Firefighter Shoots Car Thief

[Scorpion520AZ]

Food For Thought To Consider


"The lieutenant ran in front of the Jeep and shouted, “Get out,” according to a police report. When Macklin began pulling away, the lieutenant drew his gun and fired through the open driver’s side window, hitting the teen in the chest."

“When has it ever become legal to shoot someone because they’re pulling off in your car?” she asked. “Even if (Macklin) did that, if he did steal the car. You’ve got insurance — let him go to jail. I would’ve rather had to get a call to go bail him out of jail than to get a phone call that he’s dead.”

'When has it ever become legal to shoot someone because they’re pulling off in your car?' - Chicago Tribune

[Ziggy2525]

In my state, it's clear, you can't use deadly force to stop a property crime. I was under the impression there were a couple states where you could. Texas and Michigan come to mind, but not totally sure on that.

[OKFC05]

Case law in IL, among many other states, has considered moving a vehicle toward a person as ADW and possible basis for self defense.
I am familiar with one such case where I live now.
No charges were filed: the person shot in the car was wanted.
IANAL

[Ziggy2525]

Originally Posted by OKFC05

Case law in IL, among many other states, has considered moving a vehicle toward a person as ADW and possible basis for self defense.
I am familiar with one such case where I live now.
No charges were filed: the person shot in the car was wanted.
IANAL

In the linked news article, it said the car thief was pulling away from the owner and the owner shot the BG through the drivers side window. With the info that's there, that doesn't seem like ADW.

[rwsmith]

Should I be familiar with that term???

[OKFC05]

Originally Posted by Ziggy2525

In the linked news article, it said the car thief was pulling away from the owner and the owner shot the BG through the drivers side window. With the info that's there, that doesn't seem like ADW.

"The lieutenant ran in front of the Jeep and shouted, “Get out,” according to a police report. When Macklin began pulling away, the lieutenant drew his gun and fired through the open driver’s side window, hitting the teen in the chest."
I don't see enough information in the brief news to make any kind of firm judgment, and I don't understand your wanting to challenge my factual post that a vehicle can be a deadly weapon. Your opinion is your opinion and you are free to post it, preferably without challenging another.

[Ziggy2525]

Originally Posted by rwsmith

Should I be familiar with that term???

I'm assuming OKFC05 meant ADW as Assault with a Deadly Weapon. The car used as a deadly weapon. In the linked article, it seemed like the kid stole the car, but wasn't trying to hurt anyone with it.

[OKFC05]

Originally Posted by rwsmith

Should I be familiar with that term???

Assault with a deadly weapon. In Oklahoma, driving a vehicle toward a person intentionally or in commission of a crime can be justification for defense with deadly force. I am CLEET certified to teach State Handgun Carry Classes, and that is in the state law.

[Whitwabit]

Originally Posted by OKFC05

Case law in IL, among many other states, has considered moving a vehicle toward a person as ADW and possible basis for self defense.
I am familiar with one such case where I live now.
No charges were filed: the person shot in the car was wanted.
IANAL

This case as its described I would have let him leave unless he was using the vehicle as a weapon driving toward me try to run me or someone else over ..

Insurance will pay for the car !!

Killing some one stays with you the rest of your life !!

[Ziggy2525]

Originally Posted by OKFC05

"The lieutenant ran in front of the Jeep and shouted, “Get out,” according to a police report. When Macklin began pulling away, the lieutenant drew his gun and fired through the open driver’s side window, hitting the teen in the chest."
I don't see enough information in the brief news to make any kind of firm judgment, and I don't understand your wanting to challenge my factual post that a vehicle can be a deadly weapon. Your opinion is your opinion and you are free to post it, preferably without challenging another.

I'm not denying it's possible a vehicle can be used as deadly weapon. You brought up the issue of using the vehicle as a deadly weapon.

There's nothing in the story that suggests the thief tried to run the lieutenant over with the car. It says the lieutenant ran in front of the vehicle, but it doesn't say the BG drove the car at him or that the lieutenant needed to jump out of the way to save his life. The article says the thief was pulling away from the Lt, not towards him. Even if he did drive towards him, if the Lt was out of the way enough to shoot through the drivers side window, how was it still a deadly threat for him?

