Impulsiveness = Jail time, even well intentioned
- Thread starter Dnaltrop
- Start date
- Status
Boba Fett
Member
Um...probably not. Primarily because I don't think I have the skill to hit a moving vehicle without sending rounds to dangerous places (i.e. anyplace but that vehicle).
But I wasn't replying about what happened in Oregon.
I was replying to duns, who lives in Texas, about fleeing criminals.
He said
According to Texas CHL law, it appears you can. The other rules and consequences involved with CHL must also be considered (e.g. such as shooting an innocent bystander).
In the Oregon case, the innocent bystander potential would probably be too high to risk shooting at the fleeing criminals, especially for me since as I said I don't feel I have the skill to hit a fast moving target like a car with any accuracy at all.
Don't mistake what I'm saying to duns as advocating what the guy in Oregon did.
rainbowbob
Member
Boba: It certainly seems as thought you are reading it correctly.
Based on the excerpt from Texas law presented by Boba, this apparently is NOT the case in all states.
Does anyone here know if there are there other states besides Texas that allow for the summarry execution of fleeing thieves?
nalioth
Member
It's called "justice", and it's been practiced that way for millennia (Don't believe me? Read your old religious texts).rainbowbob said:
Robbers have long been killed during the commitment of their crimes.
I think you need to rephrase your statement, as "summarry execution" is totally off the mark.
Dnaltrop
Member
Added in the fellow's return home.
I hate to say it, but maybe we need a Range competency test for CCW holders here. If nothing else force people to socialize more, get a dose of reality.
I hate to say it, but maybe we need a Range competency test for CCW holders here. If nothing else force people to socialize more, get a dose of reality.
Boba Fett
Member
You don't have to pass a shooting test in Oregon?
We have to pass one in Texas, albeit it is rather easy to pass. Still, people fail it from time to time simply because they wont follow the CHL instructor's direction...
Dnaltrop
Member
No, just a 3 hr safety course. 45 +/- day wait to get fingerprint appointment.
http://www.mcso.us/public/concealed_handgun.htm
http://www.mcso.us/public/concealed_handgun.htm
I don't know of any state where an armed citizen can use deadly force to stop a fleeing robber who no longer constitutes a danger to the citizen or anyone else. This is not home defense or defense against a present danger, it is just playing TV hero. And, in most areas, police are specifically ordered NOT to shoot at a fleeing car unless absolutely necessary, for the reason the police mentioned. Shooting out tires is like the old stories about shooting the gun out of the outlaw's hand. Movie nonsense!
Jim
Jim
Boba Fett
Member
Interesting.
Our classes are an all day ordeal (lecture, exam, shooting test, fingerprinting, photos). Unless you're renewing...then it's a half a day (exam and shooting test).
Dnaltrop
Member
interesting... scary... 6 of one, half dozen of another.
Open the PDF for the form, I always get a kick out of the part where they ask you if you are a drug using felon, and if so, kindly list the drugs you are taking, and any firearms in your household.
And yes, At the class, we did ask, and some people DO answer those parts.
Open the PDF for the form, I always get a kick out of the part where they ask you if you are a drug using felon, and if so, kindly list the drugs you are taking, and any firearms in your household.
And yes, At the class, we did ask, and some people DO answer those parts.
Boba Fett
Member
It would appear that Texas is such a place. If I read section 9.42, section 2, subsection B correctly (see above for the law and the link to the law).
Now I do agree with you on that. Like you said, movie nonsense.
Cosmoline
Member
Were the robbers armed? It sounds like they weren't, but who trusts articles in the paper? If they just grabbed and ran, there's no real justification for using deadly force at all--let alone trying to shoot the car. If they were armed, the imminence prong may be lapsed or it may not be. But the circumstances are very different. If they were armed and brandishing, the guy should be cut more slack and warned about it. If they weren't armed and weren't a threat, then he was way out of line.
12131
Member
Yup. Can't believe someone actually posted such a moronic statement.
I wonder how many people who CC are like this "cowboy" and are looking/hoping/wishing for any chance to use it? An IQ test should be part of the requirement to CC. These are the kind of people who will cause lawmakers to change the laws and affect everyone.
Last edited:
Full Metal Jacket
member
talking to the police after such an incident is always a bad move. keep your mouth shut, and wait for your attorney.
rmfnla
Member
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2007
- Messages
- 704
"...lead the fleeing car by at least two barrel widths per 10 mph..."
Boba Fett
Member
LOL, I wish CHL training had that sort of element (not so much a car, but a moving target).
That said, since they don't it's up to me to get that training for myself.
I am not a lawyer and I am not familiar with Oregon's laws, however the lawful authority to use deadly force to effect an arrest, even as a private citizen, is recognized in numerous states. As a native New Yorker I use my own state's laws as an example:
§ 35.30 Justification; use of physical force in making an arrest or in
preventing an escape.
