Guy confronts car burglar, shoots himself

[KingContraryMan]

and the burglar, with one bullet.

http://www.sunherald.com/2011/07/21/3291429/2-shot-during-suspected-burglary.html#comment-260895582

Details are a little sketchy, but it sounds like the guy with the gun got too close. Maybe he shouldn't have even approached the guy at all.

In your opinion, what mistakes were made here?

If you were in a similar situation; you've got a gun pointed at a bad guy and he lunges at you (and you see no weapon) do you have the right to use deadly force?

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by KingContraryMan: In your opinion, what mistakes were made here?

I can think of four, for starters:

1. He went ouside with a gun.
2. He confronted someone with gun in hand.
3. He fired the gun.
4. He shot himself.

Depending upon exactly what happened , the fifth mistake might well have been shooting the burglar.

If you were in a similar situation; you've got a gun pointed at a bad guy and he lunges at you (and you see no weapon) do you have the right to use deadly force?

Let's back up. Except in a couple of states, one has not business pointing a gun at someone unless deadly force is justified.

 

[lemaymiami]

Confrontations, in the real world, are dangerous, risky, etc. The "good guys" don't always win and sometimes the actual results can be so bizarre that if you put them in a movie... no one would believe it. Add firearms to the mix and things get even more dangerous if that's possible.

In a lot of years as a cop on the street, then a supervisor, etc. I rarely witnessed things as they happened (with a few exceptions) and like most had to try to piece together the story from a variety of accounts, a close inspection of the actual scene, and at times a bit of guessing... One thing I can swear to and that is that nothing, repeat nothing, that I was ever involved in was accurately reported in the news media. I don't mean they didn't spell the names right... most of the time you wondered if they even bothered to read the police reports after the fact since it's all public record when the deal is over, in my area (except for stuff with juveniles involved and just their names and addresses are restricted).

Lots of real life stories to tell but we'll leave that for a time when a cold one is at hand and others are also telling one yarn or other...

 

[pbearperry]

I bet the guy who shot himself would like to do the whole scene over again.

 

[JustinJ]

There aren't really enough details but end results obviously show a number of tactical errors were made. Given details of how he confronted the suspect are lacking it's hard to say what legal mistakes may have been made but if his state prevents one from using a gun, if necessary, to prevent their car from being stolen his first mistake is living there.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by JustinJ: ...if his state prevents one from using a gun, if necessary, to prevent their car from being stolen his first mistake is living there.

By that standard, the overwhelming majority of citizens in the United Sates are making a "mistake."

In many states, the law does provide for the use of deadly force when immediately necessary to prevent unlawful entry (forcible, in some states) into an occupied automobile. In some, however, the entry must have been completed. The principle in both situations is one of permitting the use of deadly force in defense of persons.

In the case of the story at hand, the use of deadly force would have been justified if (1) the automobile had been occupied and (2) the person using deadly force had been resisting an attempt unlawfully to kill such person or to commit any felony upon him in the occupied vehicle.

That relatively recent law provides much more leeway to the defender than the law of many previous decades.

In some jurisdictions, it is lawful to empoy deadly force to prevent someone from breaking into an unoccupied automobile if it is immediately necessary to do so. Those states constitute a distinct minority. In still fewer jurisdictions, mere unlawful entry into an unoccupied vehicle with the intent to commit a crime will suffice.

To my knowledge, there is only one state in the union in which deadly force may be lawfully used to prevent theft, and there, only during the nighttime when there is no other reasonable way to prevent the theft.

Again, the shooter's first mistake was heading out with a gun to investigate a car burglary.

His action was unnecessary. It was most probably unlawful. It was tactically unsound.

From the tactical standpoint, the case is somewhat reminiscent of that of the Houston airline mechanic who went outside at night with shotgun to investigate someone doing something to his trailer. As it turned out, the person had a knife. The man who took a gun to a knife fight was stabbed, disarmed and shot with his own gun. He lost an arm and his livelihood.

 

[Owen Sparks]

Sounds like he hesitated and ended up wrestling with the bad guy. Firearms are distiance weapons.

