Interesting Robbery Shootout with IPSC Grandmaster
- Thread starter Bartholomew Roberts
- Start date
- Status
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
Nope, I'm not going to let surface emotions generate kudos from me for a basically flawed action.
flyboyjake
New member
Perhaps im mistaken...Many of you appear to charge this man with the responsibiliy for starting the gunfight. To this effect I would submit the chicken or the egg test. was he the one who should be held accountable for starting a gun fight (I sincerely doubt its what he wanted, especially with a 5 shot gun)? All he did is pursue and stop the men. To my knowledge, they fired first... Can we go back a step and say it was the criminals fault for robbing the gun store? Or go back further still and say it was his fault for opening a jewely store?
If you separate the gunfight from the pursuit, I think you may see things differently. If a man stole my VCR, I would never use deadly force and shoot him in the back. Its both legally and morally wrong to me, however, I wouldn't hesitate to deliver a cold clock to the back of his head and retrieve my property. If he decides to pull a gun on me, now deadly force is in the picture.
Thalheimer is niether smart nor stupid for his actions. There was a risk and he accepted it. I would have probably followed the car, but there is risk to that too as they fly down the expressway at 120mph. I am sure he has his regrets, but there will always be something you wished you had done differently.
I am not a gun toting hard liner. I think in the perfect situation, he would do a few things differently, but overall, I commend him for taking action. I contend that it is not his fault they decided to shoot at him.
Id love to see the lawsuit of one of those criminals were they actually hit by a bullet...
If you separate the gunfight from the pursuit, I think you may see things differently. If a man stole my VCR, I would never use deadly force and shoot him in the back. Its both legally and morally wrong to me, however, I wouldn't hesitate to deliver a cold clock to the back of his head and retrieve my property. If he decides to pull a gun on me, now deadly force is in the picture.
Thalheimer is niether smart nor stupid for his actions. There was a risk and he accepted it. I would have probably followed the car, but there is risk to that too as they fly down the expressway at 120mph. I am sure he has his regrets, but there will always be something you wished you had done differently.
I am not a gun toting hard liner. I think in the perfect situation, he would do a few things differently, but overall, I commend him for taking action. I contend that it is not his fault they decided to shoot at him.
Id love to see the lawsuit of one of those criminals were they actually hit by a bullet...
armoredman
New member
The wounded criminal would most likely win. Why? The ORIGINAL criminal act was concluded. The law will likely not look as this individual acting to prevent a crime, but in revenge of a past action, an illegal act in itself. This changes the legal perspective to the point that the original criminal actors may now lay claim to self defense! I am not a lawyer, but with my reading into past shootings and from experts in the field such as Ayoob and Marshall, if someone HAD been injured/killed due to his actions in this confrontation, I dare say he would find himself in very hot legal water.
I agree that we are all frustrated about criminals getting away scot free, and relying on insurance to cover losses. I have good insurance, but I have items that I put a good amout of time and effort into that wouldn't be the same if just replaced by the insurance company, and BTW, most insurance is NOT "replacement cost", but "actual cash value", which is a LOT different - check your policies. However, this does not allow vigilantism or any other actions that abrogate law enforcment powers upon yourself illegally, unless you REALLY want to be that test case. I work in prison - I have no desire whatsoever to live here.
I agree that we are all frustrated about criminals getting away scot free, and relying on insurance to cover losses. I have good insurance, but I have items that I put a good amout of time and effort into that wouldn't be the same if just replaced by the insurance company, and BTW, most insurance is NOT "replacement cost", but "actual cash value", which is a LOT different - check your policies. However, this does not allow vigilantism or any other actions that abrogate law enforcment powers upon yourself illegally, unless you REALLY want to be that test case. I work in prison - I have no desire whatsoever to live here.
Coop de Ville
New member
Glenn,
I did not mean to imply that if you don't bullhead into a bad situation then you are a coward... Just saying that some people run this way and some that way. When someone caps off a few rounds here in the hood, half the rookies duck behind the cruiser and the other half take a few steps towards the gunshots...
Maybe I mis spoke. It's not so much personality but instinct or reaction.
Another point. Are we condemning his actions because they may be illegal or because they are wrong.... Legal and right are often dissimilar.
And, as for the argument of putting himself in harms way... No matter how much we espouse saving our own skin... Some people really aren't afraid of dying.
I am glad we are able to discuss this scenerio. Even though it happened it seems to be a much more realistic scenerio than most
I did not mean to imply that if you don't bullhead into a bad situation then you are a coward... Just saying that some people run this way and some that way. When someone caps off a few rounds here in the hood, half the rookies duck behind the cruiser and the other half take a few steps towards the gunshots...
Maybe I mis spoke. It's not so much personality but instinct or reaction.
