Car Prowler Shot by Vehicle Owner

[tkopp]

Thought this made an interesting followup discussion to our horribly off-track locked thread.

Source

A year later, man charged in deadly car prowler shooting

Submitted by Martha Kang on Wednesday, September 23rd, 08:35pm

A man accused of shooting and killing a suspected car prowler whom he believed had taken a subwoofer from his car has been charged.

Douglas C. Sheets, 20, has been charged with second-degree manslaughter in the death of Jhovany Hernandez.

Hernandez, then 21, was shot and killed outside an apartment complex in the 9700 block of Fifth Avenue NE in the city's Northgate area almost exactly a year ago.

According to the statement of probable cause, on Sept. 24, 2008 Sheets was inside his first-floor apartment, which sits directly above his car port, when he heard what sounded like someone breaking into his car just before 7 p.m.

The man said he stepped out onto his balcony and saw an unfamiliar car idling next to parking stall. He said he saw two people sitting inside the car. Investigators added there were three other men Sheets could not seen at the time.

The defendant said he saw that the men were breaking into his car, a 2001 Toyota Camry. He then retreated into his apartment and rgabbed his Russian-made Mosin-Nagant file Model 9145 M44, he told police.

The suspected car prowlers spotted Sheets and his firearm, the statement said. Three of them took of them took off in the car, turned a corner and waited for the other two to catch up.

Sheets told detectives he saw the two remaining thieves running south toward the waiting car. One of them, Hernandez, was carrying a 27-pound subwoofer he had taken from Sheets' car, he said.

Sheets ordered the men to the ground, he said, but they did not comply. As men ran, the defendant the man carrying the subwoofer looked back at him and reached toward his waistband.

Sheet said he then pointed his rifle and fired while standing some 60 to 70 feet away from the victim, who was facing away.

The bullet went through the victim's head, police said, then left through the front of his skull, deflected up and went into a nearby house where it was later found.

The surviving car prowler hopped into the waiting getaway car and fled, according to the document.

Sheets ran and checked the shot victim's pulse, then yelled for someone to call 911, he told investigators. A neighbor came outside, convinced Sheets to put down the rifle then called 911, detectives said.

Officers said they searched the victim's clothing, as well the street and the area surrounding the apartment building, but did not find a gun. The only items found inside his pockets were a car stereo face plate and a screwdriver.

Sheets told investigators he did not mean to kill the victim; he said he had only meant to shoot him in the leg or some other less critical body part.

He added when he saw the victim reach for his waist band, "he wasn't going to take any chances, he 'freaked the s--- (expletive) out,' and fired,'" the document said.

An autopsy revealed the victim had been killed by a gunshot to the head.

Prosecutors said Sheets' manslaughter charge is based on negligence for using more force than the law allows to recover property.

He is scheduled to be arraigned on Oct. 2

Points of note;

When the homeowner went to confront the thieves, there were two he could see. However, there were also three more accomplices he could not. He ran headlong into a 5 to 1 confrontation. Even lacking a firearm (and who knows if any were armed) they had numbers and a vehicle on their side. A car makes a dandy weapon.

His bolt action rifle holds five bullets.

The thieves fled rather than submitting. They continued to steal his property. Thieves are unimpressed by firearms and will not be awed into submission.

After the fact, the vehicle owner did an unconvincing job of articulating his need for deadly force. While he expressed that he felt threatened by the thief reaching for his waist band (presumably to draw a weapon), he also expressed that he would in retrospect have taken a non-life-ending shot to an arm or a leg, which indicates that in 20/20 hindsight he'd rather have not forced a deadly confrontation.

The police, after a year-long investigation and search for witnesses, were unconvinced that the thieves posed an immediate danger to anyone's life and the DA's charging Sheets with 2nd degree manslaughter.

 

[Mandolin]

An autopsy revealed the victim had been killed by a gunshot to the head.

No kidding! 7.62x54r to the head is powerful!

Considering it was a Mosin-NAgant M44, he could have loaded a blank rounnd, fired in the air and seen what was happenign better

All joking aside, I hope he's found not guilty. I remember reading about it where it happened

 

[bababooey32]

only meant to shoot him in the leg or some other less critical body part

Error #1 - If you are in fear for you rlife or grave bodily injuty (the only justification for employing deadly force), why would you "shoot to wound". Well, he probably wasn't, but he was under the impression that saying "i only meant to wound him" would make him sound more humane. Oops.

he 'freaked the s--- (expletive) out,' and fired,

Error #2 - being scared and defending yourself is different than "freaking out" and shooting. Again, I think this guy thought he was being honest, but it makes him look out of control.

man carrying the subwoofer looked back at him and reached toward his waistband

This was all he needed to say. Whether or not a gun was found, it was reasonable to believe this burglar was reaching for a weapon. There's your justification. Now SHUT UP and CALL A LAWYER!

