Car Prowler Shot by Vehicle Owner

[Kleanbore]

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.

Obvious and clear contradiction in most jurisdictions, and depending upon the circumstances, perhaps in all..

 

[jumpstart]

Dude, shouldn't have been stealing. Unfortunate as it is, this act maintains some manner of equilibrium between victims and perps.

 

[Guillermo]

fiddletown,

There is nothing more obvious than the fact that seeing one steal from you and you doing nothing about it is accepting your role as a victim.

That is your choice. That you choose to be a victim is fine with me. Just know that you are part of the problem, not the solution.

I choose to be part of the solution in the spirit of Thomas Jefferson who said "it is not only every man's right, but RESPONSIBILITY to go about armed."

As far as my qualities as a man or as a citizen, you really have no idea with whom you speak.

 

[Guillermo]

Cassandrasdaddy,

It is not a source of pride that I tell you that I have discharged my sidearm on more than one occasion in the civilian world. I have cleared leather on other occasions that broke up the incident.

The bottom line is that I have been there and am intimately familiar with the shoot, don't shoot scenario.


I am very happy that I am no longer in that business and am MUCH less likely to clear leather.

 

[Guillermo]

kleanbore,

I live in Texas. Especially at night, I am legal to shoot.

Thank goodness the right to protect my or my neighbors property is well established in the law.

That said I NEVER discharge a weapon without knowing my target (and what is behind it)

 

[Dr. Peter Venkman]

Don't steal, don't get your head shot off.

 

[Kleanbore]

I live in Texas.

Saw that. The one jurisdiction in the country in which one use deadly force to protect property in a situation not involving a forcible felony.

Especially at night, I am legal to shoot.

It didn't happen more than thirty minutes after sundown.

The burglary had already occurred--could no longer be prevented.

But let's assume away those two inconvenient facts. You could shoot if you had no other safe way to recover the property.

But suppose the shooter doesn't have any witnesses. He'll have to rely on the forensic evidence and on his own testimony.

He would be infinitely better off if among the latter is not the statement "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"? Hmmm. That could sound a lot like evidence of a criminal state of mind.

Texas law speaks of that is necessary and of what is not possible, and does not justify shooting because it is possible.

That said I NEVER discharge a weapon without knowing my target (and what is behind it)

The legality of shooting the thief notwithstanding, I can think of nothing more boneheaded than firing a high powered rifle at fleeing people in an urban setting.

Not doing so is part of the social contract, too.

 

[Guillermo]

Kleanbore,

There is nothing inaccurate in your post. Well written and thought out.

My point from the beginning has not been legal. It has been about doing the right thing. If you have a chance to stop a thief and you don't, the next crimes that they commit are partially your fault.

The question that everyone has to answer is what level of victimhood they are willing to accept. Car stereo, welding machine, the whole car? At what point do you stand up to evil?

 

[Frank Ettin]

...At what point do you stand up to evil?

You always stand up to evil, but you do so in a lawful and moral way -- or else you become evil yourself. There are more tactically, morally and legally correct ways to handle a situation like the one under discussion here.

First, call the police. Second, observe, get descriptions, license number, etc. Take photographs (and be armed while doing so in case you are physically attacked). But you would not be justified in committing manslaughter.

...My point from the beginning has not been legal. It has been about doing the right thing.....

How is committing a violent crime "doing the right thing"? To suggest that it is and to encourage doing so, is irresponsible and definitely "Not High Road."

...If you have a chance to stop a thief and you don't, the next crimes that they commit are partially your fault....

Not necessarily. Nothing in the law or Social Contract requires a private citizen to commit a crime in order to supposedly reduce the risk of some future crime that may or may not occur. One reasonably might be expected (morally if not legally) to take lawful steps to help -- being a witness, identifying evidence, etc. One even might be expected (morally if not legally) to expose himself to some personal risk to do so. But one is not responsible to commit manslaughter in the name of "crime prevention."

 

[rbernie]

There is nothing more obvious than the fact that seeing one steal from you and you doing nothing about it is accepting your role as a victim.

