Accidentally fired a Glock

[GhostRider66]

I know you didn't mean to, but you are justifying your reaction based on how a mule would handle the situation?

Most certainly I am not. But deserving something has little to do with what life hands you. You have to know that by stealing someone else's property you will face some type of reaction. Are you seriously offering up that that reaction will always be proportionate to the crime being committed. Of course not. You go out at night to take someone's belongings and you are, like it or not, taking your life in your hands. You have to be an idiot not to realize it. You don't know if the person you are stealing from is a dope-dealer/gang member/mafia boss with no sense of humor about these things, a senile old person who's armed and scared or a poorly trained armed security guard with little sleep working a six dollar an hour second job. Either way, my sense of it is he's lucky to be alive at all under the circumstances. The guard screwed up but let's not act like we all know what was in his mind when that trigger got pulled, accidentally or not.

 

[Old Dog]

So, my hard-core fellow THRers ... you never did anything remotely stupid when you were fifteen? None of y'all have any buddies, brothers, children that did anything wrong when they were fifteen?

I'm with Logical. I'm shocked by some of your attitudes. If it appears that most of the THR membership shares the opinion that it's morally justified to shoot a kid in the back for trying to steal a car stereo, those of us that don't agree may be re-evaluating our commitment to this forum.

It's sure easy to ascertain that none of you folks have ever been in a situation where you've had to use deadly force. If you're that ready to pull the trigger over petty theft such as reported in the story, not much anyone can tell you to change your thinking. But too bad none of you will ever hear from the security guard who shot the kid. He's probably got a lot on his mind.

 

[GhostRider66]

I'm with Logical. I'm shocked by some of your attitudes. If it appears that most of the THR membership shares the opinion that it's morally justified to shoot a kid in the back for trying to steal a car stereo, those of us that don't agree may be re-evaluating our commitment to this forum.

Please take it easy. Some may have that position and I would also disagree. I'm just trying to make the point that morality isn't always the determining factor in these situations. When I used to warn my daughter against going out and doing stupid things, it was rarely the legal reprecussions that worried me but those unforeseen stupid things that happen in real life. I agree that ending up paralyzed or dead is not what one may deserve for committing a petty crime but one can also say it's certainly not wholly unexpected.

Also, I have had to use deadly force in my life and I can tell you from personal experience, at the time is was almost never a clear-cut circumstance and in hindsight, even worse. A snap decision is something that you dwell on and question for the rest of your life but you can't take it back.

 

[Taurus 66]

i don't trust them to protect my life, nor do i trust them to protect my property. those are things i am responsible for.

I don't trust the police or security personnel. I trust myself and nobody else. But I suppose if I worked temporarily as a guard, and since I trust "only" myself, I'd be packing.

 

[shooter1]

I get sick of hearing "He's just a child!" Children commit heinous crimes every day. Why is it so hard to understand that we are all RESPONSIBLE FOR OUR ACTIONS. Should he have been shot? Probably not---------but none of us were there, we don't have enough information to even make a call one way or the other.
str1

 

[T. Bracker]

I have to agree with Old Dog, there seems to be just a little too much bloodthirstyness here. Granted, there are children/teens that can do some terrible crimes, but stealing a car stereo doesn't qualify, in my opinion. Like on another thread, where the 9 year old with the cap gun would have been "shot" in some of the members yard here on THR for discharging it! I can't believe that is really what some of you would want to do? Almost seems as if you are itching to kill or shoot someone. Take a step back and thinking about storing up your treasures in Heaven, not here. It is STUFF! For what it's worth.

 

[peacefuljeffrey]

Certainly not at someone stealing my car stereo.
Difference of perspective, but that car stereo or what have you represent the portion of MY life spent working to obtain that item. Theft of the item is theft of that portion of my life. Sure, I could make an insurance claim, then I have to pay MORE of my life in higher insurance premiums.

I fully agree with you. If I traded some of the finite lifetime I am granted in order to work to obtain a material item, that material item now represents the time I spent to get it. I cannot get that time back, if the item breaks, is lost, or is stolen, now can I?

In what I consider a stunning coincidence, I was having this exact conversation with my girlfriend this morning in bed! We were talking (yet again) about my owning guns and her abhorring them. The talk turned to why I have them, and what I would or would not do with them if they were needed for defense of my life, or her life.