Another point. Are we condemning his actions because they may be illegal or because they are wrong.... Legal and right are often dissimilar.
And, as for the argument of putting himself in harms way... No matter how much we espouse saving our own skin... Some people really aren't afraid of dying.
I am glad we are able to discuss this scenerio. Even though it happened it seems to be a much more realistic scenerio than most
Coop de Ville
New member
I agree. But training is training. And you know that some people are just living for that moment to make it happen.
We all say, I hope the moment never comes, but really.
We are all waiting for it... in some respect or another.
-Coop
Rufus T Firefly
Moderator
Ah, don't you usually want the bad guy to just leave?
I would in no way participate in that scenario. First, he is not obligated to act. He is no longer a "reluctant participant" in the situation. He became an aggressor. Open to a civil suit by law.
So for his efforts, he has a banged up truck that the Insurance Company will not pay for. He will have lawsuits from the perps relatives. He will have to justify why he used lethal force in court.
It stinks, but the laws are against him. The little title of hero that the newspaper gives him will not be worth crap at the bank where his defense fund is set up.
He violated the first rule of self defense. You need to be in danger or required by law to render assistance to a victim. No, he was a cop wanna be.
I am sure one of the bad guys will enjoy living in his house when he loses everything in a court civil suit.
Stay safe....
I would in no way participate in that scenario. First, he is not obligated to act. He is no longer a "reluctant participant" in the situation. He became an aggressor. Open to a civil suit by law.
So for his efforts, he has a banged up truck that the Insurance Company will not pay for. He will have lawsuits from the perps relatives. He will have to justify why he used lethal force in court.
It stinks, but the laws are against him. The little title of hero that the newspaper gives him will not be worth crap at the bank where his defense fund is set up.
He violated the first rule of self defense. You need to be in danger or required by law to render assistance to a victim. No, he was a cop wanna be.
I am sure one of the bad guys will enjoy living in his house when he loses everything in a court civil suit.
Stay safe....
Rufus T Firefly
Moderator
Armoredman... Excellent response.
It makes me wonder how many people would take action like the guy did and not know the legal ramifications of what the guy did.
God help us that we all think first before we act with the force that we have been given.
I personally are not required to be a hero. I am required by our law to help an injured person or a person that visually is in danger of great bodily harm.
Let the bad guy go. The Police are obligated to catch him, not me.
It makes me wonder how many people would take action like the guy did and not know the legal ramifications of what the guy did.
God help us that we all think first before we act with the force that we have been given.
I personally are not required to be a hero. I am required by our law to help an injured person or a person that visually is in danger of great bodily harm.
Let the bad guy go. The Police are obligated to catch him, not me.
TeamSinglestack
New member
Legally: Bad move.
1. Intent to cause him great bodily harm or death?
A. Hard to justify in court.
2. Ability to achieve intent?
A. 4 vs. 1, certainly.
3. Immediate need to use deadly force?
A. Again, hard to justify in court.
Conclusion: Failure on 2 of 3 elements that could justify the use of deadly force in court.
Tactically: Bad move.
1. Outnumbered.
A. Could have been fixed in position by fire while baddies move to position of greater advantage.
2. Out gunned.
A. 5 rounds vs. 4 baddies is NOT something I would initiate with. Defend with? Sure, as it's better than a fist.
Conclusion: Tactical failures too numerous to list.
All in all, good initiative (eliminating criminals), poor judgment (Lack of legal authority and poor conditions).
My .02c. Worth everything you paid for it...
Edited: Format
1. Intent to cause him great bodily harm or death?
A. Hard to justify in court.
2. Ability to achieve intent?
A. 4 vs. 1, certainly.
3. Immediate need to use deadly force?
A. Again, hard to justify in court.
Conclusion: Failure on 2 of 3 elements that could justify the use of deadly force in court.
Tactically: Bad move.
1. Outnumbered.
A. Could have been fixed in position by fire while baddies move to position of greater advantage.
2. Out gunned.
A. 5 rounds vs. 4 baddies is NOT something I would initiate with. Defend with? Sure, as it's better than a fist.
Conclusion: Tactical failures too numerous to list.
All in all, good initiative (eliminating criminals), poor judgment (Lack of legal authority and poor conditions).
My .02c. Worth everything you paid for it...