 

[9mmepiphany]

and the burglar, with one bullet.

http://www.sunherald.com/2011/07/21/3291429/2-shot-during-suspected-burglary.html#comment-260895582

Details are a little sketchy, but it sounds like the guy with the gun got too close. Maybe he shouldn't have even approached the guy at all.

In your opinion, what mistakes were made here?

If you were in a similar situation; you've got a gun pointed at a bad guy and he lunges at you (and you see no weapon) do you have the right to use deadly force?

This is the key here, I've trained and spent a number of years doing this professionally, but I've never been tempted to do it when not working...maybe because I have an appreciations of the dangers involved and all the things that can go wrong in real life.

The first mistake was trying to impress a woman with chest thumping behavior

You are seldom "in the right" when it is your behavior/actions which create a need to use deadly force...your best course of action is to avoid "similar situations"

 

[JustinJ]

Kleanbore: "By that standard, the overwhelming majority of citizens in the United Sates are making a "mistake.""

Yup. And its far from the first time. A cursory look at history shows that public opinion is anything but static so its hard to argue majority opinion makes right. However, i doubt an "overwhelming" majority of citizens disagree with me on this as laws very often fail to reflect an overwhelming majority view.

Kleanbore: "To my knowledge, there is only one state in the union in which deadly force may be lawfully used to prevent theft, and there, only during the nighttime when there is no other reasonable way to prevent the theft."

In Texas Deadly force can be used to protect one's own or a third person's property if no other means is available to protect or recover the property and the use of force other than deadly force would expose the actor or another to substantial risk of death or serious bodily harm. If the act being prevented is considered robbery or burglary it need not be at night time to use deadly force if other conditions are met. Given that the suspect was confronted I think one could succesfully argue his continuation of the act would be considered robbery.

Kleanbore: "Again, the shooter's first mistake was heading out with a gun to investigate a car burglary."

For him maybe, but not as a general rule.

9mmepiphany:
"The first mistake was trying to impress a woman with chest thumping behavior"

Nothing in the article reveals his motivations so that is unfounded.

 

[Sam1911]

However, i doubt an "overwhelming" majority of citizens disagree with me on this as laws very often fail to reflect an overwhelming majority view.

For sure. But that's a very important part of why we don't have rule by referendum.

The fact that 8/10 Americans may have the knee-jerk reaction that there's nothing wrong -- and something manly and rightful -- about grabbing a gun and confronting a thief doesn't reflect either a sober understanding of sound tactics, nor a very clear-headed appreciation of the relative value of items vs. lives, nor very deep thought into what it would mean for society to allow lethal force to be used or threatened at the discretion of a person who felt that they were "wronged" by someone in a relatively minor offense.

Once again we prove why it is that certain people specialize in, and spend their lives in study of, areas (like law, medicine, engineering, and so forth) which require a great deal more from those who apply the principles of those disciplines than to choose whatever path might seem right to a casual observer.

Fortunately, we have thousands of years of concerted human endeavor behind us in developing good laws and discarding bad ones -- and this principle, that someone should not kill another over an offense of anything less than critical effect, has been well established in almost every developed culture for a great many centuries.

 

[ball3006]

I ALWAYS have a gun when something draws my attention that doesn't seem right outside at my house. I thank God that I live in a state where I don't have to just stand there and watch my possessions be carried off by bad guys. I can do more than call 911...chris3

 

[Sam1911]

Given that the suspect was confronted I think one could successfully argue his continuation of the act would be considered robbery.

Something else to consider (beside the fact that this wasn't in TX, so the issue of night time thefts is moot) -- in a great many instances, anything you do to escalate a situation from a mere unpleasantness into a lethal force encounter can be seriously detrimental to you in court.

Tom Givens recently published a DVD of self defense accounts involving some of his students. One of those "victims" thought he had done very well by shooting two men of a gang chasing him, and scaring off the rest. But the DA pressed charges, as the "victim" had confronted the group, thus instigating the event. While nothing he did to them was illegal, and their pursuit and threat to him definitely were illegal, he faced a serious criminal charge because his CHOICE to act was a deciding factor in the deaths of those two men. (IIRC, his lawyer got him 2 year's probation or similar, instead of hard time.)

