Former Civic Hero Now Labeled a Vigilante, for his latest use of his Revolver - Photo

Not knowing the man, this is pure speculation based on my knowledge of prosocial actions.

One major factor is whether you think you will be perceived favorably and be given adulation.

Given one positive event, would that prime you to engage is such activity again.

There are cases of heroes, who instead, of returning to a calm existence, continued to display their heroic act to others and even went a touch nutty when the adulation stopped.
 
He deserves the maximum sentence. You use a firearm to stop or prevent GBH or death not in the defense of iPhones......Now in defense of iPads...maybe
Click to expand...
I disagree. The sentence should be somewhat proportional to how much harm was actually done, not how much potential there was for harm. (it would help his case immensely if he'd shut up rather than running his mouth off how he'd do it again. If I were the judge, that would make the difference between probation or suspended sentence and actual jail-time)
 
I tend to agree.

Stupid, wrong, negligent....absolutely. I agree with others that had a police officer done this it would be wrong. My CHL training taught me that you don't go out of your way to play hero but only use the weapon when you have to...probably good training.

Fines, probation,...sure. Taking his CHL? No. The 2nd Amendment says nothing about "unless you're an idiot who tries to do the right thing and succeeds in failing without hurting anybody else." Well actually, they can take his CHL....as far as I'm concerned the 2nd Amendment makes that cute slip of paper irrelevant. Or it should at least.

The dude is a an idiot. I agree. Thankfully he's an idiot who didn't hurt anybody.
 
he's guilty of being stupid for sure....

If you are going to shoot, shoot at the person driving the car...not the car.

He went one step too far when he fired his gun.
 
This is the reason I like this forum. Most of you folks make very good arguments for/against the subject.

With the exception of one post, I think everyone agrees what he did was wrong, in no way justifiable and he was lucky he did not get charged with a more serious crime.
 
As you've no doubt seen already, it's rare to get anything this close to a consensus in any thread, no matter how trivial the topic. But in this case, the shooter's actions were so far outside the pale of self defense (or even legitimate defense of others) that I'm not surprised that we mostly agree.
 
Maybe he felt he had to do something. But given the details, when he drew his gun, he was wrong. And when he fired, he clearly broke the law.

Firing the gun is deadly force. And use of deadly force is only justified to stop certain crimes. Not to prevent escape. Even the police have severe restrictions on the force they can use to prevent an escape.

He was wrong, broke the laws, and should face punishment. There is a huge difference between saving the life of someone being attacked, and stopping petty thieves from making a getaway (which he failed to do even that).

Now, maybe, because he was called a hero, publically, earlier, he felt he had to be a hero, again. And, in the movies and TV, he did what he sees the heros do. Too bad real life isn't like that.

I support loss of CHL, and a fine. Probation. And, education. I think jail time would be vindicitive.

His pistol is evidence. THey will keep it until the case is resolved. After that, assuming he can still legally own it, he should get it back.
 
I feel a little sorry for the guy, assuming he truly had good intentions & wasn't just on a quest for personal glory or something. If he wants to chase shoplifters in that neighborhood, why not pursue a career in law enforcement or find an organized neighborhood watch-type group to participate in; these types of activities would require training on when to use what tactic (cell phone, gun, pepper spray, gather information, etc.) and would make him more effective at reducing crime in that neighborhood.

*I do not carry.
 
44 AMP wrote:
I support loss of CHL, and a fine. Probation. And, education. I think jail time would be vindictive.
Click to expand...


I fully agree. To argue for jail time is inappropriate and being vindictive.

I think that the vast majority of the folks here support this type of outcome that you have outlined. As I already noted, he has already lost his CHL. So that has been taken care of. He is not carrying a handgun any longer.

Since he has no criminal record of any time, it would not be appropriate to send him to county jail over these two relatively minor misdemeanor charges that remain.

No evidence exists to support felony charges like attempted murder. The judge who heard the case already dismissed the two most serious charges for lack of evidence. And the Multnomah County District Attorney has said nothing and done nothing at all about convening a grand jury to review the case.

The simple truth is that the DA could go after more serious charges if he wanted to. There is an old saying that a DA can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich if they want to. But to think that a jury of 12 people could agree that he deliberately wanted to harm anyone beyond any reasonable doubt whatsoever would simply not be realistic.

If that were to happen, the DA would be guilty of malfeasance, and wasting precious taxpayer dollars to pursue an unwinnable case. It certainly would be a miscarriage of justice. There are far, far worse people that the government needs to focus on sending to state prison.

Here is Witter's booking photo:

witterrogerjpg-ebfa4e09815277f1.jpg

.
 
Last edited:
I support loss of CHL, and a fine. Probation. And, education. I think jail time would be vindictive.
Click to expand...

From the sounds of it, jail would be appropriately punitive.

You don't think the guy got enough education on lethal force after his first event?

I certainly would not support this lack of punishment. Witter has no desire to abide by the law and has stated as much...

"I was just trying to stop a crime," he said. "Was it a mistake? Probably. Would I do it again? Probably."
Click to expand...

http://www.oregonlive.com/gresham/index.ssf/2010/05/when_iphone_thieves_run_out_of.html

I don't see much interest in wanting to abide by the law or to learn from his mistake. He is a loose cannon, figuratively and literally.
 
Last edited:
Based on the news article(s) we got I would say that his actions were not appropriate. I've read horror stories about deaths by 22 ricochets at poorly maintained ranges. Given how powerful a 44 is; even if he did HIT the tires, I'd wager the bullets would overpenetrate and likely ricochet off the pavement.

As it has been stated before, you don't use deadly force unless your life or someone else's life is in immediate danger. Using deadly force against thieves over something so petty is ridiculous. I honestly almost DO NOT believe the story. Who would ever even THINK about using a gun in this situation?!

I think he needs to be fined, loose the firearm, his CCW, and spend a couple weeks in jail. Maybe, if he can demonstrate that he is more responsible in 10 to 20 years, allow him to apply for a CCW again.
 
"I was just trying to stop a crime"

And that statement right there gets us to the whole root of the problem.

It's not a CCW holder's responsibility, duty, obligation, or right to play intercessionary/cop wanna be whenever he sees just any old crime in progress.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top