Man Sentenced to 9 mos for Shooting Car Prowler

[Atroxus]

My stance discourages theft. Y'all's stances encourage theft.

No, your stance encourages vigilantism. By saying it is okay to shoot someone for theft when there is no immediate threat to anyone's life or well-being, it seems to me that you are saying it is fine for someone to be judge, jury, and executioner for any offense they happen to witness while armed. I don't think any person should have to sit idly by and watch their property be stolen, but at the same time if you plan to mete out "justice" on the spot you may want to make sure the punishment fits the crime or you could very well end up in the same position as Sheets.

 

[Kleanbore]

The man shouldn't have even been brought to court let alone charged with a felony.

He killed a man. Ordnarily, that is a felony. There are exceptions. Accident, for example; this wasn't an accident. And there's justifiable homicide--results from the use of force when immediately necessary to defend one's life or limb or that of another, or in many jurisdictions, to prevent a forcible felony.

The guy claimed self defense. It was up to him to produce convincing evidence, and he evidently failed.

However, this wasn't an execution. To be executed, there has to be a trial, conviction, and sentencing.

Well, OK, so it was murder.

This was protection of property.

The guy and his attorney were smart enough to not claim that, knowing where it would lead. They claimed self defense. It didn't wash.

Interesting question: Had the guy killed one or more innocent persons with stray 7.62 rounds and had the act been ruled justified, would his liability to the innocents be 'limited' (as it were) to civil torts with astronomical potential judgments? Had the act not been ruled justified, would he have been guilty of additional criminal homicides of a lesser degree??

 

[eldon519]

Thanks for the clarification JohnKSa, for whatever reason that didn't register when I read it over the first time.

 

[EHL]

The minority feel that some property is worth using deadly force to retain (what that might be was highly variable).

Count me in the solid minority then. I can't believe how many people in here would sit there and let some guys cart off their belongings. Instead of defending your property (that's a constitutional right too guys):banghead:, you reach for the phone to talk to the insurance adjuster?!!! Wow, just wow!

Some of my "things" aren't replaceable. Some of my belonging are family heirlooms that are over a hundred years old. I intend on passing them along to my kids when their time comes. Not simply wave goodbye to the perp as he pilfers my IRREPLACEABLE heirloom. Bottom line is: the perp don't got a right to have my property. He doesn't want to get shot, easy: he just leaves my stuff alone.

To quote a member of the British Parliament several years ago when they were debating use of a firearm on a home invader/burglar, "If a burglar doesn't want to get shot, all he has to do is not burgle my house."
I echo that sentiment and shake my head in disbelief that so many have bought into the liberal mantra that "taking a life no matter what the reason, NEVER solves anything."

For those that keep squawking about the laws in their states and how they won't allow use of force in defending property; what are you doing to change the laws in your state? Texas has done it. Why can't you?

 

[longdayjake]

It was up to him to produce convincing evidence, and he evidently failed.

The burden of proof is never on the defendant. It is always on the prosecution. He should have gotten off because if the prosecution couldn't prove murder, then they sure as hell can't prove it wasn't self defense. He should never have plead guilty.
The only thing they could prove is that the guy got shot in the back of the head. I have seen cops shoot people in the back of the head and it was called justified homicide. The threat was there and deadly force seemed necesarry. Manslaughter is just something that lawmakers came up with to punish stupidity killings.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Some folks on here are throwing around words like "vigilantism", and "murder", and "justice" without regard to what those words mean.

More tonight.

Woody

 

[Atroxus]

The burden of proof is never on the defendant. It is always on the prosecution. He should have gotten off because if the prosecution couldn't prove murder, then they sure as hell can't prove it wasn't self defense. He should never have plead guilty.
The only thing they could prove is that the guy got shot in the back of the head. I have seen cops shoot people in the back of the head and it was called justified homicide. The threat was there and deadly force seemed necesarry. Manslaughter is just something that lawmakers came up with to punish stupidity killings.

Actually there is a police officer near where I live being charged with manslaughter for shooting a drunk in the back. Snohomish County Officer charged in killing In theory at least, even police can't shoot someone in the back and skate unless they had the reasonable expectation that by not doing so the BG would seriously injure or kill somone.

 

[Joe Demko]

...and yet Texas has crime rates comparable to the other states.

 

[EHL]

...and yet Texas has crime rates comparable to the other states.

Texas shares a border with a 3rd World country. Alot of drugs and dangerous illegals pass through here. What's the point you were trying to make?

