Should he be charged?

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

A couple of things....

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]

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]

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?