Example of a Bad shoot - Idaho

[FourTeeFive]

Shooting to prevent theft?

Since when is it a good idea to shoot someone in anticipation of them stealing something from you? If threatened, yes, but I'm not about to shoot someone if they are not an immediate threat to my life or the life of my loved ones.

 

[telkontar]

I do not think we can ever judge justly from mere news reports. I do think it is always good to consider what is worth protecting with firearms.

Regarding civil liability, Idaho's statute defines Justifiable Homicide in a fairly standard "self-defence against a felony" way [see below]. "Defence of habitation" may be operative here, but the defence must also be against one who "endeavors, by violence or surprise, to commit a felony." I read that to mean that a felony must have been in progress AND the felony was through "violence or surprise."

Also, civil and criminal liability are two different animals. A lack of prosecution by the local DA (or an acquittal) is not a shield to civil liability. OJ faced charges in both criminal and civil trials. (Don't know whether he settled the civil case before going to trial or during the trial. Trials can be long affairs.)

18-4009. JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDE BY ANY PERSON. Homicide is also justifiable
when committed by any person in either of the following cases:
1. When resisting any attempt to murder any person, or to commit a
felony, or to do some great bodily injury upon any person; or,
2. When committed in defense of habitation, property or person, against
one who manifestly intends or endeavors, by violence or surprise, to commit a
felony, or against one who manifestly intends and endeavors, in a violent,
riotous or tumultuous manner, to enter the habitation of another for the
purpose of offering violence to any person therein; or,
3. When committed in the lawful defense of such person, or of a wife or
husband, parent, child, master, mistress or servant of such person, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design to commit a felony or to do some great bodily injury, and imminent danger of such design being accomplished; but such person, or the person in whose behalf the defense was made, if he was the assailant or engaged in mortal combat, must really and in good faith have endeavored to decline any further struggle before the homicide was committed; or,
4. When necessarily committed in attempting, by lawful ways and means, to apprehend any person for any felony committed, or in lawfully suppressing any riot, or in lawfully keeping and preserving the peace.

[Full disclosure: I am licensed to practice law in Illinois, but not in Idaho. Since I copied the statute above from a non-official website, it may not be current law. Do not take this as legal advice.]

 

[Mumwaldee]

This doesn't sound very different from the lawmaker in Texas who confronted 2 burglars and shot one in the leg (who allegedly threw a pocketknife at him). I bet he won't be charged. I don't know if the gun laws are as friendly in Idaho. Will be interesting to see how the average Joe fairs in a similar situation.

 

[jeepmor]

As someone on jeepforum stated. "I hope no one wakes me trying to steal my jeep, I never miss."

Too bad he did not detain them both. Maybe the thieves should consider politics, read my sig line.

 

[Byron Quick]

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.

Perhaps in your home state this is the law. However, please remember that laws vary-often drastically-from state to state.

Here in Georgia for example it is legally justified to use lethal force to stop a forcible felony in progress. The legal definition, in Georgia, of a forcible felony is any felony where force or the threat of force is used.

Now, I'm not up on other states laws to a great degree, however, judging by other states' residents' comments here on THR-lethal force is justified to a much greater degree here than in most places. It's legal to shoot someone who has broken into your house. You don't have to be in fear of your life, you have to believe that lethal force is necessary to prevent the commission of another felony. There's another law that states your vehicle is an extension of your home. An off-duty cop in Columbus, Georgia shot a burglar in his car a few months back. He wasn't prosecuted because of that statute.

Anyhow, it could very well be a 'bad shoot' in your neck of the woods and be a completely legal shoot in Idaho.

As far a civil suits go...does anyone know of a civil suit for wrongful death in Georgia after the district attorney refused to prosecute due to the shooting being justifiable homicide? I don't. Around here, you won't find an attorney who'd touch such a case on a contigency fee basis. Cash on the barrel head, in full, and up front.

The only wrongful death lawsuit hereabouts of which I'm cognizant was after the defendant was acquitted of first degree murder. The family was affluent. The defendant was about 24 and went bankrupt after losing the civil suit. The plaintiff won the suit and never collected one thin dime.

 

[elkhuntingfool]

With just what is presented I'd say it's a bad shot. Since when is it a crime to crouch down by a car??? Is the guy a pre-cog? Did Tom Cruise come running in to stop a crime?