That is your choice. That you choose to be a victim is fine with me. Just know that you are part of the problem, not the solution.

I choose to be part of the solution in the spirit of Thomas Jefferson who said "it is not only every man's right, but RESPONSIBILITY to go about armed."

And that's fine. It's also the responsibility of anyone that goes armed to be aware of the statutes and case law that define the lawful use of deadly force in their specific jurisdiction. Focusing on the 'armed' part without also posessing a solid grounding in the 'lawful' part is a recipe for trouble, as was proven in this case.

 

[Kleanbore]

My point from the beginning has not been legal. It has been about doing the right thing.

Sometimes--sometimes--there may be a distinction between complying with the laws of man and doing the right thing.

For example, if you have just landed at an airport with medicines badly needed by victims of a flood or earthquake, and a corrupt customs official will not permit getting the stuff out of the heat of the tarmac before it spoils unless you pay him a bribe, you will have to ask yourself which is the "right" thing--complying with the letter of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act or letting the cargo spoil and letting people suffer and die.

However, when it comes to the use of deadly force, or any force for that matter, I have trouble envisioning any reasonable examples of such a conflict between law and morality (excepting, of course, laws that prohibit the right to keep and bear arms).

An awful lot of thought and intellect went into the development of the English Common Law, and our state laws (except for those of Louisiana) all stem from that body of law. The judges who sat at the time were focussed entirely upon what constituted the right thing and what did not--not on coming up with a bureaucratic code just for the sake of doing so.

So--back to the social contract.

Suppose that a particular person might disagree with the morality of the Texas prohibition of using deadly force against a thief in the daytime (which, incidentally, is contained in Leviticus and I think, in the Code of Ur-Nammu)--can we let him decide what he thinks is right and wrong, and act accordingly? I think the answer is obvious.

And similarly in the State of Washington---and in Missouri where I live...

By the way, I would have been charged with a host of additional crimes had I performed the boneheaded act described in the OP, and rightly so.

How about shooting at trespassers? At people playing loud music (that must have been a heck of a subwoofer...I'll bet some folks are glad that that guy is off the streets for a while)?

No, we cannot all individually decide what is right and wrong in a civilized society.

We have laws against theft, rape, murder in all of its degrees, burglary, assault, aggravated assault, and a lot of other things. We charter peace officers to enforce the laws, prosecutors to bring changes, jurors to decide the facts based on the evidence and the law, and judges to instruct the jurors and pass sentence.

I guess the guy in Washington State thought he could assume all of those duties. Of course, it apparently never occurred to him that he, too, is subject to the law, as are all of us.

He may be back playing loud music after a while, but not with a gun, ever, barring an unlikely Presidential pardon.

The good news (other than maybe his very short sentence)? He didn't kill or maim anyone else.

 

[rbernie]

My point from the beginning has not been legal.

Let's also keep in mind the notion that THR does not allow or condone postings by anyone that advocates knowingly breaking the law. We also take a dim view of those who would incite others to ignore or skirt the law.

Some postings here have come awfully close to that edge, without out-n-out stating that folk should be willin' to hang horse thieves just 'cuz they needed killin'. Any closer to the edge, and folks are gonna start gettin' invited to take vacations from THR.

 

[Guillermo]

It sounds like rbernie is uncomfortable with this thread at this point (my fault) so I will wrap it up by saying that I am glad to live in a state where lethal force can be legally used to protect my life and property and that conveys somewhat to the life and property of others.

I am comfortable with this law and the morality behind said law. Quite frankly I am shocked that this is even a point of contention.

 

[rbernie]

I'm not uncomfortable with Texas law at all. I am glad that it gives me the legal option to use deadly force in defense or property, making the decision a moral one and not a legal one. I am, however, VERY uncomfortable extrapolating the laws that you and I enjoy (as residents of Texas) into positions that are then advocated for others in other jurisdictions to follow.

Texas law allows the use of deadly force in defense of property, under specific restrictions. Most other states do not, and we need to be mindful of the fact that we are speaking to a broad audience here.

 

[RoostRider]

Certainly it is appropriate to point out that this guy did VERY little different than many here would (dare I say most?)....

