Motorist grabs gun, kills car-jacker

[Preacherman]

This happened in June, but I've only just noted the report, and thought it might be of interest.

From WTOL-TV, Toledo, OH ( http://www.wtol.com/Global/story.asp?S=5077322&nav=menu34_2_11 ):

Carjacker Killed After Motorist Wrestles Gun Away

June 26, 2006 05:33 AM

CAMBRIDGE, OHIO (AP) -- A motorist wrestled a gun from a suspected carjacker and fired three shots, killing the man who had sneaked into the back seat of the car while it was parked at a gas pump, authorities said. The fatal shooting appeared to be self-defense because the driver was shot in the leg by the suspect before he took the gun away, Guernsey County Sheriff Mike McCauley said.

John Toubell, 44, of Antrim, climbed into the car as Brian Starr was inside the gas station early Sunday, paying for gasoline and beef jerky, McCauley said. Starr, 29, of Cambridge, said he saw a head in his rearview mirror as he drove away. "Then I saw the gun coming around," he said.

Starr was shot in the thigh before he wrestled the gun from Toubell. Starr and passing motorists called 911 about 2:20 a.m. Sunday, McCauley said. A steel rod was placed in Starr's thigh because the bullet broke his leg bone in half, he told The Columbus Dispatch from Grant Medical Center in Columbus.

An autopsy was scheduled for Monday on Toubell, who was wanted by the sheriff's office as a suspect in other robberies. Jeff Massey, Toubell's brother-in-law, said Toubell told his girlfriend he was meeting a deputy at the gas station to turn himself him.

Cambridge is about 75 miles east of Columbus.

 

[bclark1]

"Appeared to be self defense?"

The guy was in his car, with a gun and intent. How would that be anything else?

 

[Ryder]

Actually the dead guy did not have a gun when he was killed. It was taken away from him. It's a wonder in this day and age that the victim was not charged with murder even though he did society a favor.

 

[Newton]

Unfortunately, there is established case law for instances such as this. I recall one such case where a man pulled a knife out of his own stomach and killed his attacker with it only to be convicted of manslaughter later.

Technically, I'm afraid that motorist is guilty of a crime unless he can provide reasonable evidence of a second weapon or some type of continued threat.

Having taken control of the gun, he was no longer under immediate threat of death and was not therefore justified to shoot.

I know, I know, the scumbag deserved it, but the law doesn't see it that way.

 

[HighVelocity]

You've been shot, you're fighting in very close quarters inside a vehicle, you end up with the gun, how the heck does that mean the threat is over? With the level of fear, pain and adrenalin flowing at that moment the only way the threat is over is when somebody stops fighting.

 

[gtee03]

fatal shooting appeared to be self-defense because the driver was shot in the leg by the suspect before he took the gun away, Guernsey County Sheriff Mike McCauley said.

Apparently you have to be shot first before you defend yourself.

 

[Pilgrim]

I believe the broken leg establishes the 'disparity of force' for justifiable homicide. The victim certainly couldn't run away. The attacker still posed a deadly threat.

If the victim was able, after gaining control of the gun, to run away, or the attacker immediately jumped out of the car after losing control of the gun, then things change drastically.

A lot of these changes from what is a good shoot to a murder or manslaughter charge often occur in what the shooter says to the police afterwards.

Pilgrim

 

[BulletFan]

Having taken control of the gun, he was no longer under immediate threat of death and was not therefore justified to shoot.

The only person in the world that knew right then and there whether or not the victim was under immidiate danger after the gun had been wrestled away was the BG. The victim had no idea whether or not another weapon was in the process of being pulled on him so his only logical choice was to shoot and prey for victory.

What should have he done: "okay dude I got your gun away from you, now do you have anything else you'd like to shoot me with or shall I end this now?"

I think the air I'm breathing tastes better today because this guy is in the ground.

 

[bg226]

A steel rod was placed in Starr's thigh because the bullet broke his leg bone in half

I wonder what caliber. Anyone know?

 

[Working Man]

...the only way the threat is over is when somebody stops fighting.

It doesn't get any simpler than that.

Even if he was not shot in the leg, they were in a small confined space and
he just proved that the gun could be taken away from the person holding it.

Logic follows that if I can take the gun away from you, you should be able to
take the gun away from me. This ain't tennis, I don't want to see how many
times we can go back and forth before one of us goes out of bounds.

 

[KMBRTAC45]

I'm with HighVelocity & BulletFan, The driver has NO idea if the BG has another means of getting what he wants.

 

[sturmruger]

The chance of this guy getting charged with a crime is zero. Remember in most states it goes by what a reasonable person would be in fear of. If had one leg wrecked by a bullet and managed to get the gun away from the bad guy I can garuntee that the bg is going to get shot.

 

[Henry Bowman]

Too bad VPC, Brady Bunch and the other members of the "criminal advocacy lobby" didn't get the message to this poor chap that "if you carry a gun to commit a crime, the victim will just take it away and use it on you."

