Lake St Louis Learns about Castle Doctrine the hard way

[Jeff White]

A homeowner shot and killed a man who was stealing his car. I'm sure the homeowner felt he was legally right to shoot. He called the police after his deadly force encounter:

Lake Saint Louis man charged after killing fleeing car thief http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/...cle_ceaf32be-5f0a-5e88-9030-64da9f8508d3.html

2d Degree Murder and Involuntary Manslaughter. 30 years if convicted of murder, 7 if convicted of manslaughter. $100,000.00 bond, probably $250,000.00 for his defense. Because he didn't understand the law.

From the news article:

Authorities say Flagg fatally shot Shawn T. Jimenez, also of Lake Saint Louis, as the man fled from Flagg’s home in the first block of Monterey Cypress Lane in Flagg’s car early in the morning on Nov. 4.


According to court records, Flagg told police he awoke from a deep sleep to the sound of his auto alarm going off about 1 a.m. He said that he looked out the bedroom window of his townhouse and saw a man walking near his 2009 Volkswagen Passat, which was parked on the driveway.

Flagg said he took a .357 caliber magnum revolver with him as he went outside to confront the man. He said he yelled for the man to stop but that the man backed the car away from him, at which time Flagg fired a shot at the windshield.

Flagg said as Jimenez drove the car off the driveway, he walked toward it and fired three to five more rounds toward the driver’s window.

Police said they were called to the scene by the resident, who told them he had fired shots and needed assistance.

Officers found Flagg’s Passat about a block away from his home. The car had struck a garage. In the driver’s seat was Jimenez, dead. According to court documents, Jimenez was struck at least one time in the chest.

I don't know if he believed the hype in the media about Castle Doctrine (the Post Dispatch, which published this article published all kinds of horror stories about how the law pretty much gave one Carte Blanche to shoot anyone on your property when the law was debated in the legislature and right after it was passed) or if he simply never took the time to understand what the law said, or if he took some of the wilder posts on gun forums at face value.

But in the end, it really doesn't matter. I doubt Mr Flagg's life will ever be the same.

Take a class, know the law, and take the time to find out how it's applied in your local jurisdiction. Do it before you have your deadly force encounter.

 

[Good Ol' Boy]

Nothing being stolen is ever worth killing over.

Unless it's a person, but ya'll get the point.

In my home there will be no shots fired unless an intruder heads down the hallway to the bedrooms, or there is another immediate threat to a family member. As much as I hate saying it, they are free to take whatever they want from the main part of the house or outside of the house. I will not assume a "tacticool" role and pursue them.

I agree more folks should understand the law where they live. Unfortunate for this guy.

 

[Good Ol' Boy]

Worthwhile words...

“The takeaway from this case … is if you’re going to have the privilege of being a gun owner — which you do, very much so in this state — you also have the responsibility of knowing what the rules are,” St. Charles County Prosecutor Tim Lohmar said at a news conference Wednesday. “We cannot allow this to turn into the Wild West.”


Not good....

According to court records, Flagg told police he awoke from a deep sleep to the sound of his auto alarm going off about 1 a.m. He said that he looked out the bedroom window of his townhouse and saw a man walking near his 2009 Volkswagen Passat, which was parked on the driveway.

Flagg said he took a .357 caliber magnum revolver with him as he went outside to confront the man. He said that he yelled for the man to stop but that the man backed the car away from him, at which time Flagg fired a shot at the windshield.

Flagg said that as Jimenez drove the car off the driveway, he walked toward it and fired three to five more rounds toward the driver’s window.

 

[X-Rap]

Beyond a shooting that couldn't be justified under almost any circumstances, why would someone destroy their own property by shooting it up? What benefit did he expect from a guy bleeding out in his old 09 car?

 

[Havok7416]

Besides which, even if he was successful in stopping the guy (AND it was legal to do so), I'm pretty sure that would be a hard one to explain to the insurance company!

 

[Kleanbore]

Watching too many westerns?