Edited: Format
flyboyjake
New member
Armmoredman, I would disagree to the notion that the criminal act was done. Please remember he did not shoot at them because they stole his stuff...He shot at them because they shot at him. If they opened fire on him, and he shot them, I am confident no legal recourse would come to him unless he lived in new Jersey or a similar state. The man did not run and start a gunfight, he ran to retrieve his property, and they shot at him. Id hate for you all to be a jury of my peers if it came to that...Maybe im just bullheaded and stubborn (ive been called worse) but this is cut and dry for me...
call me crazy or stupid, but id like to think that if each and any of you all were being shot at, and I could easily distinguish the BG vs the GG...id come to your aid with all the firepower I had available. Thats not me running my mouth off because I love guns and want to use them. Thats me standing up for what I believe is right.
call me crazy or stupid, but id like to think that if each and any of you all were being shot at, and I could easily distinguish the BG vs the GG...id come to your aid with all the firepower I had available. Thats not me running my mouth off because I love guns and want to use them. Thats me standing up for what I believe is right.
Pretty impressively bad judgement.
First of all he intentionally rammed another vehicle. Besides what that does to your insurance, it is also illegal. My guess goes along with what stephen426 says--intentionally ramming an occupied vehicle would qualify as assault with a deadly weapon.
Given that he initiated the confrontation that led to the gunfight, had they killed or injured him I suspect that they could have legally claimed self-defense. Had he killed or injured one of them it's likely that he would not be able to self-defense as Vanya and Doc Intrepid correctly point out. In fact, he may be open for a charge of attempted murder or at least some more charges of assault with a deadly weapon.
The answer to your other questions is that he probably can't legally try to tie all the events together all the way back to the initial robbery. Once the criminals left the scene, the initial confrontation was probably legally over. The second confrontation was initiated by the store owner when he rammed the vehicle of the robbers. Initiating a confrontation can definitely hinder your ability to claim self-defense.
I don't know what the law in FL is, but unless it allows the use of force to retrieve stolen property then he's very lucky he's not in jail. TX does allow the use of force and even deadly force in some circumstances to retrieve stolen property depending on a number of criteria. However I don't believe this situation would not qualify even in TX since he didn't actually witness the robbery and couldn't verify that the crime that resulted in the property being stolen was a crime that qualified for the use of force or deadly force.
His final mistake is running off his mouth. By admitting that he didn't even actually see the crime but rather took action because he "became suspicious of masked men speeding in his parking lot" he may eliminate his last shred of a chance at legally justifying his actions.
First of all he intentionally rammed another vehicle. Besides what that does to your insurance, it is also illegal. My guess goes along with what stephen426 says--intentionally ramming an occupied vehicle would qualify as assault with a deadly weapon.
Given that he initiated the confrontation that led to the gunfight, had they killed or injured him I suspect that they could have legally claimed self-defense. Had he killed or injured one of them it's likely that he would not be able to self-defense as Vanya and Doc Intrepid correctly point out. In fact, he may be open for a charge of attempted murder or at least some more charges of assault with a deadly weapon.
He initiated the confrontation by assaulting them with his vehicle. A person in that situation could very well be legally justified in firing at the ramming driver in self-defense.
The answer to your other questions is that he probably can't legally try to tie all the events together all the way back to the initial robbery. Once the criminals left the scene, the initial confrontation was probably legally over. The second confrontation was initiated by the store owner when he rammed the vehicle of the robbers. Initiating a confrontation can definitely hinder your ability to claim self-defense.
I don't know what the law in FL is, but unless it allows the use of force to retrieve stolen property then he's very lucky he's not in jail. TX does allow the use of force and even deadly force in some circumstances to retrieve stolen property depending on a number of criteria. However I don't believe this situation would not qualify even in TX since he didn't actually witness the robbery and couldn't verify that the crime that resulted in the property being stolen was a crime that qualified for the use of force or deadly force.
His final mistake is running off his mouth. By admitting that he didn't even actually see the crime but rather took action because he "became suspicious of masked men speeding in his parking lot" he may eliminate his last shred of a chance at legally justifying his actions.
flyboyjake
New member
"His final mistake is running off his mouth. By admitting that he didn't even actually see the crime but rather took action because he "became suspicious of masked men speeding in his parking lot" he may eliminate his last shred of a chance at legally justifying his actions."
I agree to this.
I agree to this.
everragenepa
Moderator
I wounder if FL Castle Doctorine protects him on this? It is kind of a grey area in that.