My point was in my state, you can't use deadly force to stop a property crime, including car theft. I'll stick with that. This looks like basic car theft and I'll bet the law is similar in Illinois.

[Popeye77]

Originally Posted by Scorpion520AZ

Food For Thought To Consider


"The lieutenant ran in front of the Jeep and shouted, “Get out,” according to a police report. When Macklin began pulling away, the lieutenant drew his gun and fired through the open driver’s side window, hitting the teen in the chest."

“When has it ever become legal to shoot someone because they’re pulling off in your car?” she asked. “Even if (Macklin) did that, if he did steal the car. You’ve got insurance — let him go to jail. I would’ve rather had to get a call to go bail him out of jail than to get a phone call that he’s dead.”

'When has it ever become legal to shoot someone because they’re pulling off in your car?' - Chicago Tribune

He would rather not have his car stolen and your kid doesn't have the right to steal. Maybe you should have taught him about consequences for his actions. What's he going to graduate to next if he gets a slap on the wrist. Your asking about legality when your son is committing a felony and possibly endangering the lives of others trying to get away.

[OKFC05]

Illinois State Law
(720 ILCS 5/7-3) (from Ch. 38, par. 7-3)
Sec. 7-3. Use of force in defense of other property.
(a) A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate such other's trespass on or other tortious or criminal interference with either real property (other than a dwelling) or personal property, lawfully in his possession or in the possession of another who is a member of his immediate family or household or of a person whose property he has a legal duty to protect. However, he is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
(b) In no case shall any act involving the use of force justified under this Section give rise to any claim or liability brought by or on behalf of any person acting within the definition of "aggressor" set forth in Section 7-4 of this Article, or the estate, spouse, or other family member of such a person, against the person or estate of the person using such justified force, unless the use of force involves willful or wanton misconduct.
(Source: P.A. 93-832, eff. 7-28-04.)


720 ILCS 5/ Criminal Code of 2012.

[richbuff]

Maybe the person who owned the vehicle traded in many hours of his life working hard and long, in exchange for receiving the property. Just guessing.

Maybe the person saw a chunk of his life being stolen, when he saw a chunk of his property that he worked hard and long for being stolen. Just guessing.

Maybe the day when the entire violent and property criminal class is physically eliminated will be the same day that all violent and property criminals are treated exactly this way. Just guessing.

[keith44spl]

Ya jest can't judge an action by the news reports alone.

Sometimes we don't know, what we don't know...….



.

[Ziggy2525]

Originally Posted by OKFC05

Illinois State Law
(720 ILCS 5/7-3) (from Ch. 38, par. 7-3)
Sec. 7-3. Use of force in defense of other property.
(a) A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate such other's trespass on or other tortious or criminal interference with either real property (other than a dwelling) or personal property, lawfully in his possession or in the possession of another who is a member of his immediate family or household or of a person whose property he has a legal duty to protect. However, he is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
(b) In no case shall any act involving the use of force justified under this Section give rise to any claim or liability brought by or on behalf of any person acting within the definition of "aggressor" set forth in Section 7-4 of this Article, or the estate, spouse, or other family member of such a person, against the person or estate of the person using such justified force, unless the use of force involves willful or wanton misconduct.
(Source: P.A. 93-832, eff. 7-28-04.)


720 ILCS 5/ Criminal Code of 2012.

Good info. The article made it sound like the firefighter left the keys in the car, the engine running, and the doors unlocked. The car thief just opened the door, got in the car, and started drivying off.

Would that be a “forcable felony” or just felony car theft.

(720 ILCS 5/2-8) (from Ch. 38, par. 2-8)
Sec. 2-8. "Forcible felony". "Forcible felony" means treason, first degree murder, second degree murder, predatory criminal sexual assault of a child, aggravated criminal sexual assault, criminal sexual assault, robbery, burglary, residential burglary, aggravated arson, arson, aggravated kidnaping, kidnaping, aggravated battery resulting in great bodily harm or permanent disability or disfigurement and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual.

[Triathloncoach]

Anyone have a photo of the Lieutenant?

