Man Sentenced to 9 mos for Shooting Car Prowler

[alfack]

Don't do the crime, if you can't do the time.

I think the better question would be "is it worth risking your life over a subwoofer?"

 

[LibShooter]

...now he's a convicted felon...the bad guys won that one...

Except for the dead one.

A life is worth more than an item...

I'd say the life of someone who steals is worthless.

A subwoofer is not worth someone's life. And I'm not talking about the thief. I'm talking about the guy on the balcony. First, suppose the bad guy really had a gun in his waistband. It would have been a very lucky shot but the bad guy could have hit the homeowner. A subwoofer is not worth a .40 cal. hole in my head.

Secondly, shooting a fleeing thief in the head with a hunting rifle is at the least a pretty unsympathetic case to present to a jury. The homeowner could have gone to jail for years. That's trading much of HIS life for a subwoofer. Much better to call 911, the insurance company and Best Buy, in that order.

 

[Cosmoline]

It was a very questionable shooting. When they ran he should have chalked up a victory and left the subwoofer to 911. Shooting a guy in the back of the head from 60 or 70 feet away as he's running off with your stuff is stretching self defense a bit far.

Is he lying about the perp turning and reaching for his waistband?

Well if he was turning then why was the 54R through the BACK of his head? Obviously we didn't get to see the autopsy report but the articles all seem to indicate it was a shot from the back, which supports the theory that the perp was running away with said subwoofer, not turning to draw down.

The owner had a profoundly powerful tool in his hands, ready to go. That afforded him a little luxury IMHO. He could let things play out. If they ran off, great. Call cops and let them try to find the stereo. If one of them actually does turn and try to shoot it out with some holdout piece, then the owner CAN legally shoot back and is virtually certain to win at that range with that weapon. That's one reason I prefer a long gun, Mosins included, for defense. It gives you enough advantage in accuracy and power to avoid panic shooting. With that weapon you control a hundred yard radius or more and unless someone else has a rifle and knows how to use it, you stand a very good chance of prevailing in any shootout.

What I *suspect* happened here is the fellow was understandably angry that these worthless goblins were violating his space and stealing his stuff. I totally understand wanting to blow them apart, and I don't shed a single tear for the worthless scum who lost his head. But it ain't legal to go killing guys because they're running off with your things. With the rifle comes the responsibility not to fire out of anger. We all need to remember that.

 

[JDoe]

Ok lets say the thief got shot to the back of the head.

It is possible that the thief had slowed in his escape, looked back at the shooter, reached for something in his waistband. Then at the moment when he was shot, was looking slightly down, facing away from the shooter and fumbling with something in his waistband. It is also possible that one of his buddies grabbed the gun he was going for (after he was shot but before the shooter arrived on the street) and ran away with it.

I'll bet that if the shooter had the $$ for competent legal counsel he would have been found not guilty.

 

[RP88]

given the original story, I'd say not. He apparently admitted to losing control when he 'freaked the f--- out', in his words. Sounds like he screwed himself instead of his lawyer doing that for him. He should have stuck to a story that made him sound squeaky clean instead of hinting at shooting the guy in the back of the head on purpose.

All I can say is that he is lucky to get off so easily

 

[LibShooter]

I just checked my notes from my Handgun Carry Class and this is what the instructor said about using force to protect property (in Tennessee).

You may use restraint to protect your stuff. (i.e. cling tenaciously to your wallet, trip a purse snatcher or yell "Stop!") If the thief's reaction to this makes you fear for your safety or that of some one else, you may use your weapon.

One guy's opinion in one state for what it's worth.

 

[WatongaJim]

Bad outcome for all parties. While I believe that we have a right to defend our property, after attending several handgun courses and being a licensed CC holder, I don't think that's it's a good idea to bring a firearm into play for possible theft issues. Only produce a gun in response to a lethel threat.

 

[kilo729]

I'd say the life of someone who steals is worthless. They are a dreg on society.

So those who steal to stay alive are worthless dregs on society? I'll have to inform my Mother of this fact, seeing as she stole food to keep her and her sisters living.

In the liberal environs of America, Seattle is one such, down is up and up is down. And what's really ridiculous in liberal America is the often heard complaint, "It's the fault of the police. Why can't they protect us."

Bowers vs Devito :/

On Topic:
Poor choice on the shooters part, shooting a fleeing man in the back of the head.

 

[Blowingsky]

Two bad things:
1. Now he's open to civil suit, as was mentioned. This can leave you in a gut pile.
2. He killed someone and has no idea who grieves for this person and might want revenge. An assailant could come out of anywhere at any time to "even the score". If we, on the whole, feel the shooter went too far, think how the dead guy's brother, father or cousin feels?