She has not "been around," has never really had her eyes much opened to the real crap that can go on in the world. She doesn't read the papers, doesn't therefore get a sense of just how common real scummy crimes are perpetrated on innocent people. I do. So she still believes that if you give a robber/rapist what he wants, he won't still decide to shoot or stab you.

I presented her with, "He's already robbing or raping you, proving he is NOT a good person; now you want to put your fate in his hands and HOPE that he won't also murder you? When all you know about him so far is that he is willing to rob or rape?!" Needless to say, she did not have a compelling comeback to that one.

In the worst surprise of the morning, I got a really bad response to the hypothetical, "Wouldn't you want me to shoot a guy if I came home to find you being raped and strangled by an intruder?"

She said NO, she would not want me to kill him. But she didn't say she did not want me to DEFEND her: she said she would want me to "pull him off me, and beat him up to stop his attack on me."

I promptly presented her with the notion that it's a helluva gamble that once I pull him off her, IF I can pull him off her, that he won't be the kind of guy who can beat ME up and then return to raping and killing her, and wouldn't it be best if I just did something DECISIVE like shooting him to end the potentially fatal rape?

The issue is still unresolved, as far as a mutually agreed-upon course of action is concerned, but this much is certain:

If I ever came home to find my girlfriend being raped, her concerns about how she'd "feel" about my having killed her attacker would not be very heavily considered as I did what was necessary to end his attack.

I would deal with her psychological issues with my having shot the guy once I had her life's safety assured. Priorities, milady...

-Jeffrey

 

[peacefuljeffrey]

I get sick of hearing "He's just a child!" Children commit heinous crimes every day. Why is it so hard to understand that we are all RESPONSIBLE FOR OUR ACTIONS. Should he have been shot? Probably not---------but none of us were there, we don't have enough information to even make a call one way or the other.
str1

Well, more to the point,
Try telling a person who's being beaten to death with pipes and skateboards by three 13-year-old punks that he shouldn't be upset with them; after all, they're only 13 and aren't responsible for their actions the way an adult would be.

Try telling his survivors that, "It's okay, he was only beaten to death by 13-year-olds -- no criminal punishment is warranted; you know, because they're not adults."

People who diminish the seriousness of a crime because the perpetrator is not 18 or over are being stupid. A person is no less dead if killed by a 10-year old who had evil intent.

If a crime wave started tomorrow, where someone was recruiting 13-year-olds to commit violent, murderous bank robberies, and we saw HUNDREDS, even THOUSANDS of armed 13-year-olds committing robbery and murder, would we still be saying that society has to suffer this kind of crime because we "can't punish children as adult criminals"?

-Jeffrey

 

[Old Dog]

"Peacefuljeffrey" -- read the posts in their entirety. No where did I say in my posts that I felt sorry for a criminal due to age. What I object to --and strongly -- is the seeming advocacy of shooting someone, and possibly killing them, for a minor property crime.

The thread started with a story of a 15 year old boy, allegedly caught in the act of (in the eyes of a witness) stealing a stereo from a vehicle; upon fleeing in an accomplice's motor vehicle, he was shot, in the back, by a security guard who maintained he pulled the trigger "inadvertently." The boy was subsequently crippled for life.

 

[peacefuljeffrey]

Dog, I know you didn't say that. The thread drifted a bit, and although what I said doesn't necessarily apply as a criticism of your position, it is a valid criticism nonetheless.


-Jeffrey

 

[T. Bracker]

The differences certainly lie in the crime being committed, if it is a 15 or 16 year old actively involved in a life threatening crime, i.e. rape, murder etc, then the age is not a issue, personal safety is paramount. But we are talking about property, and property not in your dwelling to boot. I find it hard to justify taking a life for stuff, especially if that is a child, and here the situation is only suspected as opposed to caught red-handed. I stand by my statement that the bloodlust needs to come down a few notches, in my opinion.

 

[logical]

Well, more to the point,
Try telling a person who's being beaten to death with pipes and skateboards by three 13-year-old punks that he shouldn't be upset with them; after all, they're only 13 and aren't responsible for their actions the way an adult would be.

