21 months for killing thief

Status
Not open for further replies.

2dogs

Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2002
Messages
1,865
Location
the city
http://www.tribnet.com/news/local/story/3855030p-3878989c.html

21 months for killing thief
STACEY MULICK; The News Tribune

Tears pooling in his eyes, Fredrick Tremayne Sims hugged his family goodbye Friday moments after being sentenced to 21 months in prison for killing a Tacoma teen who stole his car.

"I love you all," said Sims, a 33-year-old married father of four.


After the hearing, supporters of Sims and the teen, 15-year-old Carl Richard "C.J." James, clashed outside the Pierce County courthouse and deputies escorted Sims' family to their cars.


"We just want to get out of here," said Sims' wife, Adrianne.


Earlier, defense attorney, Ray Thoenig, argued for a lighter sentence for Sims but Superior Court Judge Stephanie Arend said the seriousness of the crime merited the 21-month sentence.


"That type of behavior cannot be promoted with an exceptional sentence" below the standard range of 21 to 27 months, Arend said.


With good behavior, Sims could get out seven months early, prosecutor Ed Murphy said.


Sims' family and James' grandparents declined to comment after the sentencing.


The night of Dec. 14, 2002, James stole Sims' 1985 Pontiac from outside his South End home. Sims grabbed a gun, got into another vehicle and chased after James, court documents state.


Sims fired three shots at the car. Two hit the rear end; the third shattered the back windshield and fatally struck James in the head.


In his statement to the court, Sims said he never wanted to hurt anyone.


"I deeply regret the outcome," he said. "I would gladly have given the young man a ride home if he needed one. I am so sorry, I am so miserable and I only wish I could undo the terrible tragedy that resulted."


Sims has said he acted in self-defense after James, a troubled teen who'd stolen cars before, swerved to hit Sims' vehicle during the chase.


Sims entered a modified guilty plea in July to second-degree manslaughter in James' death. He maintained his innocence but acknowledged that he'd most likely be convicted at trial.


Before the sentencing Sims' mother and wife told Arend they didn't believe he was a threat to society and that they needed him to be there for his family.


Thoenig said Sims should receive a lesser sentence because of four mitigating factors:


•That James had caused the incident.


•That Sims had committed the crime under duress, threat or compulsion.


•That others induced Sims to participate in the crime.


•That Sims' capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct was significantly impaired.


Arend said she believed there was no legal basis to hand Sims a shorter sentence.


"I do not agree the use of deadly force was necessary," Arend said. "There was an effective alternative to the use of deadly force in this circumstance."


The shooting has taken a heavy emotional toll on the friends and families of James and Sims.


James' mother is devastated, said family friend Kim Love. She had to leave Friday's court hearing when Sims' family addressed the court.


The Sims family lost their home after the shooting and are living in protective housing, friend Marcia Bentz wrote in a letter to Arend.


After the sentencing, Love and a friend of Sims traded remarks about what had happened.


The friend said Sims has a big heart and James should have been home in bed, not stealing cars. Love said the teen shouldn't have paid with his life for the theft.


"There are laws for a reason and you have to follow the laws whether you like it or not," Love said later. "Whether he was a troubled kid or not, he was worth saving."
 
Ya know, I really dont want to upset anybody but this is like the "kid" who was throwing tomatoes. I completely understand that the shooter was wrong. no question about it. I am tired of hearing about these poor innocent "kids" who definately should know better being refered to as innocent victims (I realise it is not worded that way but it is implied IMO).
 
I guess I am a hopeless Neanderthal.


I know that it's terrible to lose a child this way.


However, parents today, who allow the government to "educate" their children, watch TV and sports instead of doing WHATEVER it takes to bring up their kids right, can look in the mrror to find who allowed this to happen.

It's true that some kids are just incorrigible, but you know what the "barbaric" Bible says to do with them.

But today we are enlightened; we have therapy and anger management and conflict resolution where we negotiate (without end or result).


So this is what we get.


If it's ok to steal cars, is it ok to rob banks, is it ok to use a gun? Where does it end, once it gets started?

The courts will only slap on the wrist unless you defend yourself. Then they come down hard.

Justice?


I believe that one should be allowed to defend his property as well as himself.



Told you I was a Neanderthal.



matis
 
"I do not agree the use of deadly force was necessary," Arend said. "There was an effective alternative to the use of deadly force in this circumstance."

Of course there is. Let the cops do it; that's their job. We all know how entheusiastic cops are, especially in the larger metropolitan areas, to recover stolen property.

How about we give this guy a bonus; time off his sentance for the time the thief would have spent in an institution because he was too whacked to understand (still) that stealing is bad.

"Love said the teen shouldn't have paid with his life for the theft."
Why not? It's not as though this was the first time the punk had acted this way. Moreover, why should he (Sims) now pay for the theft of his own car?
 
