Should he be charged?

[vigil617]

Here's a link to a local media account of an incident yesterday near where I live, in which a neighbor in a semi-rural area discovered a burglary in progress at his neighbor's house. He drew and fired his handgun during the encounter.

I don't have any other details right now, but you can get the gist of the situation from this article. If other information comes to light, I will post it in an update; in the meantime, I am interested to know the opinions of you who are CHL holders or just interested in a real-life scenario that bears directly on the rules we should and, in most cases, are required to follow.

Please, no "well, I wasn't there, so I don't know" responses, or any pointing out of "we don't know all the facts." This post is here because it illustrates a situation, and I am inviting you to comment on the situation.

I want to know, especially, if you think the neighbor who fired his weapon should be charged with anything. If you want to base your response on whatever your own jurisdiction would dictate, that's fine. Thanks.

Neighbor opens fire on burglary suspects in Hope Mills | abc11.com

[plattincreek]

Should not be charged but probably should not have fired. His life was not in immanent danger and he didn't know who else could have been in the vehicle. Sounds a little like something from TV. On the other hand, he should have shot the *** that pulled the gun when he pulled the gun.

[Cal44]

I suppose is depends on laws regarding firearms use in NC.

As I understand the law (and I'm not a lawyer) in California, you can use a firearm if you (or your neighbor) are threatened with serious injury or loss of life. But I don't believe you can use a firearm to prevent a burglary or detain the burglars at someone else's house when no one was in danger.

Also, in CA, you can't shoot at a fleeing suspect after he is no longer a threat.

So shooting at a car speeding away sounds like a violation to me. It's also irresponsible unless you are way out in the country and there aren't any people around as you may hit an innocent bystander.

I sympathize with the guy, however.

So my guess is he should be charged with something.

[JohnSW]

Here is our law:

"609.065 JUSTIFIABLE TAKING OF LIFE.
The intentional taking of the life of another is not authorized by section 609.06, except when necessary in resisting or preventing an offense which the actor reasonably believes exposes the actor or another to great bodily harm or death, or preventing the commission of a felony in the actor's place of abode."

Shooting at someone who is fleeing isn't self-defense. The shooter wasn't preventing a crime on his own property.

[OKFC05]

Shooting at fleeing suspects who pose no danger is illegal in Oklahoma.

[66snub]

Everything looked good until he shot at the fleeing suspects. Unless the suspects just committed a particularly heinous act, such as murder or rape (just to name a couple), as a police officer, its unlawful for us to fire at fleeing suspects either (in Michigan), and even then, may not be the best option.

[M29since14]

Originally Posted by plattincreek

Should not be charged but probably should not have fired.

Sums up my thoughts. I think it would be service to the individual if the officers, or the prosecutor, had a friendly discussion with him pointing out the lack of wisdom and judgment in firing in that situation so he could avoid possible problems in the future, but since it appears no one was injured I would not want to see the man charged. "No harm done." JMHO.

[JohnSW]

Originally Posted by Cal44

So shooting at a car speeding away sounds like a violation to me. It's also irresponsible unless you are way out in the country and there aren't any people around as you may hit an innocent bystander.

Here, anyone who:

"(2) intentionally discharges a firearm under circumstances that endanger the safety of another; or

(3) recklessly discharges a firearm within a municipality."

is guilty of a felony.

[hangnoose]

Or at least have more complete details. I'll leave the yes or no until we hear more info (were the robbers hit?) and/or let the local DA decide. I think running towards a simple burglary armed was a bad decision. He DID phone police, not sure about a description or plate #'s. It's gonna be hard to claim self defense when the pair were driving away. What if an infant had been in the car? There is a slight possibility they "COULD HAVE" been there with permission, again we don't have THE FULL STORY. Pointing a gun at someone & cocking the hammer kind of gives them the right of self defense. YES I realize his intentions were good. I imagine he WILL BE charged with a lesser misdemeanor brandishing/ unlawful discharge if neither were hit & his record is clean. Hopefully no jail time but I'm sure he is gonna be out a hell of a lot more $ than WHATEVER the 2 could have possibly stolen. YOU ASKED, so don't complain about the answer.

[vigil617]

Originally Posted by hangnoose

Or at least have more complete details. I'll leave the yes or no until we hear more info (were the robbers hit?) and/or let the local DA decide. I think running towards a simple burglary armed was a bad decision. He DID phone police, not sure about a description or plate #'s. It's gonna be hard to claim self defense when the pair were driving away. What if an infant had been in the car? There is a slight possibility they "COULD HAVE" been there with permission, again we don't have THE FULL STORY. Pointing a gun at someone & cocking the hammer kind of gives them the right of self defense. YES I realize his intentions were good. I imagine he WILL BE charged with a lesser misdemeanor brandishing/ unlawful discharge if neither were hit & his record is clean. Hopefully no jail time but I'm sure he is gonna be out a hell of a lot more $ than WHATEVER the 2 could have possibly stolen. YOU ASKED, so don't complain about the answer.