 

[Kleanbore]

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.

I think you'll find that that temporary change from the Common Law was due to the evolution in the law regarding the definition of a felon, and that it represented a departure from the original intent of the law.

Originally, all felonies were violent; theft was not a felony.

Wtih high-value theft or defacement of property, bad checks, odometer roll-back, and so on having later been classified as felonies, it is patently obvious to me that the underlying concept of the Common Law, as later embodied in state laws, no longer applied, and something had to change, and it has.

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.

Yes, and to me that is the one departure from the law of old.

So why does the new law make sense? Well, in the old days, if the guy ran into the heath ahead of the constable, he would most likely never be arrested and brought to trial--he was gone and he had shown a propensity for committing violent crimes. Same thing for a Dakota bank robber riding into the badlands, or for a murderous Texas couple speeding off in a Ford before there were police radios or airplanes. So, shooting the violent felon before he got away was often the only way to effect an arrest.

That's no longer really true. Now it is highly likely that he will be caught through the use of internet data dissemination, radio, aircraft, and DNA.

So now, the question of necessity has changed.

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.

The ruling in Garner v. Tennessee and other consistent changes returned the standard to where it had been in covering only violent crimes, and added the requirement that the violent fleeing felon present a danger to the officer or to others. The former is in my opinion a needed correction from a situation neither foreseen nor intended at the time the law was originally framed; the latter, I presume, is based on the assumption that in today's situation, the perp will ultimately be caught and brought to trial even if he initially escapes.

 

[Kleanbore]

The burden of proof is never on the defendant. It is always on the prosecution. He should have gotten off because if the prosecution couldn't prove murder, then they sure as hell can't prove it wasn't self defense. He should never have plead guilty. The only thing they could prove is that the guy got shot in the back of the head.

Try this. Worth reading and bookmarking.

http://www.nacdl.org/public.nsf/01c1e7698280d20385256d0b00789923/f587d7d10c34fff2852572b90069bc3c?OpenDocument&Click=

Relevant excerpts:

Self-defense is all-or-nothing. In order to establish it, the client has to admit being at the crime scene, with a weapon, which he or she used to intentionally harm the aggressor. The client has to admit that he injured the aggressor. The client has to convince the jury that if a reasonable person had been standing in his shoes, the reasonable person would have done the same thing. In effect, the aggressor invited his fate by threatening or inflicting serious bodily harm, or by threatening to kill the client.

At a minimum, the defense must include some evidence, generally viewed in the light most favorable to the defense, on each of these factors in order to receive an appropriate jury instruction:

The client had reasonable grounds to believe he or she was in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm. Heated words, vague threats, and the possibility of future harm are not enough. The harm must be serious and imminent.

The client actually believed that he or she, or a third person, was in such imminent danger.

The danger was such that the client could only save himself or herself by the use of deadly force.

The client had to use no more force than was necessary in all the circumstances of the case.​

Many assumptions about trial tactics are inverted in a self-defense case. If the defendant presents some evidence on each of the elements of self-defense, then he or she is entitled to a jury instruction on the issue, which places the burden of proof squarely on the prosecutor to disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. If the prosecution fails to disprove self-defense, the client is acquitted. In practice, however, the defense attorney has a great deal of work to do in order to convince the jurors that the client’s conduct fell within the common law of self-defense or within applicable state statutes.

 

[Old Dog]

This from "Constitution Cowboy" several posts back:

I'd say the life of someone who steals is worthless. They are a dreg on society. Those who steal become the slave masters of the victims you mentioned. As for where one might draw the line on such thieves, it is a bright line drawn right there when caught red handed, be it their first theft or their last theft. With luck, their first will be their last. It's one of those cases where zero tolerance makes sense.

Now, how do some of you reconcile attitudes such as this with the position (that this poster has taken numerous times) that everyone -- including, presumably, active thieves and convicted felons as well -- should have the right to legally possess firearms, and that any laws prohibiting such persons from owning guns are "infringements" upon their rights? After all, you've just claimed that the life of a thief is forfeit.

Again, another example of the rampant hypocrisy abounding on the internet.

 

[Joe Demko]

My point is, that for all the posturing and chest-thumping about Texas' somewhat unique laws, they aren't gathering the corpses of luckless felons from your kerbs each morning. You're the one who brought up Mexico. Now show me the numbers to prove your implied point that shooting Mexican criminals brings the Texas crime statistics down to parity with the rest of CONUS.