 

[Phil Ca]

The real message here is to lock the car when going inside the store or to the cashier booth. Also look inside the back of the vehicle when re-entering.

 

[Spot77]

The real message here is to lock the car when going inside the store or to the cashier booth. Also look inside the back of the vehicle when re-entering.

Wile I agree that is exellent advice, the REAL message here is to not be a scumbag carjacker, shoot people and try to take things that aren't yours.


Free men shouldn't have to inconvenience themselves because of lowlife predators.

 

[Mannlicher]

Newton

Unfortunately, there is established case law for instances such as this. I recall one such case where a man pulled a knife out of his own stomach and killed his attacker with it only to be convicted of manslaughter later.

Technically, I'm afraid that motorist is guilty of a crime unless he can provide reasonable evidence of a second weapon or some type of continued threat.

Having taken control of the gun, he was no longer under immediate threat of death and was not therefore justified to shoot.

I know, I know, the scumbag deserved it, but the law doesn't see it that way.

I can't believe you really feel that way. I can see that we live in far different universes. What 'law' are you refering to? That is not logical, not practical, and I don't believe, true.

 

[haat]

Spot77 wrote:

Free men shouldn't have to inconvenience themselves because of lowlife predators.

But isn't carrying also an inconvenience? A kilo of stuff on your belt because of lowlife predators is an inconvenience to anyone I know who carries. But it's a smart thing to do, if it's legal where you live. Taking a quick look in the back of the car is also a smart move if there's a possibility someone snuk in there while you weren't watching. It costs you nothing but a split second and a bit of awareness.

It's an abomination if the man is charged. He was already shot, which means he would be getting into a shock or at least weaken rapidly because of blood loss. There's no way you can argue that he should have wrestled a bit more to keep the gun, or throw it out of the window to make a "fair fight" with the criminal who shot him, and was still intact.

 

[2400]

Unfortunately, there is established case law for instances such as this. I recall one such case where a man pulled a knife out of his own stomach and killed his attacker with it only to be convicted of manslaughter later.

Technically, I'm afraid that motorist is guilty of a crime unless he can provide reasonable evidence of a second weapon or some type of continued threat.

Do you have the links to these cases to back your comments up?

 

[Ares45]

Apparently you have to be shot first before you defend yourself.

2nd that. Unfortunately, it's the truth.

 

[loumarch]

Working Man makes an excellent point. That would be the basis of my defense, if needed.
This case also shows the potential for trouble if you second guess yourself or hesitate while running defense scenarios through your head.

You should always have a plan and a backup plan. You should also practice your plan until you can get through it without thinking about it.

We also need the network television stations to start reporting on these defensive shootings. This will accomplish two things, first it will make some BGs think before they act, and second, it will show the public-at-large that there is a real purpose to carrying a gun.

 

[carebear]

Ares and gtee,

It most certainly isn't the truth according to self-defense laws in all 50 states.

There is no criminal code anywhere to my knowledge that requires one to take a bullet or even that a shot be fired before deadly force is justified.

Means, opportunity, intent. All three were present in that car.

 

[Erebus]

It's an abomination if the man is charged. He was already shot, which means he would be getting into a shock or at least weaken rapidly because of blood loss. There's no way you can argue that he should have wrestled a bit more to keep the gun, or throw it out of the window to make a "fair fight" with the criminal who shot him, and was still intact.

I have severely broken a leg(never been shot) and shock came on very fast. You lose touch with reality and strength very quickly. If this guy had waited it would have been like taking candy from a baby to get the gun back.

Throw it out a window and only the BG is capable of retrieving it seeing as how the GG couldn't even walk and I seriously doubt he could drive away.

Had this guy not fired we would be watching video on the news from the gas station of the victim walking out, and maybe even the BG getting in his car. There would a phone number at the end to call if you had any information about the murder of Brian Starr. If he truely was there to turn himself in and changed his mind then the cops would have put 2&2 together and it would have had a pic of John Toubell as well. Prior to seeing the video the talking head would give a brief overview of the story with BIG picture of a scary looking black gun next to his/her head.

 

[orionengnr]

I foresee a Happy Ending...

And +1 to the driver and "would-be" victim.

 

[Newton]

I can't believe you really feel that way. I can see that we live in far different universes. What 'law' are you refering to? That is not logical, not practical, and I don't believe, true.

You really need to read the post more carefully, what I indicated was what I believed the law "could" make of the circumstances.

Don't look for an argument where there isn't one. I'm pleased he shot the guy and I'm doubly pleased the cops don't appear to be pushing the issue. But wherever you shoot someone, there are risks involved, and I saw some heightened risk here. Disagree with that, but don't presume to understand my "feelings" in the case.

 

[OrvilleYertleson]

I say a guy who has just shot you has already demonstrated his intent and ability to kill you. Even after you take the gun away he is still a threat, especially if you are now crippled and unable to run away/fight back effectively. Just like a man in a wheel chair can claim disparity of force against an unarmed, larger man if the threat is great enough.