If the "attacker" is actively engaged in a minor crime when you confront them, does that change whether or not you are culpable in escalating the situation to someone's death? I don't know. That would depend a LOT on the specific laws of your state, what exactly happened, and what the DA and/or jury felt when presented the case.

 

[JustinJ]

Sam1911:
"The fact that 8/10 Americans may have the knee-jerk reaction that there's nothing wrong -- and something manly and rightful -- about grabbing a gun and confronting a thief doesn't reflect either a sober understanding of sound tactics, nor a very clear-headed appreciation of the relative value of items vs. lives, nor very deep thought into what it would mean for society to allow lethal force to be used or threatened at the discretion of a person who felt that they were "wronged" by someone in a relatively minor offense."

Then we shouldnt call the police either because they or another might get hurt or killed in attempting to stop the robbery. If we're going to adopt that view we should probably just go ahead and legalize robbery all together to be on the safe side.

The fact is the right to not be violated is supposed to be inherent so standing up against it has nothing to do with manliness or a materialistic value system. When somebody robs you of your possesions or unjustly assaults you they are robbing you of liberty and that is worth fighting against. The government is not the only entity that can take your rights away. Our constituation says that the right to be secure in one's possesions is inherent but maybe those who wrote were just tyring to be manly as well?

It's ironic how much we argue that guns prevent crime and then argue against using them to prevent crime.

Sam1911:
"Once again we prove why it is that certain people specialize in areas (like law, medicine, engineering, and so forth) which require a great deal more from those who apply the principles of those disciplines than to choose whatever might seem right to a casual observer. Fortunately, we have thousands of years of concerted human endeavor behind us in developing good laws and discarding bad ones -- and this principle, that someone should not kill another over an offense of anything less than critical effect, has been well established in almost every developed culture for a great many centuries."

Speaking of thousands of years, the right to protect one's belongings is about as old a principle as they come and actually predates civilization. And lets not forget that almost every other "developed" culture today has Draconian gun laws as well so if that's how we're going to set our standards we better get in line to hand them over.

 

[Sam1911]

Then we shouldnt call the police either because they or another might get hurt or killed in attempting to stop the robbery. If we're going to adopt that view we should probably just go ahead and legalize robbery all together to be on the safe side.

Police officers almost NEVER "stop" crime. That really is not their job. They investigate, crime, arrest suspects, and help the communal justice system do its job.

This is a straw-man argument. Something being against the law does not necessarily equate to lethal force being used to prevent it. Neither does an understanding that killing someone is not an appropriate response to an affront make that affront acceptable or lawful.

The fact is the right to not be violated is supposed to be inherent so standing up against it has nothing to do with manliness or a materialistic value system.

Sure. But there are systems in place to try to rectify such violations. "Standing up against it," seems to be a code phrase for "meting out justice by my strong right arm." That's NOT the rule of law, and fortunately our society has understood that -- in its institutions, if not in the mind of every member of the populace -- for centuries.

The government is not the only entity that can take your rights away.

Actually, from the viewpoint of the Constitution, yes.

Our constituation says that the right to be secure in one's possesions is inherent but maybe those who wrote were just tyring to be manly as well?

The Constitution is a document which limits the government from acting in certain ways. The Constitution does not say anything about theft by individuals against you.

(This is 8th grade civics class stuff...)

It's ironic how much we argue that guns prevent crime and then argue against using them to prevent crime.

WE DO NOT PREVENT CRIME. We use our guns ONLY to preserve life and/or prevent certain grievous felonious assaults/injuries.

 

[Sam1911]

Speaking of thousands of years, the right to protect one's belongings is about as old a principle as they come and actually predates civilization.

Of course it is. But, long ago we matured enough as a set of societies to understand that killing another person is not really a reasonable means of responding to theft. Loss of property =/= death.

And lets not forget that almost every other "developed" culture today has Draconian gun laws as well so if that's how we're going to set our standards we better get in line to hand them over.