He saw a theft taking place against his property..... he went to stop the theft of his property... he was armed (lets say "just in case", cause had the burglar stopped and put down the speaker and given up, he likely wouldn't have been shot by anyone)... so far, those are all things advocated by most people here...

The only thing this guy did different, or out of the context of the law, was to actually shoot the guy..... given the guy supposedly turned and grabbed for his waist band (ala- gun).... I think he did what anyone would at that point....

My point isn't that someone should break the law to recover there property that was stolen, it is that the law allows you to stop a burglary, it allows you to recover your stolen property, it allows you to be armed, and it allows you to use lethal force to protect yourself.... but somehow, when you put this all together, people start calling you a vigilante and saying you used a firearm illegally....

I have been involved in a situation that is strikingly similar to the one this thread pertains to..... I reacted somewhat similar to the guy now pleading guilty (went armed to stop the commission of a felony)... no one was killed and I got many 'thumbs up' from everyone from neighbors to police to prosecuting attorneys (prosecuting the burglar, not me), and even the judge.... had the guy in my case reached into his waistband during the ordeal, he would be dead right now, and all of those same people might well be saying I stepped outside the bounds of law!!! THAT IS LUDICROUS....

The burglar, in my case, has a rap sheet as long as your arm.... the most recent prior to this was for manslaughter during to commission of his last burglary... plead down from murder (for the guaranteed conviction)... he spent 13 (?) months of a 11 (?) year sentence, before being released to burglarize some more....

For the record, I didn't manage to stop the burglar there and then, he went on to burglarize 2 more people that night (MY NEIGHBORS!!) before being caught.... the last being a 70 year old widow sleeping in her bed waking to this thug in her bedroom!!!! Something inside me to this day wishes I had stopped him when I had the chance (even killing him if necessary)..... that same something inspired many neighbors and even the police to tell me I should have put a round in his head when I had the chance...

Yeah, my 70 year old widow neighbor, who lives alone, now lives in constant and legitimate fear of waking to a murderer in her bedroom, BECAUSE IT HAS HAPPENED, as a direct result of my unwillingness/inability to stop this guy.... largely due to the inconsistency with the laws, and with what is "right" bouncing around in my head....

IMO, what is right is whatever it takes to stop thieves and murderers.... the law needs to catch up to that in most places.... and it needs to be WAY MORE consistent with regards to what you are allowed to do to stop such actions as a citizen....

 

[Frank Ettin]

Each of us has a wide range of responsibilities: to our families; our friends, co-workers and associates; our neighbors; and society at large. The person who has a family, friends and co-workers who depend upon him short changes them if, in an impulse to "do the right thing" for society commits a crime. He may not then be around to support his family.

... that same something inspired many neighbors and even the police to tell me I should have put a round in his head when I had the chance...

And most likely they felt free to say that only because you hadn't. If you had, and it was found to be unjustified, you would have put yourself in a position in which you would not have been able to support your family.

...IMO, what is right is whatever it takes to stop thieves and murderers.... the law needs to catch up to that in most places.... and it needs to be WAY MORE consistent with regards to what you are allowed to do to stop such actions as a citizen....

And there's another side to that debate. See http://www.licensetomurder.com/main.php . It may be hogwash, but I suspect a lot of folks are lapping it up.

 

[Kleanbore]

He saw a theft taking place against his property..... he went to stop the theft of his property... he was armed (lets say "just in case", cause had the burglar stopped and put down the speaker and given up, he likely wouldn't have been shot by anyone)... so far, those are all things advocated by most people here...

Not by me.

I am permitted to use force, but not deadly force, to protect property. I cannot exert sufficient non-deadly force to stop five burglars from doing anything. The perps know that. So, what would be the purpose of my mission?

I cannot lawfully carry an uncased rifle outside for protection where I live; I cannot exhibit a weapon in a threatening manner unless I am engaged in a lawful act of self-defense. I could go out with concealed weapon, but I won't take the chance.

I do not want anyone "giving up." I want 'em gone. Far too many legal pitfalls if I have him in my custody.