flyboyjake
New member
The use, attempt, or offer to use force upon or toward the person of another is not unlawful in the following cases:
(1) Whenever necessarily used by a public officer in the performance of a legal duty, or a person assisting the officer and acting under the officer's direction;
(2) Whenever necessarily used by a person arresting one who has committed a felony and delivering him or her to a public officer competent to receive him or her into custody;
(3) Whenever used by a party about to be injured, or by another lawfully aiding him or her, in preventing or attempting to prevent an offense against his or her person, or a malicious trespass, or other malicious interference with real or personal property lawfully in his or her possession, in case the force is not more than is necessary;
(4) Whenever reasonably used by a person to detain someone who enters or remains unlawfully in a building or on real property lawfully in the possession of such person, so long as such detention is reasonable in duration and manner to investigate the reason for the detained person's presence on the premises, and so long as the premises in question did not reasonably appear to be intended to be open to members of the public;
(5) Whenever used by a carrier of passengers or the carrier's authorized agent or servant, or other person assisting them at their request in expelling from a carriage, railway car, vessel, or other vehicle, a passenger who refuses to obey a lawful and reasonable regulation prescribed for the conduct of passengers, if such vehicle has first been stopped and the force used is not more than is necessary to expel the offender with reasonable regard to the offender's personal safety;
(6) Whenever used by any person to prevent a mentally ill, mentally incompetent, or mentally disabled person from committing an act dangerous to any person, or in enforcing necessary restraint for the protection or restoration to health of the person, during such period only as is necessary to obtain legal authority for the restraint or custody of the person.
Of note is that "injury" in the legal realm is not restricted to personal injury but of property, rights, reputation, etc... I would say 2 and 3 could both apply to this condition, however, if his store was not yet in possession of the jewelry, 3 may be an issue. In any case, who is thinking about these things in the heat of the moment. I still like what he did :-D
(1) Whenever necessarily used by a public officer in the performance of a legal duty, or a person assisting the officer and acting under the officer's direction;
(2) Whenever necessarily used by a person arresting one who has committed a felony and delivering him or her to a public officer competent to receive him or her into custody;
(3) Whenever used by a party about to be injured, or by another lawfully aiding him or her, in preventing or attempting to prevent an offense against his or her person, or a malicious trespass, or other malicious interference with real or personal property lawfully in his or her possession, in case the force is not more than is necessary;
(4) Whenever reasonably used by a person to detain someone who enters or remains unlawfully in a building or on real property lawfully in the possession of such person, so long as such detention is reasonable in duration and manner to investigate the reason for the detained person's presence on the premises, and so long as the premises in question did not reasonably appear to be intended to be open to members of the public;
(5) Whenever used by a carrier of passengers or the carrier's authorized agent or servant, or other person assisting them at their request in expelling from a carriage, railway car, vessel, or other vehicle, a passenger who refuses to obey a lawful and reasonable regulation prescribed for the conduct of passengers, if such vehicle has first been stopped and the force used is not more than is necessary to expel the offender with reasonable regard to the offender's personal safety;
(6) Whenever used by any person to prevent a mentally ill, mentally incompetent, or mentally disabled person from committing an act dangerous to any person, or in enforcing necessary restraint for the protection or restoration to health of the person, during such period only as is necessary to obtain legal authority for the restraint or custody of the person.
Of note is that "injury" in the legal realm is not restricted to personal injury but of property, rights, reputation, etc... I would say 2 and 3 could both apply to this condition, however, if his store was not yet in possession of the jewelry, 3 may be an issue. In any case, who is thinking about these things in the heat of the moment. I still like what he did :-D
Brian Pfleuger
Moderator Emeritus
Many, if not most, states have use of force provisions for stopping/preventing the flight of perpetrators of certain violent crimes.
It's highly unlikely that his (the vigilante's) actions are "illegal".... but "legal" and "smart" are not synonymous.
I assume FlyBoy's citation above is FL law?
It's highly unlikely that his (the vigilante's) actions are "illegal".... but "legal" and "smart" are not synonymous.
I assume FlyBoy's citation above is FL law?
Unnecessary use of force. The guy is not a police officer and has no business pursuing someone guilty of a mere property crime. Or ramming the car in an attempt to stop them.
Sympathize? Yes. Agree? No. Hopefully, I'll have the sense to abide by my own advice should I ever find myself in that situation of "uncontrollable" rage.
However, for the sake of discussion, assume he was well within his rights and is dismissed by the judge or the jury in both the criminal and civil suits. He still have a monstrous legal bill to pay. With any luck, he has the NRA insurance to pay his legal bills for him. Otherwise, it's likely to be $30k off the top on the cheap.
Personally, I don't want legal bills that high unless I had the clear right to draw and fire.
This case doesn't appear to present such a clear right.
--Wag--
Sympathize? Yes. Agree? No. Hopefully, I'll have the sense to abide by my own advice should I ever find myself in that situation of "uncontrollable" rage.
However, for the sake of discussion, assume he was well within his rights and is dismissed by the judge or the jury in both the criminal and civil suits. He still have a monstrous legal bill to pay. With any luck, he has the NRA insurance to pay his legal bills for him. Otherwise, it's likely to be $30k off the top on the cheap.
Personally, I don't want legal bills that high unless I had the clear right to draw and fire.
This case doesn't appear to present such a clear right.
--Wag--
- Status