Try telling his survivors that, "It's okay, he was only beaten to death by 13-year-olds -- no criminal punishment is warranted; you know, because they're not adults."

People who diminish the seriousness of a crime because the perpetrator is not 18 or over are being stupid. A person is no less dead if killed by a 10-year old who had evil intent.

If a crime wave started tomorrow, where someone was recruiting 13-year-olds to commit violent, murderous bank robberies, and we saw HUNDREDS, even THOUSANDS of armed 13-year-olds committing robbery and murder, would we still be saying that society has to suffer this kind of crime because we "can't punish children as adult criminals"?

This thread was not about his age and it was not about a violent atack by a teen or anyone else. If it was a 40 year old who appeared to be stealing a stereo, I simply don't believe I have any right to execute him. Yes, I said execute. If he isn't posing a threat tp me and i shoot him in the back, there is not other word for it. Now, in the original story it sounds like maybe the guard shot him accidentally which is sad for everyone involved, but for poeple to jump in saying that the guard "should" have intentionally shot him is borderline sociopathic.

 

[MICHAEL T]

All you good people that don't have a problem with these little scum bags stealing and think a bullet is a little to much .Well post your address so they can come and steal what you own. I had several thousand dollars of damage to my car from this kind of trash. The INSURANCE company fixed my car then DROPPED me. Because I was dropped no one else wanted to insure me. I found insurance at double what I was paying.for next 3 years I needed a car to make my living so had to rent a car while mine was being repaired My family and I suffered a big loss over this. He went to jail Sentance.1 year released with in a mo. credit time served waiting trail big deal I would have perfered a tall tree and a short rope. Sorry I don't feel sorry for him getting shot.

 

[Fred Fuller]

"...saw what he thought was a young man trying to steal a car stereo."

"When the person tried to flee in another car, Engle shot him in the back at close range... ."
---------------
Dang y'all are hard. I hope none of you ever turn your words into deeds or you may well find yourselves in trouble big time. Number one, note the shooter is FACING TRIAL himself. I don't know how he will be found, but legal defense even in a stone cold justifiable shooting can be devastatingly expensive if it comes to that. In a case with as many apparent problems as this- well, here in NC the shooter would almost certainly be in deep trouble.

And then there is the matter of the civil suit(s) to follow...

If you live in a place where lethal force is justified against a fleeing person who has committed a only a nonviolent property crime, this might not be an issue for you. But most places consider such conduct illegal in the extreme. There is no substitute for knowing _and following_ self defense law in your jurisdiction. The education you get at the front of a courtroom is awfully painful. Better to avoid that... car stereos are cheap by comparison.

lpl/nc

 

[migoi]

As I'm writng this...

185 members and 291 guests are reading this forum. In the big picture of things, I'm thinking this thread will do little to convince those sitting on the fence about concealed carry/firearm ownership for ordinary citizens that it is a good idea.

Seems to me we're lining up the sights for shooting ourselves in the foot one more time. Death penalty for misdemeanor theft... I'm thinking that would be a hard sell to Mom and Pop Soccer.

migoi

 

[gunsmith]

I was a security guard for awhile (in SFCA)

And I had to pull my Glock twice, I never pointed it at anyone and knew enough to keep my finger off the trigger.
The S/O in question was very poorly trained. (to say the least).
I sought out good training and I practice things like keeping my finger off the trigger.
The S/O obviously never really prepared himself for carrying a gun.
I would never shoot someone for breaking into someone elses car .
If I caught someone breaking into my car though I'd make darn sure I could articulate in Court the need for deadly force if I indeed shot some stupid kid.
My two cents is stupid S/O meets stupid kid,stuff like this happens all the time THE POINT IS KEEP YOUR FINGER OFF THE TRIGGER AND GET TRAINED

 

[gunsmith]

hey migoi

Death penalty for misdemeanor theft... I'm thinking that would be a hard sell to Mom and Pop Soccer.