 

[kilo729]

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.

She was 12~, #%*&%$*. It was FOOD. FROM A BIG GROCERY STORE. MY MOTHER DID WHAT HAD TO BE DONE, SHE SURVIVED. SHE HELPED HER LITTLE SISTERS SURVIVE.

( It was in the 70s, what charitable organization was going to help a 12~ year old Hispanic girl, and how in the hell is she supposed to get in contact - SHE'S 12~)

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.

v., fled (flĕd), flee·ing, flees.

v.intr.

1. To run away, as from trouble or danger: fled from the house into the night.
2. To pass swiftly away; vanish: "of time fleeing beneath him" (William Faulkner).

v.tr.

To run away from: flee the scene of an accident.

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?

Protection =/= killing people.

Speaking of placing value, you seem to place little value on human life.

My stance discourages theft. Y'all's stances encourage theft.

Hurrrr. Durrr. Hurrr durr.

For one who claims to be a "Constitution Cowboy", you seem to forget a very memorable line from the Declaration:

... We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. ...

 

[NCPatrolAR]

Count me in the solid minority then. I can't believe how many people in here would sit there and let some guys cart off their belongings. Instead of defending your property (that's a constitutional right too guys):banghead:, you reach for the phone to talk to the insurance adjuster?!!! Wow, just wow!

Some of my "things" aren't replaceable. Some of my belonging are family heirlooms that are over a hundred years old. I intend on passing them along to my kids when their time comes. Not simply wave goodbye to the perp as he pilfers my IRREPLACEABLE heirloom. Bottom line is: the perp don't got a right to have my property. He doesn't want to get shot, easy: he just leaves my stuff alone.

To quote a member of the British Parliament several years ago when they were debating use of a firearm on a home invader/burglar, "If a burglar doesn't want to get shot, all he has to do is not burgle my house."
I echo that sentiment and shake my head in disbelief that so many have bought into the liberal mantra that "taking a life no matter what the reason, NEVER solves anything."

For those that keep squawking about the laws in their states and how they won't allow use of force in defending property; what are you doing to change the laws in your state? Texas has done it. Why can't you?

There is nothing wrong with trying to use means short of lethal force to defend property; but I think killing someone over a subwoofer if excessive.

A lot of people can harp about what they feel is constitutional or not......let's see how far it gets you when you kill someone over simple property and you're sitting in the court room.

 

[hardluk1]

Ncpatrolar You must not be a leo nether and have not read the states whole law for us to follow, it is a damd site longer than most would care to read and then i went to see the DA and ask to have them confermed for a normal CC person. No stun sticks or tazzers , no battons and for a ccw no second gun on your body at the same time, no fixed blade knife or spring assist knife. Don't question me ,,go ask your self. Legal to have but not carry ,now that is a stupid statment but true

 

[EHL]

There is nothing wrong with trying to use means short of lethal force to defend (oneself); but I think killing someone over (burglary, rape, violence, etc..) is excessive.

An anti's argument. See how closely they mirror each other?

A lot of people can harp about what they feel is constitutional or not......let's see how far it gets you when you kill someone over simple property and you're sitting in the court room.

So why don't we change the laws to protect the victims (those being burgled) as opposed to coddling the criminals? (those doing the burgling)

 

[EHL]

Speaking of placing value, you seem to place little value on human life.

I know this wasn't directed at me, but I'll be the first to say that I truly value human life. That is to say innocent human life. I could care less for the life of some pedophile sleazing around trying to get with our kids. I could care less for the life of some career rapist that gets his kicks terrorizing women. I could definitly care less for the life of some serial murderer that kills anything that becomes available for his predations. Do I support the death penalty? Yup. Why? Because not all human life (read above) is worth having around, IMHO.

 

[Joe Demko]

Where is the line drawn and who gets to draw it?
The .gov efts up on so many other things that I am loathe to give them the power to exact the death penalty.

 

[Atroxus]

I know this wasn't directed at me, but I'll be the first to say that I truly value human life. That is to say innocent human life. I could care less for the life of some pedophile sleazing around trying to get with our kids. I could care less for the life of some career rapist that gets his kicks terrorizing women. I could definitly care less for the life of some serial murderer that kills anything that becomes available for his predations. Do I support the death penalty? Yup. Why? Because not all human life (read above) is worth having around, IMHO.