Please keep the hyperbole toned down. No one is handing over their guns. But we do try to understand what is an acceptable use of lethal -- life erasing -- force and what is not.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by JustinJ, in response to "By that standard, the overwhelming majority of citizens in the United Sates are making a "mistake."": Yup. And its far from the first time. A cursory look at history shows that public opinion is anything but static so its hard to argue majority opinion makes right. However, i doubt an "overwhelming" majority of citizens disagree with me on this as laws very often fail to reflect an overwhelming majority view.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

I was referring to your comment that the first mistake made by the unfortunate shooter was to live in a state that prevents one from using a gun, if necessary, to prevent their car from being stolen.

In response to "Again, the shooter's first mistake was heading out with a gun to investigate a car burglary.": For him maybe, but not as a general rule.

Unless one is a sworn officer whose duty is to put himself or herself in harms way, or unless it is imperative to come to the aid of a loved one in danger, it is always better from a tactical standpoint to remain in a place of safety than to go forth to confront someone outside.

All training instructors and courses emphasize that.

All relevant FoF simulations conducted in such courses amply demonstrate the reason why.

The primary reason is the extreme risk of ambush--that's what happened to the Houston airline mechanic, whose actions were perfectly legal in Texas but who was crippled for life. However, there is also the very real risk of being shot by an arriving first responder or an armed citizen.

The risk of shooting oneself is a new one for me.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by JustinJ: When somebody robs you of your possesions or unjustly assaults you they are robbing you of liberty and that is worth fighting against.

Earlier, you used the term stealing ("stolen"). Now you are referring to robbery. Be aware the the use of force laws make a very big distinction between the two, and have for centuries.

Nothing in the report at hand mentioned assault.

 

[JustinJ]

"Police officers almost NEVER "stop" crime. That really is not their job. They investigate, crime, arrest suspects, and help the communal justice system do its job."

They may do more investigative and arrest work but the they "almost" never stop crime is untrue.

"This is a straw-man argument. Something being against the law does not necessarily equate to lethal force being used to prevent it. "

I never said any such thing. If you claim it wrong to use deadly force to stop robbery because life is worth more than things then a rational conclusion cops shouldnt try to stop the thief either because they could get killed in doing so.

"Sure. But there are systems in place to try to rectify such violations. "Standing up against it," seems to be a code phrase for "meting out justice by my strong right arm." That's NOT the rule of law, and fortunately our society has understood that -- in its institutions, if not in the mind of every member of the populace -- for centuries."

Yup, and Texas Penal Code, Section nine oh forty two is a great part of that system in Texas. Its obviously not justice if the actions are for the purpose of preventing the crime which is something that sufficient numbers of the Texas population are able to understand.


"The Constitution is a document which limits the government from acting in certain ways. The Constitution does not say anything about theft by individuals against you."

True, the constitution specifically is written to define the roles of the federal gov't but it was written because it was believed that the rights we have are inherent which is why they were not to be infringed upon. And it in now way implies that only the federal gov't can rob one of liberties.

 

[Effigy]

The ambiguity of the scenario makes it hard to say what would have been the right course of action. Here's my line of thinking:
1. Trying to stop a car theft is reasonable.
2. Knowing that a criminal may assault you if you try to stop the theft, bringing a gun with you is reasonable. (However, shooting them to stop the theft, if they don't assault you, wouldn't be reasonable.)
3. Shooting yourself in the process is more of a poor gun handling issue, not really a moral one.

We don't know whether the shooter tried to stop the thief and only resorted to the gun when he felt his life was threatened as a result. I think merely having a gun in hand would persuade most non-violent thieves to flee, so it seems likely that the shooter was actually threatened in some way before he shot. I also doubt he would have shot himself in the hand (and hit the thief with the same shot) if he were shooting from a safe distance and not being attacked. Anything's possible though.

 

[Sam1911]

They may do more investigative and arrest work but the they "almost" never stop crime is untrue.

I suppose you can argue what constitutes "almost" but the truth is VERY few crimes are stopped by law enforcement officers. They may be investigated and the perpetrators brought to face justice, and law enforcement may set up stings to catch criminals in the act of some transactional or otherwise malum prohibitum offense, which might constitute stopping a series of crimes, but the situation of a police officer being in in the presence of a criminal in the act of his felonious crime, and being able to halt that crime in progress is exceedingly rare.

