Example of a Bad shoot - Idaho

Status
Not open for further replies.
T

tmajors

Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2007
Messages
659
Location
Boise, ID
This happened last night and reported in the Idaho Statesmen

http://www.idahostatesman.com/newsupdates/story/103315.html

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

A man shot and injured a would-be vehicle burglar in Nampa overnight and Canyon County deputies continue to search for a second suspect.

At about 2:30 a.m., a man living on Jerry Lee Lane off of Midway in the Boulevard area of Nampa observed two young men crouched near his vehicle.

The man reported that he had been the victim of a couple of recent burglaries and that he expected more.

The man called Cayon County dispatch and then confronted the burglars, shooting one of them, a 19-year-old man, in both legs.

That man was taken to Mercy Medical Center where he was treated for non life threateneing gunshot wounds.

The second suspect took off on foot, and Canyon County deputies continue to look for that man this morning.

Deputies have not made any arrests in the incident and are continuing to investigate.

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

While no charges or arrests have been made, and Idaho does have the Castle Doctrine, I believe in this case it was a bad shoot and the shooter (not named) will probably be facing charges.
 
Well, there are two ways to look at it I suppose.

1. Bad shoot, he shot some guy who was not threatening him in any way who was merely trying to relieve him- apparently, of some of his worldy possesions.

2. Not so bad shoot. The evil need to be punished and as we all know law enforcement can't be everywhere at once. The auto burglar got what he deserved. Tough to burgle cars from a wheelchair- a good service to the community in shooting the guy.

I tend to fall into mode 2 more than 1 though I fully understand the first proposition.
 
Good shot concidering

Quote: *At about 2:30 a.m., a man living on Jerry Lee Lane off of Midway in the Boulevard area of Nampa observed two young men crouched near his vehicle.

The man reported that he had been the victim of a couple of recent burglaries and that he expected more.

The man called Cayon County dispatch and then *confronted the burglars, shooting one of them, a 19-year-old man, *in both legs.
------------------

Unfortunately, it will be in the hands of the local Prosecutor, as too whether it will be considered a good shoot or bad shoot.

But, I think, for a man that had been robbed several times, and many robbers re-rob their same victims, many times over, which is a fact and, considering it was *2:30am in the morning, (when most visitors, unknown to the owners, come to NOT ask, nor knock on their door, to use their phone, to call for some help, etc. :rolleyes: ) and he called the PD first to report a crime in progress on his property which was the correct thing to do.

And, I'd say, "motive" works both ways in such a case. One, being for the victim/shooter, not to let it happen again, and one, being that the robbers, were back for more.

My strongest thought in regards to whether is was a good or bad shooting is, the fact that it was late night, and shooting the one in "both legs" seems to me to be both, very good shooting, and merciful, in that, I have no doubts that if he could *hit "both legs", he surely could have hit 2 shots COM as well.

I wish him well,



LS
 
I dunno about Idaho, but in Arkansas the only legal shot is a potentially LETHAL one. You can't shoot people in the legs here and get away with it.
 
A good shoot, if you ask me.

This guy has worked many hours to pay for what he has. The two "b*stards" attempted to enslave him for the amount of time he had to work to earn the money to pay for his property.
 
Not Enough Information To Decide.

Were the alleged burglars armed? Did the one that got shot threaten the guy with a crowbar (or whatever)? Was the shooter infirm? Was the burglar so much larger than the victim that he was threatening just by his presence?

Without more info, I have to let the cops on the scene make the call.
 
Agree with ceetee

Not enough info.

However . . . The fact that the shooter was not reported as being immediately arrested may indicate that it might turn out to have been a good shoot after all. They may have been armed. There was potentially a disparity of force issue. Or both. The perp may have charged the shooter and been hit in the legs when the shooter fired from the hip. We just don't know.

Reserve judgement till more info is known.
 
Not really enough info.

Now, if 1 or both said miscreants had crowbar(s), extra-large screwdriver(s), etc, hammer(s), probably will weigh a lot on the "File Charges? Yes/No" decision by local prosecutor.
 
I think the shooter jumped the gun on this one. The article make it sound like he suprised the thieves and opened fire. If he did not give them any opportunity to surrender or run away than it is a bad shoot because theft is not life threatening. However, if he confronted them and they turned on him it would be a good shoot. The article really doesn't do a good job of explaining what happened. I think this guy will probably have a bit of a legal battle ahead of him.
 
I know I'll probably get flamed on this, but I don't care. I'm sick of our society and the crap we put up with.

I hear all the time and from some that post here, that a life isn't worth a car or some other material object. I call b.s. on that. There would probably be fewer and fewer robberies, assaults, thefts, rapes, .... (crimes in general) if more of these criminals knew that there was an armed victim ready to make their day a whole lot worse.

It is disgusting to me that we continue to make excuses for criminals and further limit what law abiding citizens can do to protect themselves and THEIR PROPERTY!