But most of all, I am too risk averse to want to take a chance on facing a number of criminals outside where I can be ambushed and shot, stabbed, clubbed, or slashed from any direction.

This guy found out the hard way:

http://cbs11tv.com/local/watauga.stabbing.burglary.2.851147.html

Excerpt:

Doctors had to amputate the arm of a Watauga homeowner Wednesday morning after he was injured in a fight with a crook. The man interrupted a robbery attempt in front of his house and ended up getting stabbed and then shot with his own gun. ....

According to reports, the homeowner heard some noise near his portable trailer parked outside his house in the 6000 block of Sundown Drive and went outside.

No, I do not advocate going out to try to recover property from five burglars; I do not advocate carrying a rifle outdoors, where I live. I do not want one of them to give up. And should things turn out wrong, I don't want to have to try to mount a defense of justifiability on the basis of the argument that I had a gun "just in case" and that had the man surrendered, he would not have been shot.

In the movies, the audience knows who the good guy is and where he is, and they know where the bad guys are. Bad assumption for real life.

The young man trying to recover his sub-woofer ended up with a felony conviction and a light sentence. He could just as easily have ended up dead or maimed at the hands of the burglars or a police officer. He could also very easily have killed or maimed innocent people.

He exercised very, very poor judgment indeed, but maybe his error might prove instructional for others who might otherwise not have thought through the risks and potential outcomes before being faced with a similar situation.

 

[RoostRider]

and it was found to be unjustified

The whole "and it was found to be unjustified" part is where it all goes wrong.... as noted, had be not felt threatened and shot the guy, he was probably within the law in all of his other actions.... being legitimately threatened other times justifies shooting... but combine all these legal actions and you get an questionable/illegal one???

Any shooting should be punished if it was "unjustified".... right?... my point is that this type of thing seems a lot more 'justified' than some legalities say it is... but from other angles it's legal.... but from another yet it isn't... from another.... on and on....

The criminals should be the ones who have to worry about an altercation during a criminal act.... not the victim...

 

[RoostRider]

Don't get me wrong Kleanbore, I am not saying one should violate the law, just that the law should not violate common sense either.... your common sense might say "let 'em steal it, I'm insured", but that same thing doesn't make sense to the guy who is NOT insured and gets robbed all the time, does it?

We don't want the law dictating insurance on everyone (at least I don't), so the law should favor the uninsured, and the insured can decide for themselves whether what they have is worth confronting that criminal trying to steal it over....

Who are you, or I, to tell someone else how much value there is on that thing someone is trying to jack? My entire livelyhood is locked in a garage.... my ability to provide for my family... all of it.... I'm done without it.... and probably being sued by several people as well for not finishing my contracts.... should I, my business, and my lively hood just curl up and die if I can't/don't want to insure it, and someone decides to steal it?

The criminal should be the one taking the risk on whether or not his victim values his stuff enough to confront them....

I think we (the THR we) can agree that having a gun with you if you need to confront a criminal in the act is probably a good idea.... and using it if threatened is a good idea too....

 

[Kleanbore]

Don't get me wrong Kleanbore, I am not saying one should violate the law, just that the law should not violate common sense either.... your common sense might say "let 'em steal it, I'm insured", but that same thing doesn't make sense to the guy who is NOT insured and gets robbed all the time, does it?

We've had almost nine centuries to refine our laws to reflect common sense, but with a couple of exceptions in one or two jurisdictions, the prohibition of the use of deadly force to protect property, except in an act attendant to preventing a forcible, heinous attack on a "habitation," has stood the test of time.

I think we (the THR we) can agree that having a gun with you if you need to confront a criminal in the act is probably a good idea....

...and that not having one is probably a poor idea.

and using it if threatened is a good idea too....

Compared to getting killed, yes, but frankly, there is nothing I own that is worth even a small fraction of the expense of mounting a defense of justifiability, and nothing that is worth the risk of not being able to successfully articulate that I did not in fact really take the gun to an avoidable confrontation for a purpose that was unlawful at the outset.

No, I have no compelling reason to risk all for the purpose of confronting a burglar, not to mention several of them.

