Homeowner pursues suspected thief, shoots him


PDA






funnybone
April 27, 2008, 11:22 PM
Homeowner pursues suspected thief, shoots him
by Brent Whiting - Apr. 25, 2008 11:46 AM
The Arizona Republic
Police are sorting out a shooting that took place early Friday in northwest Phoenix, resulting in the wounding of a suspected auto burglar and the closing of 43rd Avenue south of Bell Road.

The injured man, who suffered wounds that were not life-threatening, was shot by an irate homeowner who told officers he gave chase and fired after somebody tried to break into his vehicle, police said.

There were no immediate arrests as investigators gathered evidence and tried to determine whether the shooter, under the facts of the case, was justified in using deadly force, said Detective Stacie Derge, a Phoenix police spokeswoman.
"Nobody is in custody," Derge said. "We have a lot of investigation to do. We will look at the circumstances of the whole situation and determine what charges will be filed."

Neither the shooter nor the wounded man was identified.

According to Derge, the incident began shortly before 5 a.m. outside a home in the 18600 block of North 31st Drive, northwest of Union Hills Drive and Interstate 17.

The homeowner told police that his car alarm sounded and he stepped outside to see what was happening. He said somebody tried to break into his car and he saw a man walking away from the vehicle.

The suspected auto burglar stepped into a pickup truck and drove away, while the homeowner got into his vehicle, a Pontiac, and gave chase, following the man through surrounding neighborhoods.

Eventually, police said, they ended up on 43rd Avenue south of Bell Road, where the homeowner fired several rounds into the pickup truck, wounding the driver at least twice.

Both the wounded man and the homeowner drove home. A female passenger in the pickup truck escaped unharmed.

When the wounded man arrived home, family members drove him to a hospital for treatment. The homeowner, who also had a passenger in his vehicle, was contacted by police at his residence.

Police closed 43rd Avenue between Bell Road and Paradise Lane as officers processed evidence, including car parts and shell casings scattered in the southbound lanes of the roadway.

In general, Arizona allows the use of physical and deadly force if a "reasonable person" believes it is immediately necessary to prevent crimes such as arson, burglary, kidnapping and all forms of murder and sex crimes.

Under a measure that Gov. Janet Napolitano signed into law in April 2006, people are justified in using deadly physical force if they reasonably believe their life or the life of another is in danger.

In the event charges are brought in such a case, prosecutors must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant claiming self-defense had acted without justification.


http://www.azcentral.com/12news/news/artic...0425-ON-CP.html

I think he should have called the police. He could have got his plate number. Would you get by with this in your state?

If you enjoyed reading about "Homeowner pursues suspected thief, shoots him" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
TexasRifleman
April 27, 2008, 11:25 PM
Would you get by with this in your state?

I can't see how. If he'd managed to drive off in the stolen car maybe but chasing someone down after you've stopped the attempt at crime sounds like prison time to me.

The crazy thing to me is that the supposed victim of the attempted car theft wasn't the first one to call the cops.

I've always heard, though don't know it to be true, that the first one to call the cops is the "complainant" and the others are "suspects".

Seems to make sense.

.38 Special
April 27, 2008, 11:32 PM
In California, the shooter would have been taken into custody immediately, and rightly so, in my opinion.

Starship1st
April 27, 2008, 11:49 PM
It will be interesting to find out what happens with this case?:cool:

CWL
April 27, 2008, 11:53 PM
All that for a Pontiac...

Probably is isn't worth the retainer to hire a defense atty.

JerryM
April 27, 2008, 11:58 PM
Frankly I think such a thing should be legal, but it isn't in any state that I know of.

We have only a limited right to own property. It is limited in that we do not have the right to defend it unless we discern that our life is in danger.

Regards,
Jerry

owlhoot
April 28, 2008, 12:14 AM
This guy used very poor judgment. He will go to trial. Based on the skimpy info presented, the shooter did not see the guy at his vehicle. He was walking not running away. He was not shot at the scene of the purported attempt at theft. The shooter's property was secure. No crime had actually been committed. This shooter has no leg to stand on.

Standing Wolf
April 28, 2008, 12:21 AM
Frankly I think such a thing should be legal, but it isn't in any state that I know of.

Yep. We need to stop thinking of criminals' lives as being worth anything. The minute they undertake crimes, they make it clear their lives are of no value.

TexasRifleman
April 28, 2008, 12:27 AM
The minute they undertake crimes, they make it clear their lives are of no value.

The real problem with that however is more tactical than legal.

When you get it in your head to give chase, even if the laws were to permit it, you might very well find yourself chasing your lone car thief into his nest of 20 friends.

In this case for example the thief was not alone in the escape vehicle.
Chasing that unknown into the dark is a very bad idea in my opinion.

Jorg Nysgerrig
April 28, 2008, 12:31 AM
The minute they undertake crimes, they make it clear their lives are of no value.

