Man killed attempting to stop a carjacking

[Phaedrus/69]

Wow, pretty bad one! A man in North Carolina was killed while attempting to stop a carjacker. There's a video but I wouldn't recommending watching it if you can help it. In a nutshell, the good Samaritan drew his handgun to stop a carjacker but was ignored. The carjacker decides to take the good Samaritan's truck, and after a long delay he appears to empty his gun into the driver's side window at near-contact distance. I have no idea whether he missed with every round or maybe was using some kind of birdshot or other gimmick ammo. At any rate, the carjacker backed up to get some distance then ran the shooter down, killing him.

So many lessons, so many really mind boggling errors in judgement. The guy was obviously trying to help or do the right thing but paid with his life. Not trying to bag on a guy that already died, but I'm not sure what a "win" would have been in his mind! Had he succeeded he'd have killed an unarmed guy in his (the shooter's) own truck. And the backstop appeared to have been the Burger King across the street!

For my own part, I carry a firearm as a tool to help me save my own life, and maybe under some circumstance, the lives of other. While the law may permit it I'm not planning to shoot someone in the streets to protect property. Obviously there's no sure thing, but introducing a firearm into a crime in progress might well not go your way. I'm not advocating just allowing criminals to act with impunity but you have weigh your odds and understand that when you push all your chips into the middle of the table you may well lose that hand, and your life.

 

[starnbar]

If you are not gonna protect whats yours why carry?? I have personally seen people who complied with the robber and got shot dead anyway, like you said you do it your way good luck with that.

 

[jmorris]

So many lessons, so many really mind boggling errors in judgement.

Sounds like a bit of error in execution, evasion, timing and maybe ability as well.

 

[Kleanbore]

The guy was obviously trying to help or do the right thing

We do not know enough to say that what he ws trying to do was "the right thing". Was he shootin at a fleeing thief?

If you are not gonna protect whats yours why carry??

To protect yourself an others--period.

I have personally seen people who complied with the robber

Robbery iis a crime against persons, and the use of deadly force is justified to protect persons only.

There are a few exceptions in Texas.

 

[wayneinFL]

If you are not gonna protect whats yours why carry?? I have personally seen people who complied with the robber and got shot dead anyway, like you said you do it your way good luck with that.

Maybe I missed something. Does he still have the truck?

 

[Alex Clayton]

For those "not sure" here, watch the video. It was a great example of what to NOT EVER do. While I would care less if the scum had died instead, that is not what happened here. Sadly in many jurisdictions if you shoot some scum to keep them from stealing you are going to need lawyers after. Also what many who carry never seem to "get". If you start touching off rounds you are going to be held responsible for every round that leaves your gun. What you "meant to do" will not matter. I don't like the way things are now but, I also like NOT ending up ruining my life trying to stop a theft. Everyone has to make the personal choice if this happens around them.

 

[JERRY]

I'm sure there are many even on this forum that think going to static shooting ranges once in a while with their gun of choice is enough to prepare for a potentially lethal encounter.

 

[1-cavediver]

I carry to protect myself, my family and those unable to protect themselves such as children or elderly. I will not protect ANY able bodied adult, that is their responsibility and theirs alone.

 

[Styx]

I'm sure there are many even on this forum that think going to static shooting ranges once in a while with their gun of choice is enough to prepare for a potentially lethal encounter.

I don't think non static on the move defensive training classes in a safe controlled environment shooting at static targets that aren't shooting back is enough to prepare for a lethal encounter. Things don't always work out the way with scripted it on our heads in the real world.

 

[1KPerDay]

I carry to protect myself, my family and those unable to protect themselves such as children or elderly. I will not protect ANY able bodied adult, that is their responsibility and theirs alone.

 

[Styx]

This isn't a loaded question, nor am I'm asking just to debate your answer. I'm curious to know your personal opinion.

Do you believe it's your responsibility as a legal gun owner to protect and defend able bodied adults who are strangers who make the conscious choice not to carry or take steps to defend themselves? Why or why not?

 

[Jeff White]

Stopping a vehicle with a handgun usually only works in the movies where it's written into the script. This is going to strike many people as cold but the "good Samaritan" is dead because he made several poor decisions while acting emotionally. The first was trying to stop the carjacking by shooting into the vehicle. The second was running in front of the vehicle while trying to get out of the way.

 

[AJC1]

This isn't a loaded question, nor am I'm asking just to debate your answer. I'm curious to know your personal opinion.

Do you believe it's your responsibility as a legal gun owner to protect and defend able bodied adults who are strangers who make the conscious choice not to carry or take steps to defend themselves? Why or why not?

I have no responsibility to the public, and the risks of each discharge are mine alone to bear. Unless there is some type of.legal immunity for protecting others I'm not taking that risk...

 

[Styx]

Stopping a vehicle with a handgun usually only works in the movies where it's written into the script. This is going to strike many people as cold but the "good Samaritan" is dead because he made several poor decisions while acting emotionally. The first was trying to stop the carjacking by shooting into the vehicle. The second was running in front of the vehicle while trying to get out of the way.

I think he had his back turned and wasn't expecting or paying attention to the vehicle barreling back towards him until it was too late. Several bystanders were yelling for him to get out the way, but it didn't seem that he was aware of the danger or moving too fast to get out of it.