So apart from the morality of the incident, this rifleman took action that put him in a profoundly vulnerable position and weaponless for the rest of his years. Very bad strategy.

 

[rainbowbob]

So apart from the morality of the incident, this rifleman took action that put him in a profoundly vulnerable position and weaponless for the rest of his years. Very bad strategy.

BAM! I think we have a winner - give that man a cigar!

 

[razorback2003]

Felony Theft

I don't know the value of the things stolen...but at one time it was quite legal in many states to use deadly force to stop those committing FELONY theft....for example if a car thief ran off with a car or a someone was running with a TV (back in those days TV's were felony value) then yes you could shoot someone to recover the property. The puke liberals have screwed up many states' laws and given rights to the criminals to save their butts. Of course about the only property now that people can legally protect is real property through stopping burglary (or forcible entry depending on how the law is written) or in some states arson. If you aren't in a few states like Texas that allow you to use deadly force to stop theft...you better not do it or your life will be messed up like this guy...it isn't worth it to be someone's 'friend' in the pen. Know your laws and be cool headed.

 

[JohnKSa]

states like Texas that allow you to use deadly force to stop theft

Not just "theft"--ONLY "theft at nighttime" and even then only under very specifically defined circumstances. I don't know of ANYWHERE that you can just shoot someone for simply stealing from you. Even in TX which has pretty tolerant laws in terms of allowing deadly force in protection of property it's a lot more complicated than that.

You are absolutely correct that it's important to know the law in your area.

These threads always contain a lot of monologues describing how criminals deserve whatever happens to them--that they're fair game if you can catch them in the act. Somehow most of the "monologuers" fail to make the connection that if you shoot someone when the law says it's illegal to do so that you are as much a criminal as the criminal you're shooting.

Breaking the law by taking something when the law says it's illegal is wrong--so is breaking the law by shooting someone when the law says it's illegal. They're both criminal acts--the acts of a criminal.

 

[Extremely Pro Gun]

Ive got a 12 GA benelli nova full of 10 rubber slugs. (outside the home use) = VERY VERY SCREWED UP BG.

Ive got an AR-15 full of Hornady 55gr varmint express+ glock 40 for inside the home = DEAD.

 

[will919]

Execution for theft doesn't wash with me

 

[eldon519]

Not just "theft"--ONLY "theft at nighttime" and even then only under very specifically defined circumstances. I don't know of ANYWHERE that you can just shoot someone for simply stealing from you. Even in TX which has pretty tolerant laws in terms of allowing deadly force in protection of property it's a lot more complicated than that.

I'm pretty sure you actually can in TX:
"A person is justified in using deadly force against another to prevent the other who is fleeing after committing burglary, robbery, or theft during the nighttime, from escaping with the property and he reasonably believes that the property cannot be recovered by any other means; or, the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the property would expose him or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury."

I should add, I don't think that means you should by any means. A person's life is worth more than a subwoofer.

 

[JohnKSa]

eldon519,

You can't shoot someone for simple theft, it has to be theft during the nighttime. Your quote confirms that. That eliminates the use of deadly force for all theft that doesn't happen at night.

Your quote is a paraphrased version of 9.42.2 and 9.42.3 That is not the only part of the law that applies.

§ 9.42 starts off with 9.42.1 which says that deadly force can only be justified if 9.41 is satisfied too.

Here's the entire text of the law that applies:

§ 9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY. (a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property.
(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, movable property by another is justified in using force against the other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or
(2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using force, threat, or fraud against the actor.


§ 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(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.​

Note that the deadly force section demands that all the requirements of section 9.41, regarding the use of force (but not deadly force) must also be satisfied.

It's also important to keep in mind that burglary (breaking into an occupied residence/building to steal), robbery and aggravated robbery are not, strictly speaking, simple property crimes. They all involve either violence or significant threat to the defender in and of themselves.

You can prevent arson with deadly force but that's largely because arson is also a dangerous crime. Fires are dangerous and can easily result in deaths or serious injuries before they're put out. So this isn't really a good example of defending property--more an example of preventing a crime that is potentially life-threatening.

What it comes down to in TX is that you can use deadly force to prevent the following crimes that are truly property crimes: criminal mischief and theft or you can use it to recover property stolen in a burglary, stolen in a robbery or stolen in a theft that took place during the nighttime.

You can use deadly force to prevent criminal mischief and theft ONLY if ALL of the following conditions apply:

• The crimes happen at night AND
• You were in lawful possession of the property in question prior to the incident AND
• You reasonably believe that only force can prevent the damage/loss of property AND
• You reasonably believe that immediate action is necessary to prevent the damage/loss of property AND
• The force is used immediately AND
• You reasonably believe the person taking the property has no legal claim on it (i.e. no shooting the repo man) OR you know he's taking it by force, threat or fraud AND
• You reasonably believe that deadly force is immediately necessary to prevent the crime AND
• You reasonably believe that only the use of deadly force can prevent the crime OR that using any other method (besides deadly force) would expose you or another innocent to substantial risk of serious injury or death.