Noose,

My thread, my "conditions."

Thanks for your reply, which I happen to agree with completely except for the above.

I knew that I would get at least a few responses objecting to the fact that I had asked not to point out the obvious. That's OK.

If you had simply posted some snipping at me, and not included your well thought out response, I would have disregarded it and moved on. As it is, I think you're right in your assessment, based on what we know right now.

Again, thanks.

[vigil617]

I hope more of you will reply. In the meantime, here are my thoughts on what happened here, practically in my neighborhood:

1. He was wrong, as a civilian, to approach a burglary in progress. Instead, he should have done whatever he could to be a good witness, and should have stayed out of it otherwise.

2. Drawing on the perps, as a civilian, was wrong wrong wrong. They presented no threat to his safety or anyone else's.

3. Ordering the perps to lie down, and cocking his handgun, was wrong wrong wrong too. He is not a law enforcement officer, and he was not within his rights to do that and expect them to comply. Cocking his pistol was a serious error.

4. When one of the perps pulled a gun, the situation that he had started by threat of deadly force, escalated. Never should have happened. By then, though, he has little choice but to play the hand he had dealt himself.

5. Shooting eight times at a fleeing vehicle was wrong wrong wrong.

6. If the armed perp was pointing the gun at him while the vehicle was pulling away, depending on how close it was to him and whether this presented a legitimate threat to him, then there might be a brief window of time in which he was within his rights to fire on the perp (NOT the vehicle).

7. The burglary suspects were wrong, all the way around.

8. The neighbor should be charged, if for no other reason than as an example to the community that what he did should not happen and should not be tolerated. As others have posted, though, it's unlikely the district attorney will choose to do so in our community, for political reasons.

9. The news reporter should not have glorified the neighbor's actions when he remarked that the neighbor had "stood up to help" or whatever the phrase was.

10. The neighbor, in citing his dad's admonition never to point a gun at someone unless you intend to use it, and saying that he did intend to use it, proves that he does not understand the concept of self-defense vs. defense of property that was not even his.

This situation really rankles me, as it confers hero status on a guy who -- though well-intentioned -- was a moron about the situation. JMHO.

[Hodgin]

My opinion, as I understand the law in TN, is that the shooting was probably not justified. The only qualification would be if the guy in the car actually had a gun pointed at the man. That would change things I suspect. Alot would depend on the DA but I seriously doubt he would be charged in TN and, if so, he would never be convicted.

Personally, I'd let the guy go but explain to him the law as it pertains to self-defense. After he called the sheriff he should have gotten good descriptions and license plates if possible and let law enforcement handle it from there.

[hangnoose]

WHY BOTHER?

[ronnie gore]

I would not have charged him as I have worked similar cases, but when the suspect pulled a gun he should have shot him then, and I would have advised him he should not have unloaded on the car as I have seen criminals who would take small children along on their crime sprees.

[ColbyBruce]

I would fine the Good Samaritan for missing the low-life pieces of poop and send him to a good shooting school. I have been burglarized, three years and four months ago. I still do not have my stolen Glock pistol back. I have nothing but contempt for a thief.

[Shorty 45 MK2]

Calling LE: good.

Going over to stop the robbery: not so good.

Pulling and holding robbers at gun point without them displaying any weapons: not good. (you might could argue disparity of force here.)

Shooting at fleeing car with suspects inside: really bad. (If he had fired when the one drew his handgun, then it would have been fine.)

I know when you see something like this happening you want to do something to stop them, but it's so much better to be the best witness you can be.

As for him being charged... I don't know, probably yes.

[hatt]

I have no problem with this shoot. Should get an award.

[ColbyBruce]

I believe crime should be dangerous for the criminal. More criminals should have to pay for their actions, not get into the system where they are actually protected and their rights given priority over those of the victim.

So, I would opt to dial "911" and stand on the sidewalk in front of the home as it is burglarized and film the event with my phone in one hand, handgun in the other behind my back. If the "suspects" chose to attack, then I would be justified in protecting myself.

I should mention, I have been burglarized and have nothing but contempt for a thief.

