Car Prowler Shot by Vehicle Owner

Status
Not open for further replies.
As much as I despise thieves there is nothing in my car worth going outside to confront 5 of them.
Agreed. I've got insurance. I'll stay inside and call 911.

Last time I spoke with a top criminal defense attorney in the Boston area, he told me that he charges a flat rate of $100,000 for defending a murder charge. The reason he charges a flat rate is that if he charged his normal hourly rate, no one would be able to afford it. Risk dying and/or a murder charge over a subwoofer? Not me.
 
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.

Once or even a couple times. Once your property is known to be a good source of free loot in a low income area with a lot of thieves that changes. After all if you live in such an area you probably don't have much money to spare.

The guy I posted about earlier lost his system many times. Even getting one of those systems where the front panel comes off when you leave the vehicle. Even that was stolen. He finally just went without a radio in the vehicle until he moved from the high crime area.

If you make a decent living and live below your means, it is an easier option to eat the loss and replace items. Most of those living in high crime low income neighborhoods have a low income. Replacing or upgrading things of value may be rare.
Thier options are often limited to simply doing without those things which are progressively stolen, or stopping the theft.


And that 27 lb subwoofer could be replaced with an insurance claim.

Most insurance policies have deductibles. So a lot of low value thefts still hit the person for the deductible each time, and thier insurance also will go way up if they have a lot of claims.
If you live in a suburb with the occasional theft it is much easier than the low income area with multiple thefts per night.




To me it appears he used poor judgment. I was not there.
His decision to make the statement he did was certainly a poor decision.


The truth is that in very low income areas with high crime a group of thieves can get away with almost anything until someone illegally stops them. Like when they break into another thug's car and he comes out and attacks them.
The thieves are often juveniles, and if caught face very little if any time. They are unlikely to ever reimburse the victim even if caught and it is court ordered. People making no money don't reimburse you.
They normally flee the scene before police arrive, and will attack anyone who tries to detain a member of the group.
If one is caught, they get out a short time later, and either they or thier group continues to steal as it is often a lifestyle in such low income areas.
In high crime areas police take a long time to report to such petty crimes when there is robberies and other violent crime happening on a busy Friday or Saturday night. They also won't devote much to investigating the incident, it is very low priority.
So it often takes many incidents before they are apprehended the first time.

So a group of several strong young youths can steal whatever they want with impunity in such areas, until they run across another thug or someone who simply loses it.
In this case it appears to be one of the two.
 
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.
I've seen a video of an officer firing on a guy who reached down towards a flip flop. Officer gets a pass, a civilian would be rotting in the clink.
 
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!

Of all the posts here, this one is the best bit of advice if you find yourself in a similar situation. May very well save you from prison/jail time.
 
Food for thought.

Just because you have the right to use lethal force, doesn't mean you have to try your best to kill someone. It means you believe your life is in danger and you think lethal force will save you. Even if you intentionally aim for the leg like the Dali Lama believes. Yes or no? And if your aim is off, causing a fatal wound, then it would still be justified, right?

Also, since the guy is dead, he'll never be able to corroborate the "turning around and reaching for his waistband" claim. But who are you gonna believe? A guy who breaks into cars to steal subwoofers in the dark of night seems like a real trustworthy guy, right? No. But his four accomplices will tell the truth, right? No.

"The waistband defense."
Yes the circumstances are a little unfortunate, but how do all you guys jump to conclusions so fast? I, for one, have no problem believing the shooter's story. The way the wannabes wear their pants these days, the thief probably turned around to make sure he had time to stop and pull his pants up. I find it hard to believe some of these fashionistas coulda run much farther than 60 feet while carrying something in both hands WITHOUT stopping to do so. In this scenario, it makes it more likely for the guy carrying a 27 pound subwoofer to pull this move. So don't cast your ballots until you have all the facts.

Yet another scenario: We've all seen or heard about idiots who fake draw against police. Maybe the guy was an adrenaline junkie or otherwise just wanted to show off to his friends how fearless he was by threatening a guy with a gun.
 
Last edited:
I have confronted criminals in the past, and I will in the future if there is even a slight opinion on my part that I might recover my items.

The cops regularly won't even show up for over an hour for such a petty issue.
The cops won't even bother to investigate such an event.
The criminals will continue to rob you and everyone else they can.
Insurance only covers it if you actually have insurance, and the deductible is exceeded.
Your insurance premium will go up substantially after several 'incidents' such as this.

