1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Man draws gun, tries to shoot out tires

Discussion in 'Legal' started by CZ-100, Jun 2, 2005.


Will he get charged?

  1. YES, He was Justified in trying to shoot out tires

    33 vote(s)
  2. NO, He was not Justified in trying to shoot out tires

    30 vote(s)

    21 vote(s)
  1. CZ-100

    CZ-100 Active Member

    May 12, 2003
    Sourh FL/East TN
  2. pythonguy

    pythonguy Member

    Dec 6, 2004
    Long Island, New York
    Interesting situation, I don't think he's helping himself posing for that picture holding his gun in a wife beater t-shirt. The problem is in public with so many innocent bystanders around its not a good idea for him to shoot, if its our daughter or son being hit, god forbid, how horrible would that be? If it was a more isolated area he wouldn't be charged, but the police don't want to condone these things and inspire more shootings in public.
  3. beerslurpy

    beerslurpy member

    Nov 8, 2004
    Spring Hill, Florida
    That a 380 auto, technically a 9x17mm but clearly not what the story implied.

    I personally beleive that it is better to shoot at people than at objects. Either you are justified in applying deadly force or you arent. Still, he was justified in applying deadly force to protect the people in the parking lot, so I think a halfassed application of deadly force was ok.
  4. OF

    OF Senior Member

    Dec 26, 2002
    Sounds like the guy has a pretty good handle on the situation, actually. He recognized that the shoplifting offense wasn't worth a response other than calling the cops, but when the guy used the car to threaten others, something had to be done.

    Hard to say since we weren't right there, but giving the guy the benefit of the doubt re: backstop, bystanders locations etc. it looks OK to me. One guy hanging out the door and another one run over, car turning back around towards more people. Got to stop that thing somehow. I'd go as far to say that he'd have been justified taking a shot at the driver, assuming his line of fire was clear.

    Frankly, I also agree with him that it if the employees hadn't gotten involved, his hand would not have been forced. Once their lives were at risk, the door opens for using the gun to stop it.

    - Gabe

    PS: I'm with python on the t-shirt pose...bad PR move :)
  5. c_yeager

    c_yeager Mentor

    Mar 14, 2003
    How is flattening the guys tires going to make him LESS dangerous on the road? Seriously, popping one tire will do NOTHING to stop the car, it WILL make it 100 times more difficult to control and dangerous to bystanders. Lets not forget the potential for people getting hurt by deflected/missed shots, clearly this was a possibility since the guy DID miss.

    His actions certainly sound irresponsible, and his demeanor and appearance do nothing to dissuade one from this conclusion. Im having a hard time picturing how this went down. The shoplifter stays in the parking lot long enough to do the damage described by the shooter, and AFTER THAT is still close enough for him to take a shot at the tires?

    My rule of thumb is this: If deadly force is necessary, shoot the driver. Thats the biggest target, and the easiest way to stop the situation. If deadly force ISNT necessary, keep the gun where it is.
  6. R.H. Lee

    R.H. Lee Mentor

    Jan 26, 2004
    How does he think 'shooting out the tires' will stop the truck? His motive may have been noble, but his judgement is not so good.
  7. MikeIsaj

    MikeIsaj Active Member

    Mar 8, 2005
    North of the City of Brotherly Love, West of The P
    I think he was justified even though his hand was forced by the stupidity of others. The suspect had the ability, opportunity and had taken a substantial step towards using deadly force on victims. He would have been justified in using deadly force to stop the assault on the victims. What he should have done is fired at the suspect, not the tires. Hollywood bullets hit and puncture tires, real ones don't. I'm not going to get on his case too much though. The bottom line is this; He witnesses an act of deadly force against another person, and he tries to protect another life. He is justified.

    This line is just stupid;
    If you're not guaranteed success, don't even try? Call 911 and stand by with a loaded gun and watch a store clerk get dragged around a parking lot by a driver? I wonder if that's what Mr. Baker wants us to do if his family member is being assaulted?

    Proof he knows what he's doing. Publix needs to send this guy on a tour of all their stores training their people on what not to do. Then they need to hire a pit bull defense lawyer to keep the local blissninnies off his back. They should also require the two clerks to apologize for putting him in this situation because they were jackasses. My first high school job it was made clear by my boss; If someone wants the money, give it to them!
  8. Highland Ranger

    Highland Ranger Senior Member

    Nov 11, 2003
    New Jersey Highlands
    Your question is backwards . . . .
  9. Technosavant

    Technosavant Senior Member

    Mar 24, 2005
    St. Louis, MO
    I say shooting was a bad idea.

    Somebody is being dragged by the vehicle, and he is SHOOTING at it? Sounds like a violation of "be sure of your target." With that little pea shooter (decent for social work at close range, not for anti-materiel at any range, especially if it is moving), he was more likely to cause harm to bystanders than actually hit a tire (rather small target area, constantly moving).

    Plus, the guy was stealing groceries, not children. The supermarket employees were being stupid in trying to stop the crook, but this yutz goes and makes it more dangerous for anybody within a couple hundred yards.

    Sounds like somebody with a Rambo complex.
  10. dolanp

    dolanp Active Member

    Feb 20, 2005
    Oh please. Cops have riddled suspects with bullets for even suggesting that they might ram them with a vehicle. This guy is running over people and putting lives in danger and we're just calling it a 'shoplifting crime' and ignoring what he's doing with a deadly weapon (the vehicle)? Funny how cops kill people for the exact same thing.
  11. GRB

    GRB member

    Feb 25, 2005
    Your poll question and answers are really confusing. You ask: Will he get charged?" and then, I think, offer confusing choices:

    YES , He was Justified in trying to shoot out tires - (Yes seems to indicate yes they will charge him. Why charge him if he was justified?)

