An example of why it's a bad idea:

"Matrix R. Lee, 50, fired at a fleeing motorist who he thought had broken into his car. He is charged in Ramsey County District Court with dangerous discharge of a firearm and reckless discharge of a firearm."

"He was issued a permit to carry a pistol on May 6, 2014. The permit and Lee's handgun were confiscated by police, who found two spent casings in the parking lot."

Man fired gun at Como Lake, charges say | STP | StarTribune.com

IMHO, he got what he deserved.

He should consider himself lucky he didn't hit anyone.

Agree he should not have done this (and the purse should have been hidden when they exited the car), but also a good lawyer will probably be able to get the charges reduced or defend against them successfully. If the thieves had not tried to run him over there would be no grey area.

__________________
Alan
SWCA LM 2023, SWHF 220

I had a second degree murder appeal last year that arose from a similar scenario. Defendant lost.

__________________
Now go make God proud...

Key word here is "Fleeing". I arrested for the same thing. My reason for the arrest was, the danger had pasted once the word fleeing came into the conversation. By the way, the State won.

__________________
Don Mundell

Agreed. Pretty hard for the shooter to prove "imminent threat / imminent danger when the suspected bad guy ( who is suspected of a property crime) is driving away....my jurisdiction nowadays prohibit officers acting under color of authority to shoot at fleeing felons.....let alone a citizen who believes the fellow stole something from his car.....as stated above....lucky he did not hit an innocent bystander.

BINGO!! If he had hit someone he's be a guest of the state for a VERY long time.

Bob

If more criminals were met with force there might be fewer of them to deal with.

There is right and there is smart. Unfortunately the two aren't often the same. Question: Can a LEO shoot at a fleeing car if HE see`s a crime committed? Now I know in the real world most wouldn't or even need to as they have radio`s and a army spotted around to take up the chase instantly. However it wasn't that long ago in rural areas I believe it happened. Can you see a person stealing a purse out of a car, get in their car and running through a cop and giving him the finger? I dont think I would want to take my chances on that one.

Unless the situation includes " and persons within the car were shooting at you at the time " , this is a very bad idea. Yes , this did happen to a friend , and yes as a civilian.

The case here was the BG stole a SUV and was driving away.
Owner fired one shot from a 9mm, hit the bad guy in the head killing him.
Trial held, 11 woman, one BP agent on jury found him "Not Guilty".

BTW, county has to pay for all his lawyers fee's..........

__________________
Only difference Fool/Mule-ears

I had a close friend that did the same thing as a Reserve Los Angeles county deputy about 45 years ago. He shot or tried to shoot (I forgot which) at a guy peeling out in a stolen car. His partner either stopped him or tried to stop him. I dont think anything happened to him over it but I recall him complaining to me about it. Elmer was quite a case. He was a bachelor who was a world war two vet with a silver star. Died quite awhile ago. He played by his rules.

If the courts dealt out proper punishment and followed through with it, and prisons were what they were created to be, a punishment not a club, then maybe the BG's won't want to go to jail. Bring back chain gangs and hard labor making little rocks out of big rock.

And as others have stated when fleeing there is no longer a threat. Thinking something happened isn't a reason to shoot. I guess good thing for her his S&W .40 wasn't loaded and the additional time it took him to load a magazine and chamber a round gave her time to get farther away from him.

Wouldn't the handgun being confiscated be normal practice after a shooting.

Also if he were a LEO wouldn't she have been sought for attempted murder if she drove towards a LEO. "The woman drove at Lee, the complaint said, and continued through the lot as Lee yelled at her to stop."

__________________
Psalm 23:4

I've never been one for mandatory classes for CC holders but anyone who carries a concealed firearm or for that matter keeps a gun in the home for personal defense and doesn't take a course on the laws of deadly force in their state of residence is a fool.

Taking something like the NRA Personal Protection Inside or Outside the Home Course would have cost $100-200.00 and would have saved this guy thousands and quite possibly some jail time....

Bob

The Sheriff's Department I worked at had a policy of not shooting at a fleeing vehicle as you did not know if a child or other innocent person might have been in the back seat. The only time you could shoot at a vehicle if it was trying to run over you as then it was a deadly weapon. I think some people watch too many shows on TV and think that is how you should react.

We got to face it. Most of us here aren't cops. You can not play by the same rules. (Unless no one is around)

Lee had not come to grips with the proper mental attitude re: CCW. To wit, you should defend until the threat has ceased. Once the car was "fleeing" Lee's mindset should have instantly switched from defender to good witness mode. His focus should have been on that fleeing car's license plate number. Maybe this incident will make Lee a very vocal advocate of the mental attitude of which I speak above.

__________________
Accidents don't just happen...

In the case, as stated, they guy was VERY lucky he got a sympathetic jury. (Sort of like OJ) But, if the laws there are anything similar to what they are here, legally, he was dead wrong in his actions.