SELF DEFENSE - The act of defending ones self against attack, danger, or injury. I will ellaborate in this case and include 'defending ones self from unprovoced attack'.

The kid was running. Granted, he was running with the guys property, but none the less running. This guy was practicing SELF OFFENSE. He is lucky to have gotten only 21 months.

Diesle
 
Nah KC, police wouldn't shoot this thief in the back of the head either.

Even states with Castle Laws wouldn't let you shoot anyone from a moving vehicle. Do you think it was safe or responsible to let off blasts into the darkness? What could have happened if a stray got launched into a neighbor's home? All this for a 1985 Pontiac? There was no thinking done by either thief or shooter, at least shooter will have chance to think over his deed, and hopefully get out in 7 months.
 
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that I thought the idea of initiating a gunfight from a moving vehicle was a good idea or something to be engaged in lightly.

I am annoyed that a family is destroyed because some repeat looser was killed while stealing a car.
 
Here's what it is and then what I think.

Not that anyone really wants to hear this but...:)

Sims shooting from a moving car is called reckless endangerment to third parties. He did not know where his bullets were going and could have shot an innocent bystander. Also if a person steals your property and is fleeing, call the authorities and report it and let them handle it. Sims had a 50/50 chance of being aquitted; unfortunately he got the bad 50 but that's the risk you take. This is why you shouldn't engage in this kind of thing unless you are being attacked in order for the assailant to procure your property.

Now with all that said...James won't be stealing anymore cars and his "trouble teen" days are over with. That problem is now solved. Sims acted impropperly and will pay for his decision and while I believe his scentencing to be necessary I also see it as unfortunate. Repeat offenders are a problem and removing them from the gene pool does not make me shed any tears I'm afraid. Intresting story though.

Take care,

DRC
 
It shouldn't be a crime to defend your property. It should be a crime to shoot recklessly.

I'd have put Sims on probation for a year. If that's a good enough sentence for burglars and rapists and child molesters, it's good enough for a guy who shot at a moving vehicle.
 
CWL, when its your property it doesnt matter if it is a 1985 Pontiac or a 2004 Mercedes-Benz S600 AMG. When it is all you have, and all you can afford, then you do your damnedest to protect it from low-life scum who would releive you of it.

That saidâ„¢, the guy shouldnt have shot him. He should have pursued him while on the phone with the cops so that the cops could pull him over. Sometimes you have to encourage the cops to help you retrieve your property.

If I had cought the bastard who stole my property and ruined the body of my $600 car, I would have beaten him to a bloody pulp. I cannot tell you if he would have lived to tell about it. I was in quite a rage when the theft occured, so all that can be said is that "$hi7 happens." And, people shouldnt encourage $hi7 to happen either.
 
Last edited:
Sims shooting from a moving car is called reckless endangerment to third parties.
Since every one of his shots hit the target vehicle, this sounds like claptrap to me. The description should be "shooting from a moving car and HITTING your target every time is called good shooting."
 
Ill try to tread lightly when I say that it makes me a little uncomfertable to read that there is support for this guys actions out there. Certainly we can all IDENTIFY with the guy...But, havent we been up and down enough senarios with friends, trainers and other forum members to know that this was a crap shoot. (pardon the pun). The guy should not have been pulling the trigger in this case.

Look, when you pull the trigger, your not shooting to wound. You are shooting to STOP THE THREAT. *** was the threat...? There could have been some threat to the guy prior to the kid getting into his car and starting to drive away. However, Id say the threat level drops to near 0% when some kid is driving AWAY FROM YOU with your car.

Do 'you' place some monitary value on the point at which you are willing to take somones life. How much would it take you? Would your lawnmower be enough? How about your patio furnature? Your Freezer out in the garage or your boat sitting next to the car.....?


Diesle
 
*** was the threat...?
That's an easy one!

Did you know that there was actually a time when this country was civilized? It's true. There was a time when if a filthy POS took - say a horse for instance - that sometimes the whole damn town would ride after said POS to get the damned horse back. And they would only refrain from firing if shooting might endanger the HORSE!

Know why? Because civilized people know that if you don't protect what is rightfully yours, or your neighbors; that your entire civilization is threatened.

Me? I'm sick to death of this garbage. I'm tired of watching people get hideously injured by scumbags, like a friend of mine who was almost wiped off the face of the Earth by a car thief that t-boned my friends brand new truck with a stolen car at 80+ M.P.H.

I'm tired of having to drive through urban areas where people dress like, act like - no make that act as gangbanging murderous thugs.

I long for the days when if a rat like the dead POS in this story made the mistake of so much as showing his rat-:cuss: face in town, that somebody would at least fling a few hunks of lead (at high-velocity) in his POS rat-:cuss: general direction. I long for the days when - if they were lucky enough to hit the POS - that the whole town would have a PARTY!