Wow.....just....wow. The argument here has not been whether people thought it was justifiable to shoot murderers, rapists, or pedophiles, but whether or not it is justifiable to shoot someone over property when nobody is in imminent danger of injury or death. I could be wrong, but I highly doubt that many if any of the forum members here would balk at using lethal force to prevent a murder or rape. If you want to grossly modify what people are saying and/or take it entirely out of context in your quotes, of course you can. But I don't see how it adds any validity to your stance.

 

[Cosmoline]

"Any man who kills when he could do otherwise is crazy. Just plumb crazy"

--Sam Elliot as Conagher

I won't hesitate to kill to defend my life or the lives of others. But I'm not going to use my firearms to deal out judgment. That's more responsibility than any one man should ever have, and I want no part of it. Do not listen to those talking big about slaughtering punks for stealing subwoofers. You do not want to go down that road, and I don't just mean the legal ramifications.

Let's spin the facts a little bit. Instead of some punk stealing the subwoofer, let's say the shooter's neighbor was sick of hearing disgusting hip hop music being played by this idiot's car stereo at umpteen thousand decibels in the night. Let's say the neighbor gets nowhere with the cops and decides to go over, open the shooter's car door and tear out the subwoofers, storming off with the vile things much to the joy of the entire neighborhood. Now the actual crime the neighbor has just committed is IDENTICAL to the crime the punk committed in the real scenario. There is no legal distinction. Both have illegally stolen a subwoofer. Are you still OK with the shooter killing?

This is one reason we decided, a very long time ago, that we did not want the victim of the crime making decisions about judgment and punishment.

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

killing over property is easy.... on the internet. real life? not so much

 

[wrs840]

First, I can't imagine shooting anyone in the back of the head while they're stealing property out of my car. It seems morally, legally, and strategically like a very bad reaction. ... But, On the topic of stupid reactions under stress, (and I apologize if this is too OT), let's say the property-owner/shooter went down to the parking-lot carrying a concealed handgun, and demanded the thief return the property, and the thief commences a physical assault (not yet aware that you're armed). I realize this would still be a stupid thing for the the property-owner to initiate, but at what point is is OK to draw and shoot an unarmed opponent in that situation? I've been told if you're armed, and someone's trying to beat the crap out of you, it's now a "gunfight" because who "controls" the deadly weapon you're carrying is now in question. Anyone know?

Thanks,
Les

 

[longdayjake]

Quote:
Self-defense is all-or-nothing. In order to establish it, the client has to admit being at the crime scene, with a weapon, which he or she used to intentionally harm the aggressor. The client has to admit that he injured the aggressor. The client has to convince the jury that if a reasonable person had been standing in his shoes, the reasonable person would have done the same thing. In effect, the aggressor invited his fate by threatening or inflicting serious bodily harm, or by threatening to kill the client.

Quote:
At a minimum, the defense must include some evidence, generally viewed in the light most favorable to the defense, on each of these factors in order to receive an appropriate jury instruction:

The client had reasonable grounds to believe he or she was in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm. Heated words, vague threats, and the possibility of future harm are not enough. The harm must be serious and imminent.

The client actually believed that he or she, or a third person, was in such imminent danger.

The danger was such that the client could only save himself or herself by the use of deadly force.

The client had to use no more force than was necessary in all the circumstances of the case.

Quote:
Many assumptions about trial tactics are inverted in a self-defense case. If the defendant presents some evidence on each of the elements of self-defense, then he or she is entitled to a jury instruction on the issue, which places the burden of proof squarely on the prosecutor to disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. If the prosecution fails to disprove self-defense, the client is acquitted. In practice, however, the defense attorney has a great deal of work to do in order to convince the jurors that the client’s conduct fell within the common law of self-defense or within applicable state statutes.

All of these things are true, but once someone claims the self defence case, it is still up to the prosecution to discredit the claim. Granted, the claim is easy to prosecute if the defense has no plausible evidence to support self defense. This guy's defense attorney could have shown several cases where police officers shoot fleeing suspects because they "see a gun" or something similar. The guy could present his story and then its up to the prosecution to prove that things either didn't happen the way he claimed or prove that a reasonable person would not react the same way. My point was that the prosecution obviously didn't think they could prosecute him for murder, but they wanted to make an example and accepted a stupidly given plea agreement.

 

[Old Guy]

Ex;Pro Gun.

My buddy fired a 12 gage shell full of .30 cal hard rubber balls... in an indoor range, they bounced around a lot! He got hit quite a bit.

I thought it was funny, he thought I showed too much mirth!