Sheets ran and checked the shot victim's pulse, then yelled for someone to call 911

This would have helped even more, if he had SHUT UP and CALLED A LAWYER!!!

So, kids, what's the lesson here?

(all together now)

"SHUT UP AND CALL A LAWYER!"

Very good.

 

[Warhawk83]

This guy just sounds like an idiot,all he had to do was tell em to stop and call the cops. How is the guy gonna fire if he's holding a 27 pound sub-woofer...that probably didn't help his case either. I'm not getting my gun to point at someone running away with stereo equipment,much less actually pull the trigger.

 

[Arkansas Paul]

While I don't think I would have responded in the same way, I really hope they find him not guilty. At the end of the day, there's one less thief in the world. I would call that a good thing. It's a pity his four buddies didn't get a bullet in the head as well. You can call me callous if you want, but I have zero use for someone who will take what someone else worked for. Kill em all.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Error #1 - If you are in fear for you rlife or grave bodily injuty (the only justification for employing deadly force), why would you "shoot to wound". Well, he probably wasn't, but he was under the impression that saying "i only meant to wound him" would make him sound more humane. Oops.

Many people truly do not want to kill another person, even when using deadly force. It is not by mistake that they shoot to wound or hit somebody in the head with a shovel to incapacitate, even though a gun is considered lethal force as is hitting a person in the head with a shovel.

Error #2 - being scared and defending yourself is different than "freaking out" and shooting. Again, I think this guy thought he was being honest, but it makes him look out of control.

Maybe. It also shows that he was truly if fear for his life, more than just simply scared.

 

[j-easy]

Interesting story, I think the first mistake was to get a gun to confront thieves stealing in the parking lot outside. I think had I been in his position I would have tried to stay inside and discreetly get the license plate number and descriptions of the thieves through a window while calling 911. As much as I despise thieves there is nothing in my car worth going outside to confront 5 of them.

 

[mgkdrgn]

Bad shoot.

Deadly force is not appropriate (or legal in most places) to prevent theft or damage of property.

 

[eight433]

i agree j-easy. A car JACKING may warrent a different scenario, but as infuriating as it may be, the police could have handled the situation much better.

on a side note- I'm surprised the guys head did not explode all over hell from a 7.62X54R shot to the skull.

I also like how they say it was a head shot from a M44, but later (you know, just to clarify) say the autopsy "revealed" he died from a shot to the head.

 

[Cosmoline]

Deadly force is not appropriate (or legal in most places) to prevent theft or damage of property.

If you believe him, the dead crook was reaching for his waist band and *THAT* is why he shot. Apparently the DA doesn't believe him. Either way I'd rather be facing a jury on that here than in Seattle. And obviously he should not have pursued.

His bolt action rifle holds five bullets.

Well, at 60-70 feet, the range of engagement, a well versed shooter with a bolt gun is going to have a FIELD DAY in a shootout with goblins. They will hit sky, and you can see yourself what he hit. That said, chasing them down to get a subwoofer is not worth it. Even when he thought the fellow was reaching for his waistband for a weapon, the shooter could have afforded to wait given his weapon and the distance involved.

 

[tkopp]

My point was 5 bullets may seem like plenty for 2 thieves, but seems rather anemic for 5 aggressors. When you walk into a gunfight, you never know what you're going to find. Thieves run in crews for a reason. Being alone with 5 shots is a terrible idea, no matter how beefy those shots might be.

Edit:

And while it may seem like I'm besmirching the honor of revolver carriers everywhere, I'm not. The key is to not be *alone.*

PS. Call the cops.

 

[Oyeboten]

If cops see what they feel is a fleeing felon or fleeing suspect m-a-y-b-e reaching toward a 'waisteband' at any distance...they fire several hundred rounds, and, if hitting or killing the offending party, it is always 'Justified'.


If a Civillian sees a just-confronted felon or burglar appearing to be reaching for something in a waistband, and fires one round, the DA prefers to say, "UNjustified"


This does not seem to me to very consistent.

 

[tkopp]

It isn't always 'justified' by the DA, Oye. And it never is in the court of public opinion. Police departments and individual officers are nearly always sued at least by the victim's family in civil litigation, even when no charges are brought by the state.

Police are also typically far better trained, equipped, and prepared to deal with both the practical side of surviving a shooting and have a support network and specific training to deal with the legal end. Of course they're going to fare better than John Q Public.

 

[Cosmoline]

This does not seem to me to very consistent.

In defense of the LEO's, they have a VERY different job to do. That job includes running down fleeing felons and even shooting them dead under the proper circumstances. Civilians do not have that job, even if they want it.

My point was 5 bullets may seem like plenty for 2 thieves, but seems rather anemic for 5 aggressors. When you walk into a gunfight, you never know what you're going to find. Thieves run in crews for a reason. Being alone with 5 shots is a terrible idea, no matter how beefy those shots might be.