In fact, I am so overwhelmingly sick and tired of this :cuss: that I may need to find out where this particular POS was buried around here so I can go dance on his grave - just to cheer me up!
 
Do 'you' place some monitary value on the point at which you are willing to take somones life. How much would it take you? Would your lawnmower be enough? How about your patio furnature? Your Freezer out in the garage or your boat sitting next to the car.....?
The question should be to the theif. What monetary value do they place on their life?

The scumbag(s) we are talking about live in the most prosperous and generous nation on Earth. They could get whatever they really need for the asking. THEY instead chose to steal. Whatever they get, they deserve.
 
Do 'you' place some monitary value on the point at which you are willing to take somones life. How much would it take you? Would your lawnmower be enough? How about your patio furnature? Your Freezer out in the garage or your boat sitting next to the car.....?
The question should be to the theif. What monetary value do they place on their life?

The scumbag(s) we are talking about live in the most prosperous and generous nation on Earth. They could get whatever they really need for the asking. THEY instead chose to steal. Whatever they get, they deserve.
 
Well I think that it was a little foolish in these times that we live in to fire at a fleeing thief. Even though he did hit his target everytime he fired his gun, it was still reckless. But with that being said, the only way crimes like these can actually be prevented is to prove to criminals that they might be forfeiting their lives by partaking in criminal activites. They aren't afraid of the criminal justice system because they are criminals. But if they think there is a good chance that a citizen has a good chance of shooting them if caught stealing private property, then they will probably think twice.

There will always be scum in society, but the younger scum may think about the choices they are making and not stay scum for too long if the consequences are too high.

Just my 0.02.
 
A car not worth a human life?

The grave yard is full of people who thought the same thing.

A close friend was killed for his car.

People have been killed for less.

"Sims has said he acted in self-defense after James, a troubled teen who'd stolen cars before, swerved to hit Sims' vehicle during the chase".

Hitting one car with another is deadly force.

If you think not chasing the thief and calling the police is the right thing to do, you must have never had anything stolen or had a hit and run accident.
 
The kid stole a mid 1980's car. Let the kid have it. There was no reason for Sims to jump in his car, with a gun, and shooting like a mad man. He could have hit an innocent by stander, and he would be in a worse pedicament. I am sorry, I believe he got what he deserved. If Sims jumped in his car, with his cell phone, called the police, and notify them the direction the stolen car was heading. Other than that, this kid did not deserve to die. He was not the one shooting at Sims. I also don't belive it was self defense. He may not be a menace to society, but maybe the time he spends in jail will make him think twice about doing that ever again.
 
So we should acquiesce to the whims of people who want to steal from us.

I work pretty damn hard for my stuff. I put myself through college, pretty much sacrificing a marriage to provide for me and my kids. And you say I should just LET them have my stuff when they want it.

See, when those :cuss: :cuss: steal something from me, they steal the sweat and pain I had to endure to purchase it. They also steal from my kids because I have to spend more money to replace what was stolen.

I can tell you this for certain, I catch a thief on my property stealing from me, he's gonna have a seriously painful and :cuss: ty day.
 
First let me say this...

Where were all of you when the "Laughing can get you killed" thread was going??? :)

Second to TexasVet,

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sims shooting from a moving car is called reckless endangerment to third parties.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Since every one of his shots hit the target vehicle, this sounds like claptrap to me. The description should be "shooting from a moving car and HITTING your target every time is called good shooting."

Claptrap??? Intresting terminology. For your edification "Reckless Endangerment to a Third party" is what this man can be convicted of in a court of law regardless of where his bullets landed and regardless of whether he hit a third party. The potential was there for this to happen. Don't get me wrong, I agree that his aim was quite good being done from a moving car at a moving car but it does not change what will come about in a court of law. You can get a ticket for driving recklessly and you can get jail time for shooting recklessly. I don't make the rules I just live by them.

The most definitive truth is that if you pull a gun and fire it in this manner you will go before a grand jury. When you go before a jury there will be a prosecution and a defense and whichever one can do the best "Dog and Pony Show" will get the verdit he/she wants. Is it worth it to you in a theft situation like this one to take that risk? If not then let the authorities handle it, but if it is worth it be prepared for the consequences.

Take care folks,

DRC
 
Longing for the days of yester year when the good guys were all sudo-deputies of the local lawman is all romantic and all but.....

Please don’t THREATEN my ability to (legally) defend myself in the manner I see fit by carrying on recklessly. A very few dumb ??? actions by a VERY FEW 'law abiding citizens' will make a huge impact on the general public and will likely lead to legislation that turns me into a criminal for exercising a constitutional right. That is the world we live in TODAY. TODAY as in..... embed the context of your actions into TODAYS American society and then use your best judgment to determine what reasonable, responsible, practical and appropriate behavior is.

You on the "High Road" = You protecting yourself and your loved ones in a responsible manner.



Diesle
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top