 

[Jeff White]

Watching too many westerns?

I've often wondered how much the misinformation that a hysterical media puts out about Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground laws contributes to incidents like this. There is no excuse for anyone who contemplates using deadly force to defend himself not knowing the law, but I think the media is also irresponsible in how they report on these issues.

By all accounts Mr. Flagg was a decent citizen prior to this incident. It appears he thought he made the legal decision.

 

[TwoFirstNames]

My takeaway: decision making processes are probably not fully functioning when awoken at 1 am from a deep sleep. Plan accordingly, and then hope that you never have to find out how slow your comprehension can be in that scenario.
However, this man has yet to be convicted, and we all know that news stories are not overly reliable, so I will refrain from any further comments.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Nothing being stolen is ever worth killing over.

Funny how the bad guys never seem to learn that nothing they want to steal is worth giving their life for, but they continue to do it over and over again. There are plenty of people who believe, right or wrong, they have the right to stop such criminals in any way possible.

Funny how many times this comes up in the news, and victims try to or succeed in killing the criminals and end up prosecuted for it.

The learning curve seems steep on both sides when it should not be.

 

[Kleanbore]

There are plenty of people who believe, right or wrong, they have the right to stop such criminals in any way possible.

Funny how many times this comes up in the news, and victims try to or succeed in killing the criminals and end up prosecuted for it..

"Right or wrong" doesn't fit here. In one US jurisdiction, if all of the necessary conditions had existed, the guy might not have been charged. But that's not true in Missouri. The only operative word is wrong.

The guy taking the car was committing a crime, but in the case of the homicide, he will be identified as the victim, and Mr. Flagg as the suspect--and likely Mr. Flagg will be adjudged a criminal.

Now, even if one is justified in the use of deadly force, should one try to kill someone, the act would constitute a crime.

 

[mjsdwash]

after the Travon Martin case the national media kinda painted the idea that pretty much anyone can shoot anyone else for even the slightest reason as long as their state had "castle doctrine" or "stand your ground". Common sense says otherwise, and the laws in all states too, but people are told what to think, and it works.

 

[Good Ol' Boy]

Funny how the bad guys never seem to learn that nothing they want to steal is worth giving their life for, but they continue to do it over and over again. There are plenty of people who believe, right or wrong, they have the right to stop such criminals in any way possible.

Funny how many times this comes up in the news, and victims try to or succeed in killing the criminals and end up prosecuted for it.

The learning curve seems steep on both sides when it should not be.

Nothing funny about about it.

Criminals will be criminals. Period.

As a responsible gun owner you should know the law where you live. Period.

It's as simple and as complicated as that.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Nothing funny about about it.

Criminals will be criminals. Period.

As a responsible gun owner you should know the law where you live. Period.

It's as simple and as complicated as that.

As a responsible gun owner in Texas, I know the law. We do believe in lethal force to protect lives, and to protect property under specific circumstances and I wholly support it.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

"Right or wrong" doesn't fit here. In one US jurisdiction, if all of the necessary conditions had existed, the guy might not have been charged. But that's not true in Missouri. The only operative word is wrong.

The guy taking the car was committing a crime, but in the case of the homicide, he will be identified as the victim, and Mr. Flagg as the suspect--and likely Mr. Flagg will be adjudged a criminal.

Now, even if one is justified in the use of deadly force, should one try to kill someone, the act would constitute a crime.

Nothing, it isn't true in Missouri, but is true in "one jurisdiction" as you say, but either way, people are still going to believe. That is the operative point I was making. Some people don't seem to care about the law when they see they belongings going down the street.

Formerly "good" people become criminals as a result.

 

[Speedo66]

I don't care for the prosecutor's statement: "if you’re going to have the privilege of being a gun owner......"
It's not a privilege, it's a right.

Maybe the shooter thought it was like the old west where they hung people who stole their transportation, horse thieves.
I think I might have gone for the tires.

 

[jeepnik]

Nothing being stolen is ever worth killing over.

Unless it's a person, but ya'll get the point.