Please realize that shooting at a vehicle is never a good idea regardless of the justification. Keep in mind that most cars today weigh about 3000+ pounds. Killing or disabling the driver of a 3000 pound car has just created a 3000 pound missile that is totally out of control.

Just a few reasons it's a bad idea: if they are fleeing, they are no longer a threat., what if there was a hostage/innocent or child in the car, suppose you did manage to hit the driver causing him to go head on into a soccer mom with a van full of kids, a miss or ricochet hitting a bystander, so many more things that could go sideways. Could anything in a pocketbook/whatever be worth that? He's lucky he didn't get jail time IMO.

There are cases when a LEO is justified in shooting at a vehicle that is fleeing, even if it doesn't constitute an immediate threat to him (it's driving away). Imagine if a LEO had positively ID the PA shooter of the state troopers, there was no question it was him, and if he fled he'd pose a threat to other citizens and, certainly, LEOs. Or imagine a bank robber who had just shot and killed someone and was driving away from the scene. The bottom line is who is fleeing, what offense did they commit, and if they escape what is the likelihood they will offend (kill) again? This, of course, has to be balanced with the safety of the public. If it's likely your shots will strike an innocent civilian you are justified in holding fire. But to say we never shoot at a fleeing vehicle is not correct, there are exceptions. They are just rare.
Update: Just to be clear I'm referring to LEOs shooting at a fleeing vehicle, NOT civilians who don't have the authority to do so.

That's it right there. End of the conversation.

Like someone said previously, that's when you put up your weapon and become a really good witness.

Bob

Don't get me wrong on some of this. I know the rules and laws of carrying. I do have a brand of strange humor I guess. As a guard I open carried for over 35 years on my jobs. Started out back in 1964. I was among the very first in California to get certified under the bureau of consumers affairs when they were first given the power to set up the rules for guards to open carry and get guard cards for the first time in history. Was sent to their schools for it. Probley some of the rules might have changed since then, that was a eon ago.
The main one thing that was drilled into us was "You are NOT cops. You aint jack unless you are a cop. You are there to observe and report." Once you played by their rules and got that in your head any other part of the "schooling" was a breeze. I know the right answers. I still am tempted to do things by my rules once in awhile now that I am retired.

Not true. Once you draw your weapon, the rules change. In this case, you shoot at a fleeing whatever and hit whomever, your going away. Any LEO that has fired his/her weapon will tell you, it is a life changer. Like your first love, car or gun, you never forget it. All the training and book learning can ever replace a real life experience.
The first time I got shot at, my reaction was this. I walked up to the individual, holstered my weapon, took the Remington Model 1100 away from him and slapped him in the face. He was a former high school classmate. If I had shot him,I would have been justified in killing him, no question. This took place in his mothers kitchen. We were less than 10 feet apart, no way I would have missed. Bad thing was, this took place in front of his mother. Later, when I had him in my patrol car he told me why he missed. The call came in as a domestic. He was giving his mom a hard time, he was always in trouble, I had taken him out of the house a number of times. It was around 3 in the morning, as normal I was alone. I walked in the front door, I asked "Where is he?" He replied, “Right here you _ _ _ _ PIG! " As I turned toward his voice, he realizing it was me, he turned the gun slightly away and missed. I think I felt the shot go past my face.
He is out of jail now and when we see each other we both exchange greetings and shake hands. Human nature is pretty funny. Like I said, you never know how you’ll react to a given situation.

__________________
Don Mundell

Man, Don, that's a heck of a story. Thanks for sharing that, and God bless you both.

__________________
Now go make God proud...

Maybe-or more legal carriers would be in jail. The law is pretty clear about this. At least in MN.

That's federal law, Tennessee v. Gardner.

__________________
Just the opinion of a kid

My father practiced law here for 57 years.

One Saturday evening in the early '60's Dad got a call from a client. Client had taken a shot at the car belonging to his daughter's boyfriend with a 30-30 (an undesirable suitor in Client's view) as he drove away from Client's home. Penetrated the trunk, driver's seat and driver. Driver was DOA.

Turned out badly for Client.

Don't shoot at cars!!!!

Perhaps, if they were presenting imminent threats when "met with force". This shooting was idiotic, and the damn fool involved richly deserved to lose his gun and his nice new carry license.

__________________
Oh well, what the hell.

My comment was meant to cover all criminal activity. I personally am sick of seeing my tax money spent to chase down, arrest, prosecute, and incarcerate those that choose not to behave and instead victimize others.

I also believe drunk drivers should be executed, but that can be a topic for another thread.

I had two school classmates that married. The wife ran off on him and they were divorcing. He lived on a farm. One day he came home to see his daughter and her boy friend supposedly stealing a lot of his stuff. He got out a shotgun or rifle and as the pair was speeding out of the driveway he shot at them in the truck. He killed the boyfriend. To make matters even worse he buried the boy friend in a old indian burial site on the back of his farm.
A relative of my dad arrested him. He used to visit my folks before this. He was in with some Posse Comitatus organization and always preaching to my folks about it. Its been a long time ago and he did his time.