[robertrwalsh]

In CA the difference between car theft, robbery and carjacking can be a little fuzzy. Deadly force is a no-no when dealing with car theft. Robbery or car jacking is another matter. If he was close enough to the car that it could reasonably be considered to be under his immediate control in CA this could be considered either robbery or carjacking. In CA it would depend a lot on what color the shooter was and what color the shootee was and what county it took place in. (Sad but true.)

[jinx]

At one time, horse stealing was a hanging offense.
I don't see that the firefighter did anything wrong.

[Targets Guy]

If it is not legal it should be. Why should a thief get a free ride? Or make millions from a lawsuit?

When the lawyers run the country, that's why.

[nachogrande]

#1 A police Lt, or fire dept Lt?
#2 If the shooter shot thru an open side window, he musta been to the side of the vehicle & not in danger of being run over, Right??? That's what radios are for, IMO, from the armchair.

[jwk]

It's not what the law should be it's what the law in his State is.

[Inusuit]

Other than the article says the shooter was not charged, I don't have enough information to speculate on the legal aspects of the incident. Something about the situation and the law in Illinois led to this decision by the prosecuting attorney.

I want to believe that I would not shoot some kid stealing my pickup, but I can understand the situation escalating and that I might make a decision in the heat of the moment.

I am tired of relatives of deceased miscreants defending unlawful actions. Neither they nor deceased in this instance are taking responsibility for what happens when you break the law or fail to follow police instructions.

[Ziggy2525]

Originally Posted by nachogrande

#1 A police Lt, or fire dept Lt?

Fire Dept LT. It was his POV.

Originally Posted by Inusuit

...
Neither they nor deceased in this instance are taking responsibility for what happens when you break the law or fail to follow police instructions.

The car thief didn't fail to follow police instructions. It sounds like there were no police involved in the incident until after the fact. According to the article, the car owner was a Fire Dept LT carrying carrying a pistol under his CCW permit. He left his keys in the ignition, car running, and door open. A kid jumped in his car and started to drive away. He shot him.

Maybe all car thieves deserve to be shot, but I think if it was just a regular citizen and not a fire dept Lt, they would have been prosecuted.

[Buford57]

The news article clearly does not offer all the facts in the case, and I have none to offer, just a little local background. People in this area have an annoying habit of leaving their keys in the ignition and the motor running while pumping gas, running into the C-store for a pack of smokes, and from the looks of some of the running and unattended vehicles I have passed recently, getting their hair cut or their nails done. Way too many leave their kids strapped in while they demonstrate that their heads are in a dark place. It is a rare week in Chicago when the news doesn't report that a car with a child inside has been stolen in one of the above scenarios. Sometimes car and kid are recovered together, sometimes not. Some are found running in the middle of the street a few miles away. Some end up as grisly spectacles in the Dan Ryan after they run from the police or go head to head with a semi (or both). I would expect a first responder to be aware of that. He has probably cleaned up the aftermath of more than one such little escapade.

Another peculiarity of life in the land of Rahm is that vehicles seem to be stolen to facilitate another crime more often than for a joy ride (yes, this includes 17 year old and sometimes 13 year old carjackers). Crimes range from the usual liquor store robberies and drive-by shootings to high dollar smash and grab burglaries of jewelry and specialty clothing stores on the Mag Mile.

People are tired of it. Sorry, Miss, but I sincerely doubt that a strong arm robbery with a cold line like "Sorry, bro" was Junior's first crime and if you were that close, what did you do to convince him he'd be better off driving a forklift than a stolen car? You knew. You didn't give a rip while he was alive, but you are grieving now. I get it. I feel for you. I hope you learn something from it.

[Grayfox]

There was a similar incident some years back in Memphis. It was a car jacking and as the thief tried to drive away, the owner shot him through a window. The DA tried to charge the owner and technically he was in the wrong. However, the Grand Jury refused to indict.
I guess it just depends on what your idea of justice is.

[SATX]

Texas Penal Code (2017)

Chapter 9. Justifications Excluding Criminal Responsibility

SUBCHAPTER D. PROTECTION OF PROPERTY

Sec. 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.


Sorry mama, shoulda raised him better.

[The Big D]

...who steals/tries to steal one of my vehicles. Truth. Fact.

They are insured.

Be safe.