I am not OK with sitting back and getting robbed again and again because I am afraid to confront a criminal stealing my stuff.

I have and will continue to use a gun to protect my property (and self), and I would again and again.... the criminals should keep this in mind, or possibly be confronted with a very capable armed property owner when they come to get my property.

I will not wait for the police to arrive to settle the issue, if they ever do (but I would call them as soon as possible).... been there, not doing that again....
 
Last edited:
if i was gonna shoot in this guys position, IF I WAS! i would have shot in front of him, i think he would then drop what he was carrying and book it.
 
deadly force is for protecting life....
deadly force is NOT for protecting stuff.

That is an opinion, not a fact. Your opinion and mine may differ.

Neither your opinion nor mine carries any legal weight. Know and follow your state laws.

Let me say it again. Know them intimately and follow them explicitly.

That is what is important, and that is what will keep you out of the pokey... and will prevent civil suits after criminal charges are dropped.

I have no idea what the laws are in whatever jurisdiction this occurred, or in your home state. Nor do I particularly care.

I sure as Hell know what the laws are here where I live.
 
He then retreated into his apartment and rgabbed his Russian-made Mosin-Nagant file Model 1945 M44
The bullet went through the victim's head, police said, then left through the front of his skull,
An autopsy revealed the victim had been killed by a gunshot to the head.

How much of an autopsy was needed? A headshot at less than 100 yards from an M44 would have to be doing some serious damage.

Though, frankly, I think this is the first time I've ever heard of anyone using a legit M44 in such a situation in the last 60 years......and the first time I've heard of someone landing a headshot with one at night.
 
well im sure they left there buddy witht he heavy equipment in the dust when they see a rifle. ive never seen robbers stick together, most save themselves. so a buttstock to his buddie and the buisness in too the others should hold things off till police show
 
He plead guilty, and is expected to receive a greatly reduced sentence of 9 months work release. His sentence is still pending.

From here:

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

KOMO radio reporter Jon Repp snapped this picture of Douglas C. Sheets (center in white shirt), appearing Friday in King County Superior Court to face a charge of second-degree manslaughter in the death of Jhovany Hernandez.

Prosecutors said Sheets pleaded guilty to the charge in exchange for a recommended sentence of 9 months work release - an exceptionally reduced term for the crime. The actual sentencing will take place Oct. 30.

Sheets showed little visible emotion during the hearing.

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

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

Sheets said he stepped out onto his balcony and saw men breaking into his car, a 2001 Toyota Camry. He then retreated into his apartment and grabbed 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 off in the car, turned a corner and waited for two others to catch up.

Sheets told detectives one of the two was carrying a 27-pound subwoofer he had taken from his car.

Sheets ordered the men to the ground, but they did not comply and one 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.

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

Sheets yelled for someone to call 911. When officers arrived, they searched the victim's clothing, as well the street and the area surrounding the apartment building, but did not find a gun.

Sheets told investigators he did not mean to kill the victim, but when he saw the victim reach for his waist band, "he wasn't going to take any chances," court documents said.

Prosecutors said Sheets' manslaughter charge is based on negligence for using more force than the law allows to recover property.
 
I am somewhat nauseated by my brethren that are comfortable with the idea of watching a criminal commit a crime because to do otherwise is easier or cheaper. Whatever happened to honor and doing the right thing?

Here is to hoping my neighbor is like Joe Horn.
 
Guillermo said:
I am somewhat nauseated by my brethren that are comfortable with the idea of watching a criminal commit a crime because to do otherwise is easier or cheaper. Whatever happened to honor and doing the right thing?...
Some of us live in the real world. We now have a young man who must go through his life with a felony conviction on his record because he handled a situation poorly and used a gun inappropriately. And by the way, a number of the crooks got away to prey on others. Is that really a good result? It's not to me.
 
Here is to hoping my neighbor is like Joe Horn.

Joe Horn went out at night, where he might well have been ambushed and killed or maimed. He killed two people and escaped a murder indictment only because a peace officer who happened to witness the incident provided testimony that Joe fired in self defense.

I hope my neighbors exhibit much better judgment.
 