[feralmerril]

1. How did he know or not know it may be relatives or friends of the neighbor?
2. Could they have been there legitimately?
3. Legally, he probley is wrong and will be charged.
I aint, but if I had the power of the DA, I would let this guy slide.
Now if it turns out the neighbor shows up and says something like that was my nephew and his buddy getting something I told them to come for but I wasnt home, all bets are off.

[ColbyBruce]

Originally Posted by ronnie gore

I have seen criminals who would take small children along on their crime sprees.

Why would someone do this?

A) Crime has an intern program

B) Quality time with mom and dad

C) Baby-sitters are too costly

D) Driving the baby around makes him/her fall asleep

E) We stay in a bad neighborhood, can't leave the kids at home

[pharmer]

I'm pretty sure in Florida he would be charged with "shooting into an occupied vehicle." Circumstances vary and cops sometimes hose folks who "drive toward them threateningly" but in almost all situations, non-LEO shouldn't shoot at a moving car. Joe

[KSDeputy]

We were always taught to never fire at an automobile. If you kill the driver there is a 3000+ pound hunk of uncontrollable steel that can kill or injure innocent civilians. Also we were taught not to fire unless our lives, or lives of another were in imminent danger. I do not know the laws in the jurisdiction where this occurred, but I do not think the good samaritan neighbor should be charged. After all guns were pointed at him. Citizens are not required to know everything peace officers are taught.

[M29since14]

Originally Posted by Shorty 45 MK2

As for him being charged... I don't know, probably yes.

With respect to your opinion, if no one was injured and the only intent in charging the man is "to make an example" of his poor judgment, maybe an appropriate letter to the editor, written by the prosecutor, warning the readers of the dangers of such deeds might be just as successful. Unfortunately, as prosecutors are politicians, I doubt many would consider sticking their neck out far enough to do that, even though all but the most irrational could plainly see it as being in the best interest of the public to get the information out.

If the fellow lives in a state that requires training for his handgun permit, maybe he should get re-trained?

There are several ways one could handle this situation in a positive way rather than ruining the rights of this man to ever own a gun again. Sometimes the blind application of law just doesn't do the situation "justice." Again, JMHO.

[hatt]

The main problem I have with this case is that the guy approached criminals with a handgun when he should have had a carbine/rifle.

[robertrwalsh]

In CA he should, and probably would, be charged. Once they got in the car and started leaving he was personally no longer in danger and using deadly force to protect personal property is almost always impermissible in CA (and many other states). If I was making the decision, I would probably charge him. It was reckless and irresponsible.

[gen3guy]

He eliminated the threat by displaying this weapon. They are not a threat as they are retreating in the vehicle so he should not have fired. Endangerment is a possible charge but I'd hate to see the poor guy go down on a felony for simply overreacting. We had a similar case in my hometown and the gentleman's CCW was revoked but charges were not filed.

[vigil617]

Originally Posted by hangnoose

WHY BOTHER?

Because I wanted to hear others' opinions, and to share my own after several had posted, thus not seeming to try to "poison the well" ahead of time.

That's why.

[vigil617]

Originally Posted by gen3guy

We had a similar case in my hometown and the gentleman's CCW was revoked but charges were not filed.

This is, I think, an excellent solution. Thanks for sharing it.

[vigil617]

Originally Posted by hatt

I have no problem with this shoot. Should get an award.

Thank you for chiming in from Florida, Mr. Zimmerman.

[CoMF]

Me personally? Given the circumstances, I would've stayed in a position of safety and been a good witness. I am not a LEO, nor am I trained to clear houses. FWIW, Mas Ayoob also says that once you have declared that a broken into home is LE's arena, you're to stay out of it. It's all too easy to be shot by a responding officer who wants to return home alive and doesn't know if you're the "bad guy" or not.

I don't doubt he had noble intentions, but I opine that seeking the burglars out when no imminent threat existed wasn't smart (but arguably not illegal, either), and that shooting at a fleeing vehicle comprised reckless endangerment at best.

[vigil617]

Now that I think about it -- and maybe the shooter has come to this same conclusion, now having had time to think about it -- I think he should have avoided the perps altogether, and just shot out all four tires of the vehicle, as long as he was sure it was a burglary in progress and not some friends of the owner who had permission to be there. Then, none of the rest of what happened would have had to happen.

If in the process of doing so, they had drawn on him, then I think he could have had a clear conscience in defending himself. Plus, he would have had the car as cover.

There's more than one way to skin a cat.

[vigil617]

Originally Posted by hatt

The main problem I have with this case is that the guy approached criminals with a handgun when he should have had a carbine/rifle.

And that would have been better for what reason(s)?

I do genuinely want to know.