Jury is still out since not all of the facts have been presented.

 

[Alphazulu6]

He's screwed.

 

[Alphazulu6]

He's screwed.

 

[Alphazulu6]

He's screwed.

 

[Biker]

We got the message, Alpha!

Biker

 

[ArfinGreebly]

Both Legs

Doesn't say how many shots were fired.

If I had to guess, I would imagine that he fired a single shot at a side-on, possibly crouched, target, and that bullet passed through one leg into the other.

Just guessing, of course.

If the target was crouched, the odds of hitting a leg or two greatly increases.

The good news: if he shot a crouching target side-on, at least the guy wasn't "fleeing" from him.

The bad news: if he shot a crouching target side-on, it may be harder to make a case that the target was a threat.

Of course, if I'm a few feet from a crouched man, and see that the crouched man has a drawn knife, I'm probably not waiting for him to stand up or leap in my direction.

Need more facts.

 

[Lonestar49]

Just 9 more and..

Quote: We got the message, Alpha!

Biker
---------
...

Indeed, he only needed 9 more, and he could have been the Jury, and the Executioner, all in one..


LS

 

[03Shadowbob]

It probably was a bad shoot legally but morally it was a good shoot, IMO.
I agree with Camslam. I am sick of America making excuses and sticking up for the bottom feeders of our society.

 

[Titan6]

My moral code does not normally allow me to shoot unarmed people who present no threat to me or anyone else. Of course there could well be more to it than that.

 

[shadowalker]

Idaho is VERY gun friendly and very good about respecting a person's right to defend themselves.

Idaho does allow using reasonable force to defend property, whether it is moral or not to do so is an individual's opinion, you do have to make sure that the right amount of force is used, shooting someone to keep them from running away probably won't fly in most cases. Also the people were trespassing at night, until recently that alone could have made it a justified shoot.

The problem is you don't know a person that is uninvited, at your property at night, and acting in an aggressive way isn't armed until they don't kill you, a weapon not visible is not the same as not being armed, unless they are naked it is very difficult to know they aren't armed and people can go from not being a threat to killing you very fast.

I haven't heard a whole lot more locally about this shooting yet, whether the person was shot while running away, etc. In a situation where he confronted the people to stop a break-in (legal even if not necessarily a good idea) and someone tried to take away his weapon or became a threat that a reasonable person would believe the person had the intent, ability and opportunity to cause great physical harm he'd be justified.

It probably would have been much better for him to call the police and wait inside with his firearm in case they enter his house, he was pissed about being robbed twice in a week, and probably let emotion play a part but there is still too little information about what exactly happened.

 

[jeepmor]

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.

Allowing perps to run away is not an effective means of managing crime in my book. Unfortunately, shooting them isn't either, but it does get a certain message across to the criminals in that area. An effective message at that.

 

[Titan6]

Allowing perps to run away is not an effective means of managing crime in my book. Unfortunately, shooting them isn't either, but it does get a certain message across to the criminals in that area. An effective message at that.

Unfortunately the message in some areas the message may be to ambush the home owner before he gets a chance to draw on you.

Darwin works wonders in the end. After we weed out the cowardly criminals we will be down to the bloody ruthless.

 

[camslam]

My moral code does not normally allow me to shoot unarmed people who present no threat to me or anyone else. Of course there could well be more to it than that.

I can respect that, but my moral code tells me that I will not stand idly by and watch someone steal or damage something that I have worked hard for. I'm not condoning the ways of the old wild west, but if someone was trying to steal your horse or cattle, you could usually shoot them without many reprocussions. I think the same principle should apply today. The problem is the criminals are now the victims. They are victims of a poor upbringing, or they don't have the same opportunity to make an honest living as someone else, etc.. etc.. That is the biggest problem with our society today, lack of accountability and resposibility.

My conceal carry instructor said that your car isn't worth your life. That is a subjective statement and with the time and training I put in, I don't intend on giving up my life very easily. The good thing is most criminals when challenged in that type of situation will run, those that don't will not like what is waiting to meet them. While it is a fine line, if someone is trying to steal or damage my property, they are going to be challenged in the efforts to do so.

 

[Titan6]

I agree camslam. Anyone trying to steal my cattle and horses is done for.

 

[BullfrogKen]

This one's drifted off topic long enough.