My comment was not to a particular event but rather the acceptance of a certain level of victimhood. The main theme seems to be that someone else is responsible for their stuff (insurance) or that doing the right thing might get them in trouble.

These attitudes are the exact opposite as honorable. They are selfish, self serving and CERTAINLY not High Road.
 
Guillermo said:
My comment was not to a particular event but rather the acceptance of a certain level of victimhood. The main theme seems to be that someone else is responsible for their stuff (insurance) or that doing the right thing might get them in trouble....
  1. This particular thread is about a specific event and not an abstracton.
  2. I don't see anyone accepting any level of victimhood. I see a number of people understanding real life in the real world.
  3. People buy insurance to cover certain losses. That's what it's for.
  4. Since when is committing a felonious homicide the right thing?

Guillermo said:
These attitudes are the exact opposite as honorable. They are selfish, self serving and CERTAINLY not High Road.
Funny, I think encouraging the irresponsible, inappropriate and criminal misuse of a firearm is certainly not High Road.
 
Guillermo,

It might be a good idea to read up on something called 'the social contract' a bit. While I agree that the social contract is becoming increasingly worn and tattered, at least some remnant of it still exists, and still carries the force of law. Whether all of us, or even any of us, like it or not, breaching that contract, whatever portions of it still exist in your AO, still has consequences. Not liking any particular set of consequences doesn't mean they won't be brought to bear, and recognizing that fact does not necessarily diminish any particular individual. The situation is what it is.

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Social_contract

fwiw,

lpl
 
Look fellow gun folk

"I am not going to stop that guy from taking my stuff, after all, I pay insurance" is accepting victimhood. That you don't have to be the one to pay for the lost items just means that you are passing along the price of victimhood to another.

As to the scenario that started this discussion, it sounds like he messed up. Joe Horn (who I mentioned) messed up too. But these guys stood up to evil. They didn't stand on the side and say "it's insured".

I did not and would not advocate that anyone misuse a firearm.

All that said if you break into my car to steal my stereo I am going to, if I can with a reasonable chance of success, do my best to stop you. If possible I am going to use lethal force. That is not misuse of a firearm or the social contract. It is called standing up to evil.

I would encourage you to rethink your position.

Also reading back I did not handle the presentation of my postion well and for that I apologize.
 
Guillermo said:
...if you break into my car to steal my stereo I am going to, if I can with a reasonable chance of success, do my best to stop you. If possible I am going to use lethal force. That is not misuse of a firearm or the social contract. It is called standing up to evil...
Sorry Guillermo, you've got it wrong. In the longstanding tradition of the Common Law, upon which the law of the United States is based, the use of lethal force by a private citizen is not for "standing up to evil." It's a last resort to protect and preserve life and limb.

From the 1915 abridgment of Blackstone's 18th century Commentaries on the Common Law of England (page 289) --

http://books.google.com/books?id=jA...esult&resnum=8&ct=result#v=onepage&q=&f=false

"Force may be used in self defense, in which "...if the party himself, or any of these his relations, be forcibly attacked in his person or property, it is lawful for him to repel force by force..." with the caveat that, "...care must be taken that the resistance does not exceed the bounds of mere defense and prevention, for then the defender would himself become an aggressor..."

"However, note that under what Blackstone refers to as reprisal, once property is taken, it may be recovered or retained only if, "...it be not in a riotous manner, or attended with a breach of the peace....." Blackstone notes, "...the public peace is a superior consideration to any one man's private property ; and as, if individuals were once allowed to use private force as a remedy for private injuries, all social justice must cease, the strong would give law to the weak, and every man would revert to a state of nature; for these reasons it is provided that this natural right of recaption shall never be exerted where such exertion must occasion strife and bodily contention, or endanger the peace of society..." (emphasis added)

Guillermo said:
"I am not going to stop that guy from taking my stuff, after all, I pay insurance" is accepting victimhood....
Nope. It's recognizing one's responsibilities as a member of society and one's role under the Social Contract.

Guillermo said:
I would encourage you to rethink your position.
I for one won't do so. You haven't demonstrated to my satisfaction that you are qualified to instruct me in my responsibilities as a man or as a citizen.
 
If possible I am going to use lethal force.

this is a classic case of an instance when the telling's sweeter than the tasting. if you ever get the chance to experience it let us know how you liked it and the consequences
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top