So, if a person hits 26 mph on a residential street their life suddenly becomes worthless? I bet you loved that Star Trek episode where they were going to execute Wesley Crusher for stepping on the grass.

JerryM
April 28, 2008, 12:36 AM
Quote. "The minute they undertake crimes, they make it clear their lives are of no value." End quote

We fight wars and millions are killed for liberty which includes the right to own property. I think that criminal lives are worth less than the soldiers who fought for the right to own property.

I would agree that a loaf of bread does not qualify, but car theft does in my view. I do and will obey the law, however. The lawmakers did not and seem to never ask me.:D

Jerry

WayneConrad
April 28, 2008, 12:36 AM
Duplicate of this here thread (http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=358929).

mbt2001
April 28, 2008, 10:32 AM
I am tired of being victimized by thugs... I don't think the home owner should be prosecuted at all. If you don't have a car, you don't have a job. A lot like stealing a mans horse.

I am not encouraging this behavior, but when it happens I understand it. Unless there is more to the case, let everyone go on their way and book the perp for auto theft.

There were no immediate arrests as investigators gathered evidence and tried to determine whether the shooter, under the facts of the case, was justified in using deadly force, said Detective Stacie Derge

Well that is the problem, he didn't use deadly force, or the perp would be dead... So what's the issue?

ImARugerFan
April 28, 2008, 12:02 PM
Sorry, you're not allowed to shoot people for trying to steal your car stereo.

MakAttak
April 28, 2008, 12:06 PM
Sorry, you're not allowed to shoot people for trying to steal your car stereo.

You are in Texas!

(Not that I'm a Texan, I just wanted to be the first one to pipe in with that.)

Ltlabner
April 28, 2008, 12:09 PM
Bad decision making on the part of the shooter. Great...just what we need. Another lug-nut gunowner screwing things up for the rest of us that have common sense.

In Ohio can not employ deadly force to protect property. That the gunowners life was even being threatened is suspect, but even if it was, the threat of imminate danger clearly ends the second the theif turns tail and runs. Your justification for deadly force has thus ended.

You can not escleate the situation, and (IIRC) you have a duty to retreat. Chasing after the car-jacker certinally qualifies as "esclation" in my book. Once said car-jerker runs off, why not just let it be, call the cops and be on your way?

So now he's possibly going to have to spend thousands to defend himself all for a crappy Pontiac. Not to mention giving the anti's another "see what happens when people have guns" story.

Bad decision making.

distra
April 28, 2008, 12:34 PM
Can we say "State Farm, Geico, Progressive"? Insurance would pay if the car was stolen. It's not worth the risk of jail time or the legal fees. This guy could be driving a Mercedes for the legal fees he will be forking out. No state I know of will aquit you if you chase someone down, confront them, and shoot them in SD let alone fire into a vehicle. Unless of course you are NYPD...

WayneConrad
April 28, 2008, 12:38 PM
The shooter has been arrested, in jail, bad shoot. See the original thread (http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=358929) for details.

mbt2001
April 29, 2008, 12:49 PM
Bad decision making on the part of the shooter. Great...just what we need. Another lug-nut gunowner screwing things up for the rest of us that have common sense.

To make a law abiding person a criminal for taking action against criminals (esp. when he has been victimized by them several times) is not right. Certianly not fair. When a criminals breaks the law, he does not have protections. For instance, if he slips and falls because I mopped my floor that night, he shouldn't be allowed to sue. If he is injured in his quest for illgotten treasure, he undertook those risks when he decided to engage in that action.

Tom Hanks as Goldthwait Higginson Dorr, Ph.D. from the movie Ladykillers said it best:

"This is a criminal enterprise, not to put too fine a point on it, entailin' all manner a risks not involved in honest labor. Governmental regulations an' civic safeguards cannot be assumed to apply to antisocial pursuits."

Bazooka Joe71
April 29, 2008, 12:59 PM
The minute they undertake crimes, they make it clear their lives are of no value.

So, if a person hits 26 mph on a residential street their life suddenly becomes worthless? I bet you loved that Star Trek episode where they were going to execute Wesley Crusher for stepping on the grass.

C'mon Jorg, I think you know what he meant.:)

WayneConrad
April 29, 2008, 01:06 PM
mbt2001, the man that the homeowner shot is not a thug.

The homeowner is the criminal here. He is facing stiff charges for an unjustified (and not morally justifiable) shoot.

Again, this is a duplicate thread. The information you are looking for, containing a link to the follow-on news story showing that the homeowner's car had not been broken into, and that he did not shoot in self defense, is in the original thread, here (http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=358929).

Larry Ashcraft
April 29, 2008, 01:09 PM
Duplicate. (http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=358929)

If you enjoyed reading about "Homeowner pursues suspected thief, shoots him" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!