As an aside: The use of his firearm didn't really play a role in this case, although everyone is making it the center piece. The lesson to learn is that the guy was not paying any attention and stayed in harms way after the initial altercation. That's what causes his death. He could have had very well still been killed in the same manner whether he fired into the car prior to the hit and run or not.

 

[starnbar]

We do not know enough to say that what he ws trying to do was "the right thing". Was he shootin at a fleeing thief?


To protect yourself an others--period.

Robbery iis a crime against persons, and the use of deadly force is justified to protect persons only.

There are a few exceptions in Texas.

Yeah but the bad guy got what he wanted didn't he?? So much for the protection

 

[Jeff White]

As an aside: The use of his firearm didn't really play a role in this case, although everyone is making it the center piece.

You don't think the carjacker might have decided to run him down in retaliation for being shot at? The video I saw showed him running right in front of the truck.

 

[Styx]

You don't think the carjacker might have decided to run him down in retaliation for being shot at? The video I saw showed him running right in front of the truck.

Whether he was shot at, spit on, punched, grabbed, stabbed, etc, I think the carjacking would have retaliated. It's not really about the gun.

He was getting out of the street in the video. He didn't run in front of the truck but rather the guy driving the truck targeted him as he was running out of the street to the sidewalk.

 

[Jeff White]

Whether he was shot at, spit on, punched, grabbed, stabbed, etc, I think the carjacking would have retaliated. It's not really about the gun.

He was getting out of the street in the video. He didn't run in front of the truck but rather the guy driving the truck targeted him as he was running out of the street to the sidewalk.

Either way, shooting into the truck was STUPID. We can argue all day about if he would have been run down regardless if he hadn't fired. The fact is that he DID in fact fire on the carjacker. He acted on emotion and he paid the ultimate price.

 

[Styx]

Either way, shooting into the truck was STUPID. We can argue all day about if he would have been run down regardless if he hadn't fired. The fact is that he DID in fact fire on the carjacker. He acted on emotion and he paid the ultimate price.

He paid the price because he wasn't watching his surroundings after the fact. Had he been paying attention and got to safety while the carjacker was going into reverse, he wouldn't have been struck.

Yes, there are things like not getting involved in the first place or just letting the carjacker take his truck, but after all that was said and done, he was still alive and well until the was stuck later on while initially not paying attention. Even if it was an iron clad valid self-defense reason for him to at the carjacker, the victims actions after the fact would have still gotten him killed is my point.

 

[Jeff White]

He paid the price because he wasn't watching his surroundings after the fact. Had he been paying attention and got to safety while the carjacker was going into reverse, he wouldn't have been struck.

He paid the price because he reacted emotionally and completely lost situational awareness. It was stupid to fire into the vehicle and he when that failed he should have immediately gotten out of the area. You simply can't dismiss the fact that he used deadly force when it wasn't appropriate. You simply cannot say that the use of the firearm was not a factor.

 

[Styx]

He paid the price because he reacted emotionally and completely lost situational awareness. It was stupid to fire into the vehicle and he when that failed he should have immediately gotten out of the area. You simply can't dismiss the fact that he used deadly force when it wasn't appropriate. You simply cannot say that the use of the firearm was not a factor.

After the fact and both the victim and the carjacker disengaged, the firearm and everything that happened prior was no logical a factor to him being killed. Not having situational awareness is what got him killed.

 

[fastbolt]

It appears the carjacker was angered and decided to exact a price for being fired upon.

This incident could no doubt be used to discuss any number of issues, probably ad nauseam. However, a key element is that the victim lost sight of the possibility of threat existing, and did so much too soon.

Any update on the suspect?

 

[Jeff White]

After the fact and both the victim and the carjacker disengaged, the firearm and everything that happened prior was no logical a factor to him being killed. Not having situational awareness is what got him killed.

You have to look at the complete incident to make any kind of judgement of the actions of those involved. The carjacker had obviously not disengaged or he wouldn’t have deliberately run the victim down. I’m sure that he will attempt to deny that he deliberately ran the victim down despite the video evidence.

Every incident has to be looked at in its totality. There was a chain of events that led to the victim being run down that started with the carjacker stealing the first vehicle. Everything from that point on is relevant to the discussion.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

I have no idea whether he missed with every round or maybe was using some kind of birdshot or other gimmick ammo.

Happens to police officers using department issue ammo as there is their camera evidence documenting it. People do miss at close range and/or fail to connect meaningfully with their bullets.

 

[1KPerDay]

This isn't a loaded question, nor am I'm asking just to debate your answer. I'm curious to know your personal opinion.

Do you believe it's your responsibility as a legal gun owner to protect and defend able bodied adults who are strangers who make the conscious choice not to carry or take steps to defend themselves? Why or why not?

It is my contention that anyone who thinks he will be able to accurately determine who exactly is able bodied and who is or is not able to protect themselves within the split second adrenaline dump chaos of an attack or gunfight is, shall we say, optimistic.

No, it is not my LEGAL responsibility to defend others. And I don’t know what I would actually do in a lethal confrontation because it hasn’t happened to me, thankfully.