You forgot to add "except in Texas"

 

[Elmer]

Dang y'all are hard. I hope none of you ever turn your words into deeds or you may well find yourselves in trouble big time. Number one, note the shooter is FACING TRIAL himself. I don't know how he will be found, but legal defense even in a stone cold justifiable shooting can be devastatingly expensive if it comes to that. In a case with as many apparent problems as this- well, here in NC the shooter would almost certainly be in deep trouble

I like to think that most of the comments here are just letting off steam or talking smack..... I sure hope so anyway.....

 

[iiibdsiil]

+1 for him getting what he deserved.

I have done plenty of stupid crap, much of which I deserve to have been shot over too. At least I think so now, sure as heck didn't think so then. I feel no pity for thieves, murders, rapists, or any other scum. Scum is scum, and that's it.

 

[Kilroy]

If I ever came home to find my girlfriend being raped, her concerns about how she'd "feel" about my having killed her attacker would not be very heavily considered as I did what was necessary to end his attack.

Though this will probably come up before the Grand Jury. She is likely to down play the necessity of shooting, thus setting the stage for you to be criminally charged. Wish it weren't so, but I have seen this many times in felony trials. The victim becomes your worst witness.

 

[Jamie C.]

Here's a story that was just on our local news tonight:

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

Teens suspected of crime spree are arrested

Metro Police say a group of teenagers pulled off a total of 10 robberies overnight with the crime spree lasting about two and a half hours. Police say they randomly targeted people, robbing them of their money and sometimes even their clothes.

Police say a group of teenagers decided to start their violent crime spree late Monday night at Centennial Park. Detectives say five teens loaded into a green car and drove around town randomly robbing people.

"Anybody they saw walking down the street, they stopped, pulled out and pointed a pistol. There were a few people they roughed up and pushed around a little bit. There was a few people that had to go to the hospital, but nobody was seriously injured," said Sgt. Freddie Stromatt, Metro Police.

Police say the teens attacked 10 people in all and took anything they could including the clothes they were wearing.

"They were asking for cash. If they didn't have cash, they would take a cell phone. A couple of people had their I-Pods taken. A couple of people were made to undress because they didn't have any money and were forced to strip down. It was pretty much a power thing," said Sgt. Stromatt.

The teens were finally stopped by police just after midnight. Police say an officer noticed the robbers' car near the intersection of Douglas Avenue and Meridian Street. When the officer tried to pull the vehicle over, the boys all jumped out and ran. Police were able to catch two of the suspected thieves. Three other teenagers were later taken into custody Monday morning.

Detectives are also now looking into whether any of the teens are involved in other similar robberies that have occurred recently in the Nashville area.

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

The story can be found online here .

And what the written story doesn't mention, that the news broadcast did, was that 2 or 3 of these kids weren't even old enough to drive. Or that the robberies were their way of getting money to attend some unnamed "social function".

Now, this may be a little different than the kid possibly trying to boost a stereo, in one respect....but it also goes to show that it doesn't really make much difference how old a criminal is..... And if it'd been me these fools tried to rob and beat.... I'd do my best to put a bullet in all of 'em.

So, as to the kid and the security guard.... I'll not pass judgment, mostly because I wasn't there and don't know the whole story. But for the folks going on about the "poor 15 year old".... how would you like to have encountered the above-mentioned group of kids? I'll bet you wouldn't be very sympathetic toward them after they were through with ya.

Sorry, but "bad" or "just plain mean" doesn't have a minimum age, these days... if it ever did at all.



J.C.

 

[P95loser]

heres the real story... Tim was walking his beat, when he noticed Hussein Musse in the alley playing hide the stick with tim's wife.

I woulda shot the kid, but not in the back.

 

[pauli]

i'm really hoping a moderator sees this, and moves it to legal and political.

this has nothing to do with technical matters, as evidenced by the resultant discussion.

 

[Elmer]

+1 for him getting what he deserved.

I have done plenty of stupid crap, much of which I deserve to have been shot over too. At least I think so now, sure as heck didn't think so then. I feel no pity for thieves, murders, rapists, or any other scum. Scum is scum, and that's it.

Can you contact those whom you offended enough for them to shoot you? Maybe they'd still like to take a shot at you.

 

[T. Bracker]

The story about the kids riding around robbing people is apples to oranges, they were committing armed robbery with a FIREARM! Big difference from property theft in a empty car. It is concerning to me that some of the posters seem to see no difference in these two situations.