unless the situation warranted the use of deadly force or you're in a state that permits the use of deadly force to recovery chattel, don't ever do this. It's not worth the jail time or the lawsuits that follow.

[TarpleyG]

charged with shooting into an occupied vehicle
While I agree that he did a bad thing, the fact that this is actually a charge that can be brought against someone makes me want to :banghead:. Yet another exemplary display of implementing another law when there is already one to handle the situation. How's about "attempted murder" or "assault with a deadly weapon?"

GT

[HankB]

“They said the two juveniles did not meet the criteria to be detained,” Heflin said. “They have a points system, based on the seriousness of the offense and the criminal history of the subject, that determines whether they choose to detain a subject.” Makes it sound like in this jurisdiction, Grand Theft Auto is about equivalent to jaywalking or spitting on the sidewalk. :mad:

[TallPine]

“They said the two juveniles did not meet the criteria to be detained,” Heflin said. “They have a points system, based on the seriousness of the offense and the criminal history of the subject, that determines whether they choose to detain a subject.”

So, you can't protect your property, and the police won't even arrest the thieves ...?

[Edward429451]

At first glance it does have the ring of overkill to it. But who knows how much of the owners livelyhood depended on that vehicle, so I wont go there.

Back in cowboy days, they used to hang horse thieves, how is this different?

(Men were not hung for stealing horses, but that horses be not stolen.)

[Standing Wolf]

“They said the two juveniles did not meet the criteria to be detained,” Heflin said. “They have a points system, based on the seriousness of the offense and the criminal history of the subject, that determines whether they choose to detain a subject.”

Score one for the looters.

[Duncan Idaho]

So, you can't protect your property, and the police won't even arrest the thieves ...?Yep! Nice isn't it? Coming to a sheeple herd (state) near you.

[jimpeel]

He should say that he was reaching for his Taser and got his real gun by accident and then sue the manufacture of the Taser for training him poorly.

http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=33885

If he had shot her in Texas, he would be home now. There are laws on the books there, that go back to the days of horse theft, that allow deadly force for property crime.

[TexasVet]

Totally legal, no questions will be asked, shoot in Texas.
Meets all the criteria, after dark, preventing the escape of a thief with your property, etc. In most counties this would not even be presented to the grand jury.

[Dorian]

*wants to move to Texas*

*May screw up and get himself shot*

*not quite positive he wants to move to Texas*

[seeker_two]

Don't worry, Dorian. Even if an overzealous DA pushed for trial, neither Grand nor Petit juries would ask for conviction.

Jury nullification is alive & well in the great state of Texas...:D

(Now, if Dorian is a car thief, he might ought to worry...:evil: )

[tommytrauma]

Whether the shooter was right or wrong, legally or otherwise, there is now one less car thief in the world.

Nope. Doesn't sound like it.


Heflin said the girl was taken to Winchester Medical Center, and he believed she was treated and released.
Hell, if you read the article, you'll see that she wasn't even ARRESTED for her crime. I'm betting that she nets a bundle in a civil lawsuit.

[LawDog]

§ 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.

The highlighted part is what bites people on the butt in Texas.

Was there a way to recover the property without shooting the girl in the head?

Did he have a cell phone? Could he have called the police, and given them directions to the stolen car while following it?

Could he have pulled the vehicle across the mouth of the cul de sac that the girls were trapped in and prevented them from leaving the cul de sac in the stolen car?

The Grand Jury would review these questions and probably more, and if the Grand Jury thought that a 'yes' might answer any of them, then he would be 'True Billed' and bound over for trial.

LawDog

[El Tejon]

Oh, bother, Law Dog, there you go again citing the law.:rolleyes:

That's not what the guy in the BDUs at the gun shoppe told me!:D

[Edward429451]

:uhoh: :D

[telomerase]

>If he had shot her in Texas, he would be home now. There are laws on the books there, that go back to the days of horse theft, that allow deadly force for property crime.

True. But the law in Texas since 1990 or so also states that you must retreat, even from your own home, rather than shoot if someone threatens your life (obviously this part of the law was added much later). So you can shoot someone in the back if they steal a hubcap and run, but you're supposed to try to dive out a window to escape a home intruder.

Just have to hope the jury has some brains....

[LawDog]

True. But the law in Texas since 1990 or so also states that you must retreat, even from your own home, rather than shoot if someone threatens your life

It does?! Since when?!

I've been in Texas law enforcement since 1993, and I am considered to be somewhat better versed in the Texas Penal Code and Code of Criminal Procedure than most, and I don't recall a duty to retreat section anywhere in Texas law.
I do, however, know of this part:§ 9.32. Deadly Force in Defense of Person
(a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:

(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31;

(2) if a reasonable person in the actor's situation would not have retreated; and

(3) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A) to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or

(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.

(b) The requirement imposed by Subsection (a)(2) does not apply to an actor who uses force against a person who is at the time of the use of force committing an offense of unlawful entry in the habitation of the actor.

Highlight is mine.

LawDog

[TexasVet]

The highlighted part is what bites people on the butt in Texas.
LawDog, this so rarely actually bites anybody around here that I'm a little surprised you even mentioned it. Looks like this would have been the first thing mentioned when the dude in Houston popped the (totally legal) repo guy a few years back, but the Houston DA didn't even bring it up. Dude was no-billed in near record time.
And I know for a fact, that no rural east Texas county around me has considered bringing charges against a theft victim who shot a thief in at least the last 10 years that I've been out here in the boonies.
I can see this happening in Austintacious or Plano and MAYBE a few other of the more liberal areas of Texas (San Antonio is getting a little lefty), but juries tend to be pretty forgiving even in those areas.

[telomerase]

Back in 199X I was shown (2) without 3 b. Sorry for the partial remembering; maybe hexapodia is not the key factor here. (In other words I was using a pre-Web memory from when fact-checking was hard... have to remember not to do that.)