Crime Homeowner arrested after confronting car thieves

[MicroBrew]

Basically he was charged for being a poor shot assuming the thieves fired on him first. People are claiming he "fired randomly all over" and that may or may not be true. It's nighttime, he's shooting at moving targets who are presumably still firing on him. He's shooting and missing yes, but that doesn't necessarily mean he's just spraying bullets out into the night.

I think this has a lot of gray area. His own safety is in jeopardy and if a reasonable person would believe that he's taking the best course of action to defend himself, its tough to think any charges would stick. On the other hand, if they can prove he was in fact reckless then that's a different story.

At what point is it ok for his safety to override the safety of innocent people?

 

[Poatan Power]

I have a few thoughts about this.

1. You're responsible for wherever your bullets go.
2. If you're in fear for your life, they may go all over the place
3. Police would not be charged with this crime.

Much like some states charge the initial criminal with any deaths that occur during the commission of said crime, I feel like if you get in a legally justified self-defense shootout, the people who initiated the criminal sequence should be responsible for those rounds. It's easy to be calm and accurate shooting at paper, but, if someone is actively trying to murder you and you miss, that's not something I think you can be ethically legally culpable for. Just my 0.02.

At what point is it ok for his safety to override the safety of innocent people?

See above.

Or he could have backed into his house and called the police and told them "shots fired".
Instead he went into a fire fight over his car.

In most states you aren't legally required to retreat before legally defending yourself. He could have just as easily backed into his house and took one to the dome.

Love armchair spotters.

 

[mkess101]

At what point is it ok for his safety to override the safety of innocent people?

Absolutely fair question. I'm not sure I know the answer.

If someone is clearly firing back in self defense and is legally carrying the weapon etc and a bystander is hit...the details are probably vital as to their level of culpability right? I don't think there's a one-size-fits-all answer TBH.

 

[Matsukaze]

This isn't the wild wild west where you just sling bullets everywhere and anywhere.. c'mon people!

 

[Poon Goon]

Love armchair spotters.

Isn't that what everyone in this thread is doing? The police on the scene investigated and decided that this guy broke the law. With the limited available information I would probably just trust their judgement. Maybe the judge who decided the bail felt differently and that's why no bail was set. Maybe the DA will look at this and drop the charges. However, unless that happens or more info comes out I would just defer to the cop's judgement on this.

 

[SummerStriker]

I actually have a place to stand in my house if it ever came to shooting. Shots from the top of the second floor down the steps go outside into my back lawn. From halfway up the steps, I can shoot down into the front yard or back yard, through either door, without having LOS out to the sidewalk. If I had to wait for someone to kick in my door, I could also wait on top of the bar so that I can shoot down into my front yard while hitting chest level at the doorway.

People need to plan through how they will defend. Not every situation is suited to gunfire. If I had to have a gunfight out on the street, all of my bullets would be going into other people's townhomes. It isn't good. Maybe your car isn't defendable.

 

[Poatan Power]

Isn't that what everyone in this thread is doing? The police on the scene investigated and decided that this guy broke the law. With the limited available information I would probably just trust their judgement. Maybe the judge who decided the bail felt differently and that's why no bail was set. Maybe the DA will look at this and drop the charges. However, unless that happens or more info comes out I would just defer to the cop's judgement on this.

Strange. I default to "innocent until proven guilty," not "well, the cops thought charges were warranted, so I'll just default to guilty until proven otherwise." Yikes, brother -- you do you lol.

As I stated, though, I support states whose laws direct charges to the initial criminal instigator. For example, getaway driver gets charged with manslaughter/murder if their accomplice is killed during the commission of the crime they were committing. I hate to call it "justifiable negligence," or something to that effect, but -- when you are met with deadly force and not all of your rounds land on their intended target during a gunfight, I'm shocked that would drum up charges. Police do it literally every day.

All that being said, no telling exactly what the homeowner said to incriminate themselves when trying to "help" by talking to the police. Right after firearm safety and a couple of training courses the #1 thing I tell my friends seeking firearm ownership is to watch a few recommended videos on how to speak to police re: firearms.

I actually have a place to stand in my house if it ever came to shooting. Shots from the top of the second floor down the steps go outside into my back lawn. From halfway up the steps, I can shoot down into the front yard or back yard, through either door, without having LOS out to the sidewalk. If I had to wait for someone to kick in my door, I could also wait on top of the bar so that I can shoot down into my front yard while hitting chest level at the doorway.