We have quite a few current and former officers as members (and Staff) here who we can query to ask how often they stopped a crime in progress.

I never said any such thing. If you claim it wrong to use deadly force to stop robbery because life is worth more than things then a rational conclusion cops shouldn't try to stop the thief either because they could get killed in doing so.

Police officers are hired by society, as agents of the government, to bring law-breakers to justice. (Again, not really to "stop a thief" as that rarely ... almost never ... happens.) That is a function of keeping the peace. We ask those officers to take on heightened risk, and we give them greatly expanded authority, and physical and legal protection far beyond anything a private citizen may claim, to do so. We also give them as much means as possible (through the force continuum/pyramid (including less-lethal devices), extensive backup/support, the official personae as a person of authority, the authority to respond with arrest powers and even force after the fact, etc) to apprehend those suspected of breaking the law in such a way as to greatly minimize the probability of either the officer's -- or the SUSPECT's -- death.

And we do so in order to bring them to society's justice -- not that of a private individual. Remember that if someone assaults or kills another person, the harmed person or the estate of the deceased is NOT party to the criminal trial. The trial will be THE STATE -vs.- the accused. This is a higher cause than any one person's vengeance or restitution. It is society's interests being enforced and thus being deemed of appropriate gravity to send a public servant into harm's way.

(Also note, that no matter WHAT was stolen or destroyed or violated, when a CIVIL trail happens, that will be the victim's chance to obtain restitution from the accused. And in civil cases, NO ONE's life is ever on the line.)

True, the constitution specifically is written to define the roles of the federal gov't but it was written because it was believed that the rights we have are inherent which is why they were not to be infringed upon. And it in now way implies that only the federal gov't can rob one of liberties.

But it provides no justification for one to take physical retribution or excessive means to prevent a minor offense against you. Regardless of the Constitutional protections which seek to prevent the government from seizing your possessions, such acts between individuals are matters of law, to be decided in court, and the state does have the monopoly on punishment of crime.

Our use of deadly force as private citizens is only just when used to prevent immediate death or serious injury or other life-threatening felonious offenses.

(-- Of course, that's "except in Texas, at night, under certain circumstances." ... which, once more, this situation wasn't.)

 

[9mmepiphany]

and Texas Penal Code

Why are you trying to apply Texas Codes...which has acknowledged limited applications...to a situation/circumstance which occurred in Mississippi?

It isn't helpful to members or readers who live in other locales and causes your continued posts to read like the ravings of the oblivious

 

[9mmepiphany]

9mmepiphany:
"The first mistake was trying to impress a woman with chest thumping behavior"

Nothing in the article reveals his motivations so that is unfounded.

Perhaps you're not familiar with what unfounded means...perhaps, you meant unsubstantiated.

The article doesn't speak much to many of the factors involved in this incident, but the experience of 28 years in LE has taught me that "a man who was visiting her"...as oppose to a "friend or neighbor"... usually implies some kind of dating relationship. Dating implies "trying to impress"...which, it has been my experience, leads to many foolish decisions.

I would think that if folks, who have the training and experience to do such things, recommend that you not do them, that the wise person would take it as a hint that doing so would be considered unnecessarily foolhardy

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by JustinJ: If you claim it wrong to use deadly force to stop robbery because life is worth more than things then a rational conclusion cops shouldnt try to stop the thief either because they could get killed in doing so.

First, no one has said that it's wrong to use deadly force to stop a robbery "because life is worth more than things", but it should be patently obvious that it would be a very foolish value judgment indeed to sacrifice life to avoid the taking of "things."

Robbery is a forcible felony in most places. That means that it puts the victim at risk, and it is classified as a crime of violence against persons rather than as a property crime. The decision of whether or not a person would be wise to try to use deadly force to prevent a robbery should depend upon the situation. If the robber has a gun pointed at the victim, an attempt at deadly force would likely bring about harm to the victim and would therefore be a poor option.

However, except in Texas during the night time (and this fellow did not shoot himself in Texas) one may not use deadly force to stop a thief. And yes, the long-standing underlying legal principle is in fact the concept that life is worth more than things.