[vigil617]

Originally Posted by CoMF

Me personally? Given the circumstances, I would've stayed in a position of safety and been a good witness. I am not a LEO, nor am I trained to clear houses. FWIW, Mas Ayoob also says that once you have declared that a broken into home is LE's arena, you're to stay out of it. It's all too easy to be shot by a responding officer who wants to return home alive and doesn't know if you're the "bad guy" or not.

I don't doubt he had noble intentions, but I opine that seeking the burglars out when no imminent threat existed wasn't smart (but arguably not illegal, either), and that shooting at a fleeing vehicle comprised reckless endangerment at best.

Agreed, CoMF. My impression is that the perps remained outside when the neighbor approached and that all the activity that occurred afterward was outside as well. More good reason for him to have remained concealed and let LE handle it, hopefully arriving in time before they were through with the stealing.

[shouldazagged]

Good intentions? Probably.

Mature judgment? No. Definitely not.

Should he be charged? Don't know the laws in that jurisdiction, but he damn sure shouldn't be portrayed as some kind of hero riding to the rescue on a fiery steed.

I've been the victim of a burglary too, but I don't like vigilante justice and I have problems with seeing it recommended here. That way lies anarchy and chaos, and less security for everyone.

I'm one of those damned old law-abiding non-LE gun owners who carries daily and tries to know his limitations.

[Bekeart]

Will the prosecutor be running for re-election this fall?

Prosecuting the shooter might not help his re-election effort.

When I lived in Kansas it took to NOT GUILTY verdicts in two years to "educate" the Crawford County prosecutor. Local juries were not going to convict anyone for shooting a burglar on their property.

Bekeart

[rwsmith]

He said he was ready to use the gun, but instead let a guy pull a gun on him as he ducked away.

It does nothing to fire a gun down a street after a car except endanger everybody else.

He was right in defending his neighbors property, but sounds like he'd have done better to ID them and their truck. I guess they got scared and probably won't come back though.

[hatt]

Originally Posted by shouldazagged

I've been the victim of a burglary too, but I don't like vigilante justice and I have problems with seeing it recommended here. That way lies anarchy and chaos, and less security for everyone.

How many people have come home while the poor ol innocent burglars were still in the house and been killed? It happens regular. The less criminals the better. Don't want to be shot, stay out of people's houses.

[flintsghost]

One can't shoot at a fleeing felon unless one reasonably believes that his escape poses a greater danger to a person or the public at large in some imminent way. In other words, if during or after the escape there is a high likelyhood that he will cause bodily harm or death to another person. That is just about universally true in all states.

[ISCS Yoda]

Originally Posted by ronnie gore

I would not have charged him as I have worked similar cases, but when the suspect pulled a gun he should have shot him then, and I would have advised him he should not have unloaded on the car as I have seen criminals who would take small children along on their crime sprees.

One can't shoot at a fleeing felon unless one reasonably believes that his escape poses a greater danger to a person or the public at large in some imminent way. In other words, if during or after the escape there is a high likelyhood that he will cause bodily harm or death to another person. That is just about universally true in all states.

If this citizen was justified in shooting the burglar when the burglar pointed his gun at him (and he was; why he didn't I cannot imagine) it is entirely plausible to argue that he was firing at a fleeing, ARMED felon who did, indeed, pose an imminent threat to the community. Pointing a weapon at someone during the commission of a crime, in this case probably a felonious crime, is another felony, and probably justifies shooting at the car.

***GRJ***

[kimtyson]

Didn't it say that the criminal pulled his gun and began shooting as they drove away? Doesn't this citizen have a right to shoot back?

[JDBoardman]

If this were Texas, and after twilight, then he was justified in using deadly force "to prevent theft in the night time". He may also have been justified in using deadly force to attempt to stop a fleeing felon. The unfortunate point(s) in this situation were that he was successful in neither action. I happen to agree with ColbyBruce that crime should be made extremely dangerous for the criminal, not a lifestyle choice that allows them to feast off of the public.

[vigil617]

Originally Posted by kimtyson

Didn't it say that the criminal pulled his gun and began shooting as they drove away? Doesn't this citizen have a right to shoot back?

Kim, I'll go back and look again. I don't remember there being any shots fired from the criminal, but I might be wrong. Whether a citizen has the right to shoot back is a much more complex question than it seems to be. Thanks for posting, and I'll look back at the video to see what it says.

[rwsmith]

Originally Posted by kimtyson

Didn't it say that the criminal pulled his gun and began shooting as they drove away? Doesn't this citizen have a right to shoot back?