People need to plan through how they will defend. Not every situation is suited to gunfire. If I had to have a gunfight out on the street, all of my bullets would be going into other people's townhomes. It isn't good. Maybe your car isn't defendable.

From a tactical standpoint I'd agree with you, however -- if gunfire was fired upon him first, he has a right to defend himself. There's some venn diagram overlap and differences between ethical use of firearm force, tactical use and legal use. It's a lot of gray areas and blurry lines for me on a case by case.

 

[Bobby00]

I hope the law wont be too harsh with him. He shot recklessly but at the same time i would not like to be in that situation. Its not easy to stay composed while your life is in danger but yeah you cant just shoot around.

 

[nostradumbass]

At what point is it ok for his safety to override the safety of innocent people?

He was the "innocent people" being fired at. He doesn't have a duty to completely disregard his own safety and let robbers just shoot him. I'll ask you the same question in reverse. At what point does his neighbors' safety override his own safety where he just has to accept being intentionally shot at?

 

[Whippy McGee]

I actually have a place to stand in my house if it ever came to shooting. Shots from the top of the second floor down the steps go outside into my back lawn. From halfway up the steps, I can shoot down into the front yard or back yard, through either door, without having LOS out to the sidewalk. If I had to wait for someone to kick in my door, I could also wait on top of the bar so that I can shoot down into my front yard while hitting chest level at the doorway.

People need to plan through how they will defend. Not every situation is suited to gunfire. If I had to have a gunfight out on the street, all of my bullets would be going into other people's townhomes. It isn't good. Maybe your car isn't defendable.

Good policy. Also, you'll never get invited to the neighborhood BBQ again if you sprayed up everyone's homes.

 

[MicroBrew]

He was the "innocent people" being fired at. He doesn't have a duty to completely disregard his own safety and let robbers just shoot him. I'll ask you the same question in reverse. ?

What exactly are you saying here? You are obviously not disagreeing that his neighbors are innocent. What if his shot had struck a neighbor's child? He can't put other innocent people in danger just because he is is facing a threat.

At what point does his neighbors' safety override his own safety where he just has to accept being intentionally shot at

That's a strawman argument because nowhere did I say he can't defend himself. He does however have a responsibility to not injure innocent 3rd parties.

 

[Poon Goon]

Strange. I default to "innocent until proven guilty," not "well, the cops thought charges were warranted, so I'll just default to guilty until proven otherwise." Yikes, brother -- you do you lol.

As I stated, though, I support states whose laws direct charges to the initial criminal instigator. For example, getaway driver gets charged with manslaughter/murder if their accomplice is killed during the commission of the crime they were committing. I hate to call it "justifiable negligence," or something to that effect, but -- when you are met with deadly force and not all of your rounds land on their intended target during a gunfight, I'm shocked that would drum up charges. Police do it literally every day.

All that being said, no telling exactly what the homeowner said to incriminate themselves when trying to "help" by talking to the police. Right after firearm safety and a couple of training courses the #1 thing I tell my friends seeking firearm ownership is to watch a few recommended videos on how to speak to police re: firearms.

That's a really long winded way of saying you don't trust police. I never said anything about "innocent until proven guilty". I was talking about us not having information on the incident vs. the police investigating it and finding evidence to justify his arrest. You said everyone else is "armchair spotting", but that's what you are also doing.

 

[44nutman]

Need more info.
If he was shot at first then no arrest but if he made up the story they fired first then yes he deserved to be arrested.

 

[Poatan Power]

That's a really long winded way of saying you don't trust police. I never said anything about "innocent until proven guilty". I was talking about us not having information on the incident vs. the police investigating it and finding evidence to justify his arrest. You said everyone else is "armchair spotting", but that's what you are also doing.

If you want to look for a reason to argue, go ahead.

I didn't say everyone was being an armchair spotter. I specifically said that to the dork that said "he could have just ran back inside." I pointed out that you don't have a legal responsibility to do so in most states. The person who was in a gunfight is alive, but armchair spotters are writing what he should have done instead after he is 1-0 in gunfights and 99.9% of the population are 0-0, lol.