Nor will a police officer use deadly force to stop a thief. It's a Fourth Amendment thing.

To say that an sworn officers should not do their duty because "they could get killed in doing so" is a non-sequitor. Sam addressed it very well:

Police officers are hired by society, as agents of the government, to bring law-breakers to justice. (Again, not really to "stop a thief" as that rarely ... almost never ... happens.) That is a function of keeping the peace. We ask those officers to take on heightened risk, and we give them greatly expanded authority, and physical and legal protection far beyond anything a private citizen may claim, to do so. We also give them as much means as possible (through the force continuum/pyramid (including less-lethal devices), extensive backup/support, the official personae as a person of authority, the authority to respond with arrest powers and even force after the fact, etc) to apprehend those suspected of breaking the law in such a way as to greatly minimize the probability of either the officer's -- or the SUSPECT's -- death.

To expand upon that just a little, a police officer is unlikely to try to apprehend a dangerous suspect alone.

The case described in the OP did not address robbery. It had to do with someone breaking in to an unoccupied automobile. A citizen decided to venture out with gun in hand with intentions that are not clear to us, and he ended up shooting himself as well as the criminal.

Whether his actions were lawful is not clear, either. Because he was not inside the automobile he is not provided a presumption that he had a reasonable belief that he was threatened, but that may not be the deciding factor.

Had he done so in Texas during the night time, he would have been within the law (based upon what we know about the details), but that would not have made his action wise.

Consider this:

• Having a firearm in one's hand does not make one invulnerable to bullets or to a blow to the back of the head;
• a person venturing out at night to investigate a crime has no idea how many criminals are involved or where they are; and
• for any reasonble person, life is worth more than things.

 

[scaatylobo]

Clint Eastwood said it best as "Dirty Harry" = " a mans got to know his LIMITATIONS".

Most learned from T.V. and movies,and that is THE poorest way to learn.

I will bet a dollar to a doughnut [ I was LEO,so doughnuts are important ] that the gun carrier had NO training in force on force and confrontations involving deadly force.

Unless your REALLY trained and have lots of hands on time,trying to take a suspect into custody WITH a gun in hand is a HUGE NO ,NO.

And most instructors will advise against it even if your trained [ I was D/T instructor ] and I had a few times during my career that did involve such moments and risk.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by scaatylobo: ..."a mans got to know his LIMITATIONS".

Yes indeed. Some relevant training can be extremely useful in that regard.

Most learned from T.V. and movies, and that is THE poorest way to learn.

I have thought for some time that many of the misconceptions we hear about on THR can be traced to too much television.

Just a few examples:

• Everyone will know who is the "good guy";
• the "good guy" will have no difficulty in knowing where the "bad guy" is;
• the "good guy" is a very good shot, and he will have time to aim and fire at the one "bad guy";
• that one shot from a handgun will settle the issue instantly;
• everyone present will see and hear everything, including what led up to a shooting, and they will all see and remember it the same way (after all, in the movies, the audience is watching, the action is planned to eliminate ambiguity, and the cameras are focussed on what is important);
• the bad guy will not overcome the "good guy" (that would ruin the story);
• the "good guy" will not be ambushed (that would ruin the story, too);
• the "good guy" will not be shot by mistake by a police officer or by another "good guy" (after all, everyone knows that he is the "good guy");
• it is a good idea to shout "get on the ground, NOW!", and the bad guy will comply;
• no innocent bystanders will be killed or maimed;
• there will be no question about the lawfulness of the good guy's actions, because everyone knows that the is a "good guy", because everything he did was proper, and because what happened will be crystal clear after the fact to all involved; and
• everything will end happily after a shooting and there will be no lengthy, painful aftermath.

That's the way it happens on television. That's the way it happens in the movies, too--both in the ones that people watch on screen and in the ones that people play in their minds.

I will bet a dollar to a doughnut [ I was LEO,so doughnuts are important ] that the gun carrier had NO training in force on force and confrontations involving deadly force.

I won't take that bet.

I would bet that the man feels extremely foolish.