4. A private person acting on his or her own account may use physical
force, other than deadly physical force, upon another person when and to
the extent that he or she reasonably believes such to be necessary to
effect an arrest or to prevent the escape from custody of a person whom
he or she reasonably believes to have committed an offense and who in
fact has committed such offense; and may use deadly physical force for
such purpose when he or she reasonably believes such to be necessary to:
(b) Effect the arrest of a person who has committed murder,
manslaughter in the first degree, robbery, forcible rape or forcible
criminal sexual act and who is in immediate flight therefrom.
In New York you may shoot a fleeing felon in the back to stop his flight provided that he has in fact committed one of the above listed felonies and you can articulate why no lesser means would have sufficed (i.e. he was too far away, multiple assailants fleeing in multiple directions, being seriously wounded by your assailants during the comission of the aforesaid felony rendering you incapable of pursuit etc). Robbery in NYS also requires violence or the threat of violence; it is forcible stealing not merely larceny.
I for one will not condemn this man out of hand based on one news article. We do not know if these men were armed, we don't how crowded the streets were or any other number of factors. I agree that shooting at vehicle tires with a pistol is extremely stupid, however, firing on violent criminals, whether they harmed someone during this particular crime or not, is not inherently wrong or illegal (depending on your locale). I will also point out that no one was injured by this individual's rounds and apparently no property was damaged. Whether he was wrong is for a court to decide.
§ 35.30 Justification; use of physical force in making an arrest or in
preventing an escape.
4. A private person acting on his or her own account may use physical
force, other than deadly physical force, upon another person when and to
the extent that he or she reasonably believes such to be necessary to
effect an arrest or to prevent the escape from custody of a person whom
he or she reasonably believes to have committed an offense and who in
fact has committed such offense; and may use deadly physical force for
such purpose when he or she reasonably believes such to be necessary to:
(b) Effect the arrest of a person who has committed murder,
manslaughter in the first degree, robbery, forcible rape or forcible
criminal sexual act and who is in immediate flight therefrom.
In New York you may shoot a fleeing felon in the back to stop his flight provided that he has in fact committed one of the above listed felonies and you can articulate why no lesser means would have sufficed (i.e. he was too far away, multiple assailants fleeing in multiple directions, being seriously wounded by your assailants during the comission of the aforesaid felony rendering you incapable of pursuit etc). Robbery in NYS also requires violence or the threat of violence; it is forcible stealing not merely larceny.
I for one will not condemn this man out of hand based on one news article. We do not know if these men were armed, we don't how crowded the streets were or any other number of factors. I agree that shooting at vehicle tires with a pistol is extremely stupid, however, firing on violent criminals, whether they harmed someone during this particular crime or not, is not inherently wrong or illegal (depending on your locale). I will also point out that no one was injured by this individual's rounds and apparently no property was damaged. Whether he was wrong is for a court to decide.
Boba Fett
Member
After reading the article again, I'm curious what law he broke. I don't know Oregon's law and haven't been able to find where they talk about CHL and the use of a weapon...someone have a government link to it?
Reading through the article again, some of the statements seem absurd (unless of course the law was broken):
Really? Unless the law says you cannot shoot at fleeing criminals what is the problem? No one was injured right? "...shot in a public area..."? I'm missing the point of saying that...not sure what good a CHL is is you can only use it in your home. I wonder what their definition of "public area" is and how it relates to CHL. (for those who also have journalism backgrounds: at least the writer got the "L" in the word...sometimes they miss it and you get a hilarious article)
Were there people at the bus stop? The article doesn't say, but it tries to imply that Mr. Witter was reckless because there was a bus stop. Part of discharging your firearm is knowing your surroundings. And Mr. Witter says he was aware of the surroundings:
Though I would say he was pointing his weapon at someone...the criminals...
Aren't they going to have to prove he was reckless? As for using his weapon unlawfully, in NY and Texas, it looks like one may indeed use a firearm to stop fleeing criminals even if it isn't a life threatening situation, so I wonder what the law on the books in Oregon is.
Maybe one of the BGs will show up at the hospital with a GSW and can be arrested.
Not really part of my point, but I love these lines in articles. Anyone ever heard of a company representative giving a statement that the company could care less about being robbed and their employees are stonewalling law enforcement just to be a pain? I often think these lines are added to skew the public's feelings toward people like Mr. Witter..."AT&T is being a good little company...very helpful...not like that Witter guy"
I'd also point out that jail does not mean convicted...just means arrested. But this article (and many other instances) makes me seriously consider getting some CHL insurance:
http://www.mmdbrokers.com/
Just a final note, as I said earlier, I'm not saying what Mr. Witter did was a good idea and it may even be illegal in his state. I wouldn't recommend anyone try it. I personally wouldn't probably not have shot at a fleeing vehicle because I'm just not that good. I doubt many of us are. But maybe Mr. Witter is...like the article said, they haven't found the bullets...maybe he's just that good and those bullets are in the vehicle? I'd really like to get a look at Oregon's law concerning appropriate use of a CCW.