    NO, He was not Justified in trying to shoot out tires (N seems to indicate no they will not charge him. If not justified why wouldn't they charge him?)

    As for whether or not he was actually legally justified to use deadly force when he intervened, based upon the info supplied in the article I definitely believe that he was legally justified. As to whether or not that was a shoot or don't shoot situation it is hardto second guess with as little information as was supplied. As to whether he should have attempted to shoot the tires, I think that was a poor judgemnent call on his part probably from watching too many movies where they shoot out tires. Bear in mind that poor judgement about what he shot at does not, in a case as described, lessen his justification to use deadly force in the firct place.

    Regarding that picture in the article: His appearance in the photograph says absolutely nothing about: the facts surrounding this shooting, whether or not he was justified to shoot, his frame of mind at the time or, his level of responsibility. To bring up such utter nonsense is only to push the weakest of arguments like grasping at straws. In my opinion, anyone who is suggesting, implying or even thinking that said photo reveals something of merit with regard to the shooting is really stretching things. Sure it would LOOK better if he had been drerssed in a nice three piece Armani suit with a really expensive necktie, or even if had had been wearing a button down shirt BUT; my guess is the media was on him like stink on manure once he was released by the police. He was probably pretty frazzled after such an event, and maybe did not think to grab his shirt before they started snapping away.

    His real sign of poor judgement was regarding at what he shot. Poor choice of target. As for his judgement on if it was a situation that justified deadly force, I would gladly testify that in my professional and personal opinion I believe it was justified.

    One thing about what the policen said and what they usually say in situations like this. I am referring to their comments that Mr. Briggs and the store employees should not have been involved in this. Isn't it amazing how they throw blame on the victims and on the person who attempted to help without saying: you know the bad guy should have tried to steal this stuff. Think about it. Do you own a firearm, do you carry a firearm, so that when someone threatens your life or the life of another innocent you will just not get involved other than to comply with the bad guy and, then you will call 911? Not me if I can help it.

    All the best,
    Glenn B
  12. rhubarb

    rhubarb Active Member

    May 28, 2005
    South Texas
    Keltec P11 in 9mm. 380 has no slide stop. Guess the gun fits his hands just right since it looks like he only has three fingers.

    Clearly he was justified in using deadly force. Remember that this is Florida, which has been in the national news lately for its legislation allowing upstanding citizens to defend themselves against criminals.
    I would think it a dicey shot at best to shoot at the tires. Even if he had flattened both rear tires as he said he was trying to do, I don't know that it would have stopped the threat of an out of control truck. That said, thank you Mr. Biggs for stepping up to the bad guy. Hope that I could do as well.

    Maj. Doug Baker of the Fort Myers Fuzz: :rolleyes:
  13. cfabe

    cfabe Member

    Oct 5, 2003
    NE Ohio and Flint, MI
    He should have shot the driver if he had a clear shot.
  14. 8830

    8830 Member

    Aug 3, 2004
    Victoria, TX
    He was justified in shooting. As soon as the suspect started using his vehicle as a weapon to commit aggravated assault/attempted murder he could have shot the suspect. I can only reason that he shot the tires because he didn't want to take the chance on shooting the employee hanging out the window or risk hitting a bystander.
    As a cop I'm glad to see someone taking action instead of standing there watching and waiting to see what happens next.
  15. testar77

    testar77 Member

    Feb 10, 2005
    Kennewick, Wa.
    Close Call

    Having not been there I can't really say how iminent the possibility of someone getting severely injured was (remember we are relying on the "Press" on this one). Obviously the store employees definately escalated the situation alot further than it should have gone over some "groceries". I am not sure that the situation required discharging a weapon in a location as public as a shopping complex, as any ricochet could injure someone worse than the driver could have. Should he be charged? not sure, he was within the grey area of the law, however they are in a tough position in that if they don't charge him you run the risk of people brandishing and discharging they're weapons for what could be insufficient cause, and people getting hurt. Yet with him being technically within the law you don't want to discourage someone from using a weapon when it is necasary,out of fear that they will be charged for it!. It is a very tough call, I will be interested to see how it turns out.
  16. Risasi

    Risasi Active Member

    Mar 5, 2004
    Justified in shooting.

    Deadly nature of the scenario.

    As to legality, local laws apply. But since when do legality and justice necessarily have anything to do with each other?

    You are justified in shooting a non-violent thief caught in your house too. Doesn't necessarily mean it's legal either...
  17. jefnvk

    jefnvk Senior Member

    Jun 3, 2004
    The Copper Country, Michigan
    How convienently they forget that he hit a guy and was dragging another, and sounds like trying to hit another.

    The biggest mistake was shooting at the tires, not the guy.
  18. Sergeant Sabre

    Sergeant Sabre Participating Member

    Aug 15, 2004
    Just like the plaintiffs in the case Warren v. District of Columbia?

    (Look it up if you don't know. If you don't know already, you'll be shocked)
  19. Risasi

    Risasi Active Member

    Mar 5, 2004
  20. Bobarino

    Bobarino member

    Mar 12, 2003
    western Washington
    in my opinion, he shouldn't have charges pressed, and was probably technically justified but i think it was a poor choice. shooting the tires of a speeding vehicle can cause the driver to lose control and become even more dangerous to the public, especially in a crowded parking lot. i have a hunch he was trying to play hero. if he was really in fear for his life and the lives of others, i think he would have gone for the driver and not just the tires. i think if it was me, i would just try to get the plate # and get the heck out of his way.


Share This Page