I've coached armed store owners. As often happens, action beats reaction and the store is successfully robbed as the merchant can't get to his gun.

But, as the gunman flees, the merchant grabs his gun, gives chase out the door and onto the street, firing wildly and occasionally hitting a bystander.

These untrained people simply can't or won't understand that the laws of self defense are a legal minefield, especially in a blue state where you're guilty until proven innocent.

Best advice I can offer is to not shoot at fleeing felons. If you are in your home or place of business, at least some of the law is on your side, leave these premises and you're in no man's land.

You can be held responsible not only for the damage you do but also for the damage the fleeing felon does.

He shot at someone driving away who he thought had broken into his car. He should be locked up for a long freaking time. That is insane reckless and over reacting. That behavior is embarrassing to the rest of us. Or to me after reading some of the replies in this thread. :0 Yikes.

How long have you lived in metro Atlanta? Were you here when former DeKalb county sheriff Ray Bonner shot a Towers High School student in the back that had rolled his house? That young man was shot from several houses away. GOOGLE it if you are not familiar. He walked, by the way.

That could go either way in Texas too, because of section 9.41 of the Texas penal code, regarding stopping someone fleeing with real property. But I don't believe most states have provisions for using deadly force to protect property as Texas has. As for property in my home if I am home the thief is
not likely to break in at the only entry I have. I don't plan
on chasing anyone down, but would rather stop them at the
point if entry. I did chase a guy down who hit me on a hit and run, fortunately for him he exited the car a few miles down
the road with papers from his car instead of a weapon.

Much as I hate thieves, shooting at a fleeing car is not a responsible action.

__________________
Frosty
S&WCA # 2816

Say something nasty about the fleeing felon's mother.
Get him to turn toward you and charge you.
Then shoot him.
When he's running away it's really hard to claim your life is being threatened.

__________________
NRA LIFE MEMBER

Man. Seriously. If HALF the stories you tell are true....you need to write a book!

__________________
Stay protected my friends.

If they are fleeing, you are no longer in danger ans should not have your gun out.

__________________
H Richard
SWCA1967 SWHF244

The time it took to unholster the firearm and discharge it could have been better spent trying to memorize the plate # and calling 911.

I attribute the described actions to CCW inexperience as much as simple knee-jerk stupidity.

__________________
I'm with the banned ...

^^^ Exactly. We had a case like this a few years back. A CPL holder's car was being stolen, He came out shooting at the fleeing crook in his vehicle. He hit Mr. Bad Guy, who crashed into a tree. Unfortunately, he also hit a neighbor in her kitchen. Mr. BG survived, the neighbor lady didn't. Both the "good" guy and bad guy were convicted in connection with the death and both are inside for a long time.

My state PL is pretty clear on the matter.A gun can't be used to protect "stuff". An unavoidable threat to life is the only reason.Unspoken is that if you use a gun,you're better off if it isn't a handgun.

If there is one thing in this world that I hate, it is an unlocked footlocker....
If it wasn't for "People" like you, there wouldn't be any thievery in this world !

STCM: I believe Washington State is one of only 3 states that have a "fleeing felon" rule. No need for an "imminent threat" as long as you know that the fleeing person committed a felony. You can't be criminally prosecuted in those states for shooting a fleeing felon, but civil may be another story, thanks to TN V. Garner.

Time to change the laws.

__________________
What would Jim Cirillo do?

TN V. Garner was a civil case, not a criminal one. It merely stated that the shooter may be held civilly liable. After TN v. Garner, many states passed legislation that made it a criminal offense to shoot someone who wasn't a threat of death or serious bodily harm, ie. a fleeing felon who wasn't a "threat". Some states didn't. Washington was one of them that didn't. TN V. Garner did NOT make it a crime to shoot someone who was not an "imminent threat". It DID inspire many states to pass laws that did make it a crime though.

Here are court documents for another (new) case of shooting at a fleeing car. The homeowner was charged with Manslaughter and Intentional Discharge of Firearm that Endangers Safety.

https://assets.documentcloud.org/doc...iaShooting.pdf

Here is a very similar incident to the one in the OP (link below). Some local teens (the ones that survived anyways) claimed they were only casing his place for a future burglary. He shot at their fleeing car killing one of them.

Homeowner charged with manslaughter for shooting at home invasion suspects | Fox News

__________________
You're shy a few manners.

I perceive that police officials are held to a higher standard than a regular citizen. Sure, there are cases where cops protect their own but overall they're rather constrained.

People like me, regular folk, need to prioritize where their threshold for shoot/don't shoot is - before a situation occurs. Included in that self assessment should be alternative solutions, like cell phone recording.

Obviously this individual made a poor choice for a variety of reasons. He may be open for a civil lawsuit from the "victim". Not being a lawyer I don't know how likely that may be.

Shooting at a fleeing car is usually a bad idea for a cop. For a private citizen it is hard to imagine ANY scenario that could justify it, and the possible downside, both civil and criminal, is HUGE.