Reading through the article again, some of the statements seem absurd (unless of course the law was broken):
Really? Unless the law says you cannot shoot at fleeing criminals what is the problem? No one was injured right? "...shot in a public area..."? I'm missing the point of saying that...not sure what good a CHL is is you can only use it in your home. I wonder what their definition of "public area" is and how it relates to CHL. (for those who also have journalism backgrounds: at least the writer got the "L" in the word...sometimes they miss it and you get a hilarious article)
Were there people at the bus stop? The article doesn't say, but it tries to imply that Mr. Witter was reckless because there was a bus stop. Part of discharging your firearm is knowing your surroundings. And Mr. Witter says he was aware of the surroundings:
Though I would say he was pointing his weapon at someone...the criminals...
Aren't they going to have to prove he was reckless? As for using his weapon unlawfully, in NY and Texas, it looks like one may indeed use a firearm to stop fleeing criminals even if it isn't a life threatening situation, so I wonder what the law on the books in Oregon is.
lol, I wonder if they're in the bad guy's car
Maybe one of the BGs will show up at the hospital with a GSW and can be arrested.Not really part of my point, but I love these lines in articles. Anyone ever heard of a company representative giving a statement that the company could care less about being robbed and their employees are stonewalling law enforcement just to be a pain? I often think these lines are added to skew the public's feelings toward people like Mr. Witter..."AT&T is being a good little company...very helpful...not like that Witter guy"
I'd also point out that jail does not mean convicted...just means arrested. But this article (and many other instances) makes me seriously consider getting some CHL insurance:
http://www.mmdbrokers.com/
Just a final note, as I said earlier, I'm not saying what Mr. Witter did was a good idea and it may even be illegal in his state. I wouldn't recommend anyone try it. I personally wouldn't probably not have shot at a fleeing vehicle because I'm just not that good. I doubt many of us are. But maybe Mr. Witter is...like the article said, they haven't found the bullets...maybe he's just that good and those bullets are in the vehicle? I'd really like to get a look at Oregon's law concerning appropriate use of a CCW.
Last edited:
SharpsDressedMan
member
Did I tell you about the sheriff's deputy that fired at a getaway truck's tires, with $20,000 of Goodrich tires aboard, stolen from a bonded/sealed railroad area? The truck was eventually stopped, driver arrested (along with several others later), and the deputy later received a commendation (along with others) from the FBI for assisting in the arrest. My how times have changed (that was in 1975-76).
Dnaltrop
Member
Just to contrast our laws here.
We have no reciprocity either.
We have no reciprocity either.
REAPER4206969
Member
This is why you never talk to the police! If you clear leather/Kydex, shut your mouth! They are not your friends, and they are not asking you questions to help you.
Boba Fett
Member
Sadly, Ohio law does not appear to permit the use of deadly force to protect property, even your own:
http://www.ohioattorneygeneral.gov/ConcealedCarryBook
So, if I read that right, you can use force, but not deadly force. So...I guess if I lived in Ohio, I could yell at the bad guys as they destroyed my car and my home, but the instant I use a gun, knife, crowbar, anything that could be construed as deadly, I'm screwed.
At least until they start trying to attack me, then I can use deadly force...but if they leave me alone, they can do what they want to my property?
Am I reading that right? I've got to be missing something!
You are indeed right about the times...question is how the heck do we change them back?
EDIT
SharpsDressedMan, get your butt down to Texas! We shoot our burglars: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,374223,00.html
Last edited:
Cactus Jack Arizona
Member
Wobble, as someone with an IQ in the mid-130's, I find your statement curious. Are you saying that only people with low IQ's make stupid mistakes? Or, are you saying that people with high IQ's don't make stupid mistakes? Please share with us your insight on IQ's.
Also, as someone with two LEO Uncles, I can tell you that cops shooting at fleeing vehicle tires has been known to happen on occasion. Sometimes it happens as the perp begins his fleeing from police, other times it has happened during high speed chases. This can also be documented from police dash-cams and occasionally seen on channels such as truTV.
Also, as someone with two LEO Uncles, I can tell you that cops shooting at fleeing vehicle tires has been known to happen on occasion. Sometimes it happens as the perp begins his fleeing from police, other times it has happened during high speed chases. This can also be documented from police dash-cams and occasionally seen on channels such as truTV.
- Status