They have the tactical advantage and after the fact, they have the advantage of having more witnesses on their side. Credible witnesses? Maybe not, but don't think that going in you will have the credibility of one of the knights of the table round, either.

"But they took my sub-woofer!" Well, suppose there's no sign of it, any more?

A hole in your car, you say "they" did it, you came out with a gun to confront them, and you were forced to fire in self defense. That's your story. And then there is theirs....

And the facts that everyone agrees upon are that you used your gun on someone.

Yeah, using the gun is preferable to getting killed, but putting oneself in a position in which you may end up doing so, when it can be avoided, may not be such a great idea.

 

[RoostRider]

So, your take on this is.... ?

It is legal to confront a criminal in the act? (though not advisable, by your way of thinking)
It is legal to keep a firearm for protection? (even advisable)
If you choose to implement the first, you better not implement the second?

I can agree entirely that your best interest is served by not confronting a criminal in the act of stealing your things.... but you or I can't make that call for someone else... nor can we be so sure that the "right" thing to do is let them do it and hope the police catch them later (see my above post about my 70 year old neighbor)...

If you're going to try to prevent people from confronting a criminal in the act because it might escalate the situation, just be straight about it and try to make a law that says you can't engage a criminal in the act...... (good luck getting support for that).... what society here has seemed to endorse is that using deadly force to protect yourself is acceptable....

Combine them and WHAM, you're guilty of being a vigilante....

For the record, I agree that you put yourself out on a limb somewhat if you confront a criminal in the act, legally and physically if nothing else.... morally it is not so easy to make that call...

 

[Frank Ettin]

...Combine them and WHAM, you're guilty of being a vigilante....

Yes, I believe that is indeed the case. Most folks distinguish between self defense and being a vigilante. They will accept the former, but not the latter. I suspect to most people self defense is appropriate when a threat comes to you and is forced upon you. But I think that a lot of ordinary folks have a lot of trouble accepting a situation when you go out knowingly and expose yourself to a threat; and even then most people will accept that when you do so to protect a family member from a direct and immediate threat -- but not to protect a sub-woofer. And if you claim to be protecting society, you've just admitted to being a vigilante.

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

if someone was defending the tools he needs to earn a living i might take a different view. shooting someone that far away over a subwoofer? not so much

 

[RoostRider]

I agree..... just not about the dividing line of where a threat is forced on you.... a criminal may pose MANY threats to you and everyone around you and a constant threat to society.... threats just as real as any he may pose if you confront him, perhaps worse....

If it's a choice between confronting some criminals (well armed), and letting my livelyhood (or something equally valuable) be robbed, it's not much of a choice for me, or many others I would dare guess.... the odds of being severely beaten or killed are pretty low... the odds of recovering some (if not all) of your things is markedly higher than letting the police 'deal with it' (read- none)

I wouldn't advocate, legally or morally, going out and forcing a violent showdown with a criminal. But if the criminal brings it when you go out to protect your things, well, that's a different story.... that isn't a person going out looking for trouble, it's a criminal going out looking for trouble and finding it...

People being scared to protect their own property is what the criminal wants and they thrive better in that environment (example the correlation between CC permits and crime rates).... If you think the police can solve this problem... look around.... we are going to have to do it as a society in action, not legislation....

 

[Kleanbore]

If it's a choice between confronting some criminals (well armed), and letting my livelyhood (or something equally valuable) be robbed, it's not much of a choice for me, or many others I would dare guess.... the odds of being severely beaten or killed are pretty low...

Basis for that assertion?

Just where do you get the idea that the criminals would not have the tactical upper hand?

Training?

Experience?

Empirical Data?

Or is it just wishful thinking?

Was the experience of the shot gun armed homeowner in Watauga, Texas an aberration? Was he just unlucky?

And of course there's not just the physical risk. Take the case of the OP. He faces imprisonment, a criminal record, and all of what those things imply.

Sorry, I'm not convinced.

What do the qualified instructors advise?

Have you aver availed your self of their advice?

What would an off-duty police officer do?

The best advice that I have heard is "stay inside."