Good for this guy. I hope things work out for him.
 
Tough call

This could well have been a fully justified shooting. We don't know the age and physical condition of the shooter, for one thing. I'm 29 and have had some martial arts training - I wouldn't fight two young men without dire necessity. A 60 year old man probably shouldn't do it at all. We don't know what words or physical acts may have precipitated the shooting, either. The burglars might have threatened him and then advanced, or one of them may have reached into a pocket or just made a too sudden movement.

Frankly, disparity of force alone can lead a reasonable person to believe that serious injury is likely absent defensive use of force. It's a harder argument against an unarmed VCA, but by no means impossible.

The most important thing to remember is that this is a *news* account. The principals here, the two burglars and the shooter, probably haven't talked to reporters. Given darkness, the late hour, and the trauma of a recent shooting it's likely that they don't know all the details, either. The police have the reconstructed statements of dazed survivors. They certainly contradict one another. The reporters know only what they're told by the police - and the police are guaranteed to hold back a lot. The reporter will hold back more and stick to "confirmed" facts such as the various ages, who's in custody and who's not, etc. Speculation about who provoked what will have to wait for later.
 
I live in Boise and am following this pretty closely. It isn't clear if circumstances arose that would have justified using lethal force, police are still investigating.

Idaho law allows using force to defend property, in practice you are generally in big trouble if you do though.
 
I would have gift wraped him for the cops, get a lawn chair and some duck tape. Because you know the cops would take like 45 minutes to get there.
 
I dunno. Personally believe lethal force should be legal in defense of property... after all, how are you supposed to stop somebody robbing you? Ought to be able to threaten to use force to get 'em to leave - and use it to get 'em to stop, if necessary.
Defense of life is the primary purpose of a weapon - but a fellow needs a bit of property to make it through this world.
 
Its too early to tell whether this was a justifiable shooting. There are no details; its too soon for any to come out, anyway.
 
I fail to understand why this was posted as being an example of a bad shoot. Without more information, I would say that given that the shooter was not arrested, then the shoot probably was not illegal.

Morally right, but probably not so legal.
Click to expand...
I thought this comment was interesting. In Texas, it would be legally right to use lethal force at night in the protection of property, but time and time again folks argue that it isn't morally right.
 
He might have also been far away from the police, I mean some of the areas of Idaho are pretty remote, if the police are 30 minutes or 1 hour away or something, they are going to have to take it easy on folks like this.

I agree that morally, evil was punished. I wish the eyes of the law could make a finer distinction on those points and not arrest folks just because they didn't take 2 steps back before they shot. Cops get the benefit of the doubt in the eyes of the law, people should to.
 
He came outside, two men near his car, he shot at them, hitting one in the legs. Poor guy, even if he's cleared, the resulting civil suit will take every thing he owns ( including his car ) and every thing he will ever own. Even if they were the ones that burglerized his car before, he can't use that in court, because at the time of the shooting he didn't know that. Yes indeedie, a good shoot.
I was told this a long time ago and it has always stayed in my mind, there is no problem on knowing when to shoot, the hard thing is knowing when not to shoot.
 
Last edited:
The shooting happened in Nampa which is Idaho's second largest city and is just outside Boise. Nampa has a fairly good sized police force and typically doesn't have huge police response times.

If they decide it is a justified shooting he is shielded from civil action (I believe this took effect around last year).

5-249. CIVIL IMMUNITY FOR SELF-DEFENSE. (1) A person who uses force as justified in section 18-4009, Idaho Code, or as otherwise permitted in sections 19-201 through 19-205, Idaho Code, is immune from any civil action for the use of such force except when the person knew or reasonably should have known that the person against whom the force was used was a law enforcement officer acting in the capacity of his or her official duties.
Click to expand...

As of this morning no charges had been filed against the guys breaking into the truck or the shooter and they were still trying to decide if an inappropriate amount of force was used.

Some radio shows were saying he shot the man as he attempted to flee, but that hasn't been confirmed yet.
 
Last edited:
Funny thing is, the 2 ranges I frequent do not offer ccw targets with legs outlined. Maybe it was a "bad" "good" shoot? Maybe someone should spend some quality time practicing with the weapon he chooses to defend himself with? I hope he was just a bad shot. If you're gonna shoot, you're better off keeping it above the belt, IMO.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

K
  • Locked
Another reason why "warning" shots are a bad idea
2
Replies
40
Views
1K
Alchymist
A
J
  • Locked
Strange Home Invasion in Florida
Replies
13
Views
1K
strambo
S
P
  • Locked
Does everyone in your house know how to shoot
2
Replies
44
Views
929
U.S.SFC_RET
U
J
  • Locked
Single Moms, please buy a lead slinger
2
Replies
38
Views
3K
jeepmor
J
T
  • Locked
OC didn't work
Replies
11
Views
752
petro
P
Back
Top