PS: That presumes I am not in or on my vehicle at the time and the miscreant is unarmed. Appropriate action would be taken if facts change, of course.

[Watchdog]

This firefighter did so many stupid things, it's hard to pick one to talk about, and he's certainly no one's definition of "hero".

He deliberately placed himself in danger by putting himself in front of the vehicle. He wasn't in front of it when the car thief began to pull away. But he wanted to be a cowboy, be a big man, show that punk he can't do that to him. So he jumps in front of his car and killed the guy. Over a car, of all things. Bet that made his mama proud of him.

He's as much of a punk as the guy he killed. He ought to be in jail and facing charges.

[Watchdog]

Originally Posted by SATX

Texas Penal Code (2017)

Texas penal code doesn't mean diddlyscat in Illinois. Or any other state, now that I think about it.

[SATX]

Originally Posted by Watchdog

Texas penal code doesn't mean diddlyscat in Illinois. Or any other state, now that I think about it.

Got butthurt and stewed on it, did ya.

[Watchdog]

Originally Posted by SATX

Got butthurt and stewed on it, did ya.

No, nothing worth stewing on or over. Did I say something that isn't true? No, again.

[shouldazagged]

This has gotten very contentious, but my rule is simple.

I have never owned any material thing, including vehicles I worked hard to purchase, that meant so much to me that I would resort to deadly, or possibly deadly, force to keep it from being stolen. Things are cheap compared to human lives. Even the lives of scumbags. I'm not their ultimate judge and executioner.

I don't give a good brisk damn what the case law says, that's my law.

If it's my life or that of someone else being threatened, that's
completely different, and I absolutely will do what I have to do. That's why I carry a gun.

Not to shoot some thieving little punk because he took advantage of my leaving my keys in my vehicle.

[chopshopcop]

Originally Posted by Grayfox

There was a similar incident some years back in Memphis. It was a car jacking and as the thief tried to drive away, the owner shot him through a window. The DA tried to charge the owner and technically he was in the wrong. However, the Grand Jury refused to indict.
I guess it just depends on what your idea of justice is.

Yeah it's been quite difficult for many years now in Memphis to seat jurors that have not been a crime victim themselves or had a family member who was. Especially for auto theft, for most of my career Memphis was consistently in the top three cities nationwide for auto theft.

Once you become a crime victim, many folks tend to be less forgiving. There have been many cases in recent years involving deadly force that grand juries refused to indict, the prevailing sentiment is believed to be (but not substantiated) "he shouldn't have been stealing, he got what he deserved"

[shouldazagged]

DELETED duplicate post.

[apollo99]

Thou shall not steal, #8 from the Big Guy.

[SMSgt]

My sympathies for the car thief are best utilized elsewhere.

[BC38]

Originally Posted by apollo99

Thou shall not steal, #8 from the Big Guy.

This is true.
HOWEVER, in that place and time when a thief was caught, they had to make restitution PLUS 20% (IIRC).
Thievery was not a capital offense.
It still shouldn't be IMO.
Deadly force is for preventing death or serious injury to innocent victims - not for protecting THINGS.
Even a thief is still a human being and no human life should be snuffed out lightly.

[Mule Packer]

Dang. And just as he was turning his life around, too.

[redlevel]

[QUOTE=Watchdog;140069016 Did I say something that isn't true? .[/QUOTE]

Maybe not, maybe so.
You sure made a lot of assumptions, though.
Or, maybe you were there and saw what happened?
Or, you have some supernatural ability to delve into the mind
of the shooter and “read” his thoughts as the action happened.
Yeah, that sounds reasonable, based on the vehemence displayed
in your post.

[adwjc]

Originally Posted by Watchdog

This firefighter did so many stupid things, it's hard to pick one to talk about, and he's certainly no one's definition of "hero".

He deliberately placed himself in danger by putting himself in front of the vehicle. He wasn't in front of it when the car thief began to pull away. But he wanted to be a cowboy, be a big man, show that punk he can't do that to him. So he jumps in front of his car and killed the guy. Over a car, of all things. Bet that made his mama proud of him.

He's as much of a punk as the guy he killed. He ought to be in jail and facing charges.