Five of .30'06 or .54R is plenty. These aren't Taliban, they're just urban goblins. They don't hang out against that kind of power--shoot one and the rest will run even if they're armed. Most of them will have never even seen anything that powerful go off, let alone witness what it does to their fellow nogoodnick. I've checked out bumps in the night with a Mosin or a Mossberg and never felt under-gunned. Worst case scenario they're likely to be cranking away with little handguns, and I'll have the thunderclap of doom.

That said, his Mosin did its job the moment they ran off. He should have been thankful he didn't have to shoot and called 911. But he apparently let anger take hold.

 

[Zoogster]

My point was 5 bullets may seem like plenty for 2 thieves, but seems rather anemic for 5 aggressors. When you walk into a gunfight, you never know what you're going to find. Thieves run in crews for a reason. Being alone with 5 shots is a terrible idea, no matter how beefy those shots might be.

Not with a mosin equipped the way they were when actually in use. Have you seen the size of a mosin bayonet?!
The mosin becomes a spear when it runs out of ammo.



The individual in this case ran out to confront thieves with a firearm. While legal, and even performing a citizens arrest is legal in most states, in reality it will fail in the court of public opinion if they resist and force is used.
That is when actual justified force is used, it can still result in homicide or murder charges because they can assume it was not justified and was in defense of property.

Actually stopping someone from fleeing with stolen property at night like this would only be legal in Texas, and even there will still fail in the court of public opinion.
Unfortunately a gang of criminals stealing items quickly and fleeing cannot be stopped. They will stick up for each other physically, attack someone who confronts them unarmed or flee with the property, and if lethal force ends up used against them that person will be charged many times.
If you catch one of them, the others will often come back and jump you to free the caught individual.
If they are using a stolen vehicle, like is the case as often as not, then the license place number accomplishes little.

So all you can do is suffer the loss of the subwoofer or other stolen item, and report it to police. The police normally won't catch them, or recover the property, or even report to a petty theft on a busy night like a friday or Saturday any time soon. So its often a loss.
That is the legal option to stay out of prison.
I knew someone that lost several thousand dollars after replacing thier stereo 6x that I knew about in a bad apartment complex. They had to replace a window each time as well.

 

[SSN Vet]

a proper mindset drilled into your head prior to putting a firearm into your hands is everything...

deadly force is for protecting life....

deadly force is NOT for protecting stuff.

 

[03Shadowbob]

I am pretty impressed with a head shot at 70' with the guy running and in the dark. That is some damn fine shootin'. I hope they find him not guilty.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Well, whatever else, here we have a young man whose life may be irrevocably ruined because he was not properly schooled in, and/or did not understand, when and how to properly and justifiably use lethal force.

 

[skoro]

That's a bad shoot. One less goblin in this world isn't a bad result in the opinion of many, but legally the shooter wasn't in peril of death or great bodily harm. And that 27 lb subwoofer could be replaced with an insurance claim.

Me? I would have called the cops, gotten out my binos and copied down the license plate and gotten as good a look at the perps as time and lighting would allow. I've had my vehicle broken into and the stereo jacked. Insurance takes care of most of it pretty quickly. This guy is going to be dealing with the effects of this shooting for a long time.

 

[LoneCoon]

While I hope he's found not guilty, I have to agree that it was a bad shoot.

Reaching for the waistband would have provoked me to fire, but to wound? That's not why you use lethal force, buddy. Next time, use better judgment.

 

[conw]

1) Needed lawyer before making statement
2) It's easy to say he wasn't justified, but lots of people have made this mistake of thinking someone was pulling a gun when they weren't.
3) He was probably angry and rather than thinking long-term, thinking short-term.

 

[Archery Ham]

I think he used poor judgement.

 

[rocky branch]

Bad shoot.

The headshot was just luck.

Personally I'd like to see him jailed for possession of a subwoofer.

 

[ironcode]

So there are a couple of things that have to be mentioned... WA is no-retreat. In WA homicide is justifiable to prevent a felony. At the time of the shooting, felony theft in WA was $250 (now it's $750). So, if the subwoofer cost more than $250, the owner would technically be justified (although I don't think a thief deserves to die for a subwoofer). He would also have been justified if the thief really reached for what the owner thought was a gun.

However, the guy didn't do himself a favor by making the situation gray vs. black and white:
1. Shooting the guy in the back of the head - was he really a threat?
2. The shooter's admission that he didn't mean to kill. This means that he killed due to negligence. Does this change the situation? If you're justified in killing somebody, but you do it accidentally, is the shooting still justified? (If, while driving drunk, you run over a bank robber and kill him, is that a justifiable homicide? Might have been if you really intended to do it, but does the fact that you did it out of negligence change the picture)?

For me, the moral of the story is - you shoot somebody, you shut up and only talk to a lawyer.

 

[2nd 41]

If someone is stealing my car or property outside of my house I will respond with Upgrading whatever was taken. It is cheaper to replace property as opposed to paying a lawyer to defend you.