You can use deadly force to recover property stolen in a burglary, stolen in a robbery or stolen in a theft that took place during the nighttime ONLY if ALL of the following conditions apply:

• You were in lawful possession of the property in question prior to the incident AND
• You reasonably believe that only force can recover the property AND
• You reasonably believe that immediate action is necessary to recover the property AND
• The force is used in "fresh pursuit" AND
• You reasonably believe the person taking the property has no legal claim on it (i.e. no shooting the repo man) OR you know he took it by force, threat or fraud AND
• You reasonably believe that deadly force is immediately necessary to recover the property AND
• You reasonably believe that only the use of deadly force can recover the property OR that using any other method (besides deadly force) would expose you or another innocent to substantial risk of serious injury or death.

It's worth pointing out that most people insure their property and insurance is a "way to protect against and recover property losses without exposing the owner to substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury." If a prosecutor takes that approach it would mean that you could only use deadly force to recover stolen property that was uninsured and where all the other listed conditions applied as well.

It's also worth pointing out that even if you are justified under the law you can still be sued in civil court. If that happens it will very likely cost you more than the property you saved by shooting someone.

There was an incident today in the Dallas area where a jeweler shot at a man who snatched a ring and ran out of the store with it. The jeweler's actions are not justified under TX law because it wasn't a burglary or a robbery, it was a simple theft. Since it didn't take place at night there is no grounds for using deadly force to attempt to recover the property or to prevent the theft. The jeweler can be charged with attempted murder.

 

[MikeS.]

So no amount of property is worth killing for?

Not for me it isn't. That's why I quit working as an armed guard many years ago.

 

[Starship1st]

Correct.



Not correct. In some states the "castle doctrine" does not cover the automobile, and in some it does if the car is occupied. Not sure about all of them.



I guess you think it "sucks" in forty eight of our fifty states.

BTW, he had claimed self defense.

The guy screwed up and got off easy.

Heck, just shooting a high powered rifle in an urban setting is a very bad idea. The guy is lucky that he did not kill or maim someone else.

Yes I do think that it sucks!

 

[Kleanbore]

at one time it was quite legal in many states to use deadly force to stop those committing FELONY theft....for example if a car thief ran off with a car or a someone was running with a TV (back in those days TV's were felony value) then yes you could shoot someone to recover the property. The puke liberals have screwed up many states' laws and given rights to the criminals to save their butts

Care to substantiate that assertion with specific examples? In which states have the laws changed in that manner?

In all of our states except one, the laws were originally rooted in the English Common Law. One could defend one's habitat against forcible entry or arson, or one's outbuilding or livestock or grain stores against arson, with deadly force, and one could protect ones' self with deadly force when immediately necessary, but one was limited to the use of reasonable force, short of deadly force, to prevent simple theft or to recover property.

That general concept goes back many centuries and in some places, for almost four thousand years. I do not think it was the product of "liberals" as we know them today.

So...that's how it started out in the states. When and where do you believe deadly force was first permitted to recover property taken by theft, and when was that change reversed?

Leave out the spotty history of provisional local law in the territories. Forget Texas--the situation there is well known and JohnKSa has given us an excellent discussion. And do not confuse use of deadly force to recover property with deadly force to prevent a forcible felony--that's a different thing altogether.

It's apparently a fairly common misconception that state laws have changed in recent years in a manner that restricts the allegedly once-proper use of deadly force by citizens to protect or recover property. Yes, the right to carry guns was eliminated in some states during Reconstruction (those folks weren't liberals, by the way) and the right to possess them has been infringed in others starting almost a century ago. And in some places, the concept that one's home is his castle has not yet been codified.

However, some things have gone the other way. The concept of the duty to retreat goes back many centuries, but "stand your ground" laws, a recent development, are now in effect in many places. Also, concealed carry has been made lawful in many states in recent years.

I'm trying to remember when open carry was outlawed in Texas. I think it was around 1910. Would you attribute that to the action of "liberals"?

 

[danprkr]

This should have been filed under "DSAF" and Sheets should have walked with the thanks of a grateful community for ridding it of a thief.

When I took the CHL Instructor course here in TX from the DPS they gave a lecture about one of the first CHL holder involved shootings in the state. It was a VERY similar scenario. The shooter walked because he had reasonable belief that his life was in danger during the time the thief was reaching for his pants. I can't remember, and willingly stipulate that it is a huge detail, whether or not the guy actually had a gun. But, I don't believe he did.

Also, what all the cops that have walked over the years because someone was reaching for a wallet or some other innocuous object during a LE encounter? Good for the goose, good for the gander!