Punk? Really? Why don't you tell that to the family of the deputy run down and killed last week in Virginia, by a teen burglary get away driver? After all he was just trying to get away, according to his mom and her lawyers.

[ExcitableBoy]

Yes, the firefighter pulled a boner. Does that make it okay for the weaselly little felon to commit GTA?

Steal your car, shoot your dog, burn down your house... whatever the "property" crime. Insurance will pay for everything? Some people in this world have to work like a rented mule to acquire what they have, and often do not have commensurate insurance to cover big losses. They are not as rich as Croesus, and rightfully value what they have earned, and they should equally have the right to protect their property... if there were true justice, and not stacks of convoluted "laws" that protect low-lifes and penalize good citizens.

I have no sympathy for the devil.

[pharmer]

Originally Posted by Mule Packer

Dang. And just as he was turning his life around, too.

Too bad it was in someone else' Jeep. Joe

[Watchdog]

Originally Posted by redlevel

Maybe not, maybe so.
You sure made a lot of assumptions, though.
Or, maybe you were there and saw what happened?
Or, you have some supernatural ability to delve into the mind
of the shooter and “read” his thoughts as the action happened.
Yeah, that sounds reasonable, based on the vehemence displayed
in your post.

You should go back and read my post #31, so you'll understand which comment I was talking about, before you go making assumptions of your own. You're apparently talking about something I said in an entirely different post.

Vehemence? If that means speaking with strong feeling about something, yes, I reckon so...guilty as charged.

Originally Posted by adwjc

Punk? Really?

Yes, that's what I said.

Originally Posted by adwjc

Why don't you tell that to the family of the deputy run down and killed last week in Virginia, by a teen burglary get away driver?

I don't know anything about that. That isn't the subject of this thread, anyway. Do you have a link for that story? I'd be interested in reading about it.

[SATX]

Sure, let the punk steal a vehicle, let him rob and assault some people too, maybe do some home invasions until he’s interrupted by the home owner and graduate to murder. After all, in today’s society people can do whatever they want. Sorry, mama and mama daddy should have taught him better.

[just plain joe]

Perhaps this LT should be charged with "Misdemeanor Homicide".

Otherwise, NHI.

[Ziggy2525]

Originally Posted by SATX

Sure, let the punk steal a vehicle, let him rob and assault some people too, maybe do some home invasions until he’s interrupted by the home owner and graduate to murder. After all, in today’s society people can do whatever they want. Sorry, mama and mama daddy should have taught him better.

You’re conflating a couple issues.

No one said “let the punk steal the vehicle.” The issue is using deadly force to stop him from stealing the vehicle. Based on the statute you posted, that’s legal in Texas, but only at night. This wasn’t Texas an I think it was in the daytime.

You also seem to be implying he deserved to be shot because of crimes he might commit (home invasions, etc.) So now are we doing Judge Dredd where we judge and execute people on the street for crimes we think they’ll commit in the future?

[SATX]

I know, this miscreant did not commit any other crimes and this was his first mistake. He was a good boy. Look at the photos of him dressed up for church. It’s the new norm, depicting these criminals as good boys, showing pictures of them as nine year olds all squeaky clean. That’s why crime is so rampant in society, crime pays.

[SPEEDGUNNER]

“Even if (Macklin) did that, if he did steal the car..."

He WAS stealing the car, where does that become a question?

Sheesh.

[Ziggy2525]

Originally Posted by SATX

I know, this miscreant did not commit any other crimes and this was his first mistake. He was a good boy. Look at the photos of him dressed up for church. It’s the new norm, depicting these criminals as good boys, showing pictures of them as nine year olds all squeaky clean. That’s why crime is so rampant in society, crime pays.

You’re conflating again. Where did anyone say he didn’t (or did) commit any other crimes? How did firefighter, at the time he shot him, know his criminal history? If you think someone has a past criminal history, is that the new standard for using deadly force.

[Muss Muggins]

'Tis an incident like this that CCW insurance is designed for. A questionable decision over one man's instant interpretation of a law which is not cut and dried on its face, and about which the actor has limited instruction and actual experience, a decision that may or may not result in the shooter committing a criminal act.

Concentrate on defending you and yours, and it's unlikely that you'll face this problem . . .