As far as LEO goes, I don't distrust cops so much as I see the value in the constitutional rights in the 4th and 5th amendments in addition to not just assuming someone's guilty because LEO found enough evidence to arrest. It's pretty widely accepted that a small percentage (3-5%) of people in prison are wrongfully convicted, and the bar for that is much higher than the mere power of arrest. You essentially said you trust that he must be guilty because the police investigated him and arrested him, unless I misunderstood your position. But as I said, you do you.

 

[Poon Goon]

If you want to look for a reason to argue, go ahead.

I didn't say everyone was being an armchair spotter. I specifically said that to the dork that said "he could have just ran back inside." I pointed out that you don't have a legal responsibility to do so in most states. The person who was in a gunfight is alive, but armchair spotters are writing what he should have done instead after he is 1-0 in gunfights and 99.9% of the population are 0-0, lol.

As far as LEO goes, I don't distrust cops so much as I see the value in the constitutional rights in the 4th and 5th amendments in addition to not just assuming someone's guilty because LEO found enough evidence to arrest. It's pretty widely accepted that a small percentage (3-5%) of people in prison are wrongfully convicted, and the bar for that is much higher than the mere power of arrest. But as I said, you do you.

Again you are bringing up "innocent until proven guilty" and citing wrongful conviction stats as if I said this guy is definitely guilty. What I actually said is that the cops who investigated found evidence to arrest him and I trust that more than legal experts like you on here. I also pointed out that the judge didn't make him pay bond to get out so it's possible the guy might not be in trouble at all.

 

[Poatan Power]

Again you are bringing up "innocent until proven guilty" and citing wrongful conviction stats as if I said this guy is definitely guilty. What I actually said is that the cops who investigated found evidence to arrest him and I trust that more than legal experts like you on here. I also pointed out that the judge didn't make him pay bond to get out so it's possible the guy might not be in trouble at all.

Once again, you're looking for a reason to argue and are dangerously close to just arguing with yourself. I called someone an armchair spotter for their proclivity for giving tactical advice on the situation when the person involved in the gunfight walked away alive. Akin to telling someone who just hit a homerun on a 3-0 count that they should have taken a pitch instead. I'm not sure why you even brought up your analysis on how guilty or not guilty you thought the guy was based on available information, unless you were under the impression that I was calling anyone commenting on this situation an armchair spotter, which I wasn't. It was specific to a post giving a tactical assertion that he should have retreated after shots were fired at him. There's a reason I didn't call him an armchair lawyer -- he offered tactical advice (retreat) that has no legal basis in most states (stand your ground) and no ethical implication once someone presents deadly force to you, so I really don't know why he would give shitty tactical advice to someone who already won. If he said "he should have ran back inside... so he didn't put himself at risk for a civil suit, or criminal charges, or..." etc., it would make a little more sense. But since he gave tactical advice......

I'll do my part: You know, this guy really should have made his bullets all hit their target instead. What a dope!

 

[Joshuaace]

At what point is it ok for his safety to override the safety of innocent people?

At the point he is genuinely fearful he may be killed or suffer great bodily injury, his own safety trumps any responsibility he has to the Community.

Cops stray bullets hit people on occasion w/o the Officer being charged.

Soldiers die to friendly fire without their comrade being charged.

Why would we hold Joe Citizen to a higher standard of awareness in a fire fight than those People trained for those situations?

 

[MicroBrew]

At the point he is genuinely fearful he may be killed or suffer great bodily injury, his own safety trumps any responsibility he has to the Community.

Cops stray bullets hit people on occasion w/o the Officer being charged.

Soldiers die to friendly fire without their comrade being charged.

Why would we hold Joe Citizen to a higher standard of awareness in a fire fight than those People trained for those situations?

And we should hold people who show no regard for the safety of others accountable. Ofcourse his duty is to his own safety, but that doesn't mean society should give him a pass ( assuming he acted in an irresponsible way).

 

[Joshuaace]

And we should hold people who show no regard for the safety of others accountable.

Not when they are acting in self defense in a genuine life or death scenario. Like with most things, the Devil is in the details. Details we don't know are factual at this point. Taking the Story at face value, he was RETURNING fire. At that point, he has near zero responsibility towards the safety of innocents.

 

[MicroBrew]

Not when they are acting in self defense in a genuine life or death scenario. Like with most things, the Devil is in the details. Details we don't know are factual at this point. Taking the Story at face value, he was RETURNING fire. At that point, he has near zero responsibility towards the safety of innocents.

Self Defense is not a carte blanche for any behavior.