 

[Kleanbore]

Sheets should have walked with the thanks of a grateful community for ridding it of a thief.

Thieves are not given the death penalty anywhere.

That, by the way, is one of the reasons given by Blackstone for the fact that the Common Law did not allow deadly force to prevent theft.

It is also quite reasonable by any standard.

The question is whether a ninety day sentence is appropriate for manslaughter. Most felons serve longer sentences for that.

 

[Kleanbore]

Felony Theft--Why the Confusion?

at one time it was quite legal in many states to use deadly force to stop those committing FELONY theft....for example if a car thief ran off with a car or a someone was running with a TV (back in those days TV's were felony value) then yes you could shoot someone to recover the property.

Again, no, I don't think so, but after some coffee I see where some of the confusion may lie.

At Common Law it was once considered OK to use force, including deadly force as a last resort, for the purpose of preventing a fleeing felon from escaping trial if, and only if, the arrest could not otherwise be effected.

Note that the list of that crimes that were considered felonies in those days encompassed only murder, rape, manslaughter, sodomy, mayhem, burglary, arson, and robbery, which were at the time punishable by death. That list is a whole lot shorter than what states and/or the Federal Government call felonies today. Theft was not included.

Primarily because the state laws were loosely written, police procedure left much to judgement, and the definition of a felony had evolved, state courts and legislatures started modifying the old "fleeing felon rule," staring perhaps a century ago. That and the SCOTUS ruling on Garner have put us where we are today.

It is important to note that all of the above has to do with effecting an arrest of someone for a very serious crime, and it has nothing at all to do with the recovery of stolen property.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

So those who steal to stay alive are worthless dregs on society? I'll have to inform my Mother of this fact, seeing as she stole food to keep her and her sisters living.

Cry me a river. There are many charitable organizations out there that are more than willing to help. Your mother probably sole something someone else needed to survive. Your mother could have done what my wife did when she was a single mom. She worked waiting tables and did some sewing yet managed to raise a fine upstanding man(now 40) with no theft, state, or charity help.

What if the victim of the theft needed to sell his woofer some day for a few groceries?

On Topic:
Poor choice on the shooters part, shooting a fleeing man in the back of the head.

The perp was running off with the stolen property. He wasn't fleeing. Perspective plays a big part in these matters, and avoiding it to press home a point is disingenuous.

So apart from the morality of the incident, this rifleman took action that put him in a profoundly vulnerable position and weaponless for the rest of his years. Very bad strategy.

That is a fault caused by the miscarriage of justice. The man shouldn't have even been brought to court let alone charged with a felony. Even then, he isn't a dangerous criminal who should be unconstitutionally debarred the right to keep and bear arms. Were it so, he'd have to be kept locked up forever.

Execution for theft doesn't wash with me

Same for me. However, this wasn't an execution. To be executed, there has to be a trial, conviction, and sentencing. This was protection of property. Again, proper perspective must be maintained.

If a person places so little value on their property that they are not willing to protect it, why not just put it out on the street, or stack it on top of your trash cans for anyone who is so inclined can just take it without fear of retribution?

If you disagree with me, don't steal from me. I worked long and hard for what I have and I'll not simply stand by and watch it be carried off for someone else to enjoy or benefit from it. My stance discourages theft. Y'all's stances encourage theft.



Woody

 

[rainbowbob]

So apart from the morality of the incident, this rifleman took action that put him in a profoundly vulnerable position and weaponless for the rest of his years. Very bad strategy.

That is a fault caused by the miscarriage of justice.

That may be...but strategy by necessity must deal with the current realities - whatever they are.

The reality is that you may go to jail and lose your right to posses firearms if you shoot someone for ANY reason.

For me that would have to be a high-stakes, life-or-death reason.

 

[razorback2003]

Try to Clarify

I'll apoligize for writing my post late at night. Yes it was once very common/acceptable practice and legal for police and citizens to use deadly force to stop thieves running with value of felony theft because they were fleeing felons IF the fleeing felon would not stop. The felon did not have to be a VIOLENT fleeing felon....just a fleeing felon. That is why I used the example of the TV or car thief. No it wasn't because police/citizens were trying to recover property under the law...it was to stop fleeing felons but it in effect stopped a felon level thief. Now, under most states' laws, you can only use deadly force outside burglary/arson/breaking-entering/home invasion to stop a violent felony and quite possibly a violent fleeing felon...such as a bank robber running with a weapon in his hand who is still obviously a threat to bystanders. The simple fleeing felon rule in most states won't cut it....Gardner VS TN did away with that for police...it upped the stander to VIOLENT fleeing felon for police...so states seemed to have changed their state laws to conform with that court ruling when dealing with fleeing felons.