There is having the right, and there is also having the good sense in when to apply those rights. The other people in the neighborhood have the right not to get shot at, too.

[Shorty 45 MK2]

Originally Posted by M29since14

With respect to your opinion, if no one was injured and the only intent in charging the man is "to make an example" of his poor judgment, maybe an appropriate letter to the editor, written by the prosecutor, warning the readers of the dangers of such deeds might be just as successful. Unfortunately, as prosecutors are politicians, I doubt many would consider sticking their neck out far enough to do that, even though all but the most irrational could plainly see it as being in the best interest of the public to get the information out.

If the fellow lives in a state that requires training for his handgun permit, maybe he should get re-trained?

There are several ways one could handle this situation in a positive way rather than ruining the rights of this man to ever own a gun again. Sometimes the blind application of law just doesn't do the situation "justice." Again, JMHO.

Personally I don't want the guy charged nor to be made an example, but him firing at/into a fleeing car was not an act of self defense. (unless one of the robbers was pointing a gun at him.)

I feel that IMO, that we can't make exceptions, no matter how good the intentions of the person.

[SMSgt]

"One of the suspects also pulled out a gun and Bobby took cover before the men sped off in a white sedan."

That's all I needed to see. There should be no charges and "Bobby" needs to shut his trap.

[Rpg]

Shooting into a fleeing car is irresponsible.

This guy was a danger to everyone in gunshot range: a mile radius.

He should be charged.

[Rastoff]

Originally Posted by M29since14

"No harm done." JMHO.

The ends don't justify the means.

Originally Posted by ISCS Yoda

If this citizen was justified in shooting the burglar when the burglar pointed his gun at him (and he was; why he didn't I cannot imagine) it is entirely plausible to argue that he was firing at a fleeing, ARMED felon who did, indeed, pose an imminent threat to the community. Pointing a weapon at someone during the commission of a crime, in this case probably a felonious crime, is another felony, and probably justifies shooting at the car.

***GRJ***

In California you may not use "self defense" as justification if you started the altercation. In this case, Bobby was the aggressor. He pointed his gun at the burglars. It was only after they saw him that they pulled their own guns. Based on CA law, the burglars were the ones defending themselves.

When you shoot someone and kill them, the legal term is homicide. Whether or not you go to jail depends on if it was justifiable or not. In this case, it clearly was not justifiable.

Since no one was actually killed, this is clearly a case of attempted homicide on Bobby's part. He fired his gun in attempt to kill two guys. His shooting was not justified because he started it and they were fleeing when he started to shoot. Therefore, he was not in jeopardy of life or great bodily harm.

Should be he charged? Absolutely! He is guilty, by his own admission, of attempted homicide or at least attempted manslaughter. His carry license, if he has one, should be revoked at the very least.

Should he be put in prison? Absolutely not! That would serve no purpose in this case. A large fine and maybe some mandatory training should suffice in this situation.

If it were me, I would not have presented my gun until they presented theirs first. There is no object on this planet that is worth killing someone over. I will defend myself, but I won't shoot someone for a TV.

[Rastoff]

Originally Posted by BSA1

I find it disturbing that some posters want the neighbor charged and punished (which most likely strip him of his right to own firearms) when a armed and dangerous person pulls a gun and then escapes.

The neighbor loses his 2A rights and the perps walk.

No one said the thieves, if that is what they were, shouldn't be punished.

[Cpo1944]

Well I hope he doesn`t get into too much trouble because his intentions were good , but shooting at the Fleeing car was stupid. His gun skills are questionable too. Most of us have smart phones with cameras and video capabilities these days and he should have filmed the entire episode for the LE`s , and left his gun in his pocket. With that kind of evidence the perps would probably be in jail today.

[feralmerril]

When I was in 3rd, 4th grade I knew this guy. Later in 7th, 8th grade at another school I knew his wife to be. I lost touch but my folks knew them. They got a divorce. He was Posse Comitatus and would come see my folks about it after I left home. Nothing directly about the event, but just to give you a idea how he was. He was a farmer and farmed his old home place. His mom and my mom were friends. I guess his ex and daughter were cleaning him out. He came home and caught his daughter and her boy friend stealing stuff. They ran for their truck and tried driving away. He opened up and killed the boy friend (his own daughter was alongside him in the truck!) I guess she got away but he took the body and buried him in the back 40 in a old indian burial ground on the farm. My dad knew and was distantly related to the sheriff and another officer that was in the deal was a friend of dads. Dad heard they regretted having to arrest him. He did I dont know how many years but got out and was a cook somewhere the last I knew. When we were kids we all got along well. He got pretty right wing and it cost him indirectly.