In my home there will be no shots fired unless an intruder heads down the hallway to the bedrooms, or there is another immediate threat to a family member. As much as I hate saying it, they are free to take whatever they want from the main part of the house or outside of the house. I will not assume a "tacticool" role and pursue them.

I agree more folks should understand the law where they live. Unfortunate for this guy.

Actually, nothing I have is worth "your" life.

 

[jdh]

As a responsible gun owner in Texas, I know the law. We do believe in lethal force to protect lives, and to protect property under specific circumstances and I wholly support it.

Texas Penal Code 9.42.2.
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property;  and

(3) he reasonably believes that:

(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means;  or

(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

Then there is the ever popular common law Fleeing Felon.

 

[Good Ol' Boy]

Actually, nothing I have is worth "your" life.

I would suggest you move to Texas.

I don't think that mindset would go over well in Cali.


Couple of folks seem to be bent out of shape because of my comment that "nothing being stolen is worth killing over". That was more of a personal thought, for me personally. Some states allow killing over property, most do not.

For me personally even if I was in a state that allowed it I would not use lethal force on someone stealing property, unless in the course of the theft they deemed a credible threat to an innocent person.

So, to amend my previous statement, know the laws where you live, and make peace before hand with what you are willing or not willing to do under those laws.

 

[Sheepdog1968]

Nothing being stolen is ever worth killing over.

Unless it's a person, but ya'll get the point.

In my home there will be no shots fired unless an intruder heads down the hallway to the bedrooms, or there is another immediate threat to a family member. As much as I hate saying it, they are free to take whatever they want from the main part of the house or outside of the house. I will not assume a "tacticool" role and pursue them.

I agree more folks should understand the law where they live. Unfortunate for this guy.

I agree. Best simple way I heard it said, if it isn't worth dying for, don't shoot. That is a very very small list and mostly comes to people.

 

[Cannibul]

Actually, nothing I have is worth "your" life.

Yes! For what it's worth...I live in Texas.

My CHL instructor,who is a Lieutenant with the local PD, their firearms instructor and head of the SWAT team, told us that if someone is stealing your stuff then that alone gives you reason to believe that your property will not be recovered.

 

[jeepnik]

I would suggest you move to Texas.

I don't think that mindset would go over well in Cali.


Couple of folks seem to be bent out of shape because of my comment that "nothing being stolen is worth killing over". That was more of a personal thought, for me personally. Some states allow killing over property, most do not.

For me personally even if I was in a state that allowed it I would not use lethal force on someone stealing property, unless in the course of the theft they deemed a credible threat to an innocent person.

So, to amend my previous statement, know the laws where you live, and make peace before hand with what you are willing or not willing to do under those laws.

Figured that was a personal opinion, so I posted mine. I'm extremely well versed in the laws in California regarding these type of situations.

 

[Kleanbore]

Yes! For what it's worth...I live in Texas.

My CHL instructor,who is a Lieutenant with the local PD, their firearms instructor and head of the SWAT team, told us that if someone is stealing your stuff then that alone gives you reason to believe that your property will not be recovered.

It would be extremely imprudent to rely on a policeman, even one on a SWAT team, for legal advice.

That supposed assertion does not pass the smell test.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

As F Lee Baily said, even a fish wouldn't get in trouble if he'd keep his damned mouth shut.

NEVER get into a situation where it looks like you use deadly force for ANY reason except defense of your life, and never describe an encounter in any terms other than self-defense. It's one thing to shoot someone who's breaking into your car, another thing entirely to go out and see what's happening out there, and having to defend yourself.

 

[H&R Glock]

I thought the car thief was pointing a gun at me! It was a cheezeburger- sorry for my self defense shots.

 

[ACP]

The car thief was posing no threat to the homeowner. Bad shoot. He's going to jail for a long, long time. And I'm willing to bet the homeowner never took a self-defense class or bought a book about armed self-defense. He just bought a gun, some ammo, and figured he was covered. Another win for Darwin.