Justified Shooting?

H

HarryB

New member
Shooting leaves one dead
Man opens fire on two would-be car thieves
By Jesus Lopez Jr. and Chris Moeser
The Arizona Republic
July 7, 1999

Steven Jacovo awoke Wednesday morning to thieves trying to steal his white Oldsmobile.

Minutes later, most of his west Phoenix apartment complex awoke to gunfire as Jacovo allegedly fired as many as 15 shots to stop the men, police said.

When the shooting stopped, Jacovo's car was riddled with bullets, one man was dead and Jacovo was on the run, police said.

Wednesday afternoon, Jacovo walked into police headquarters and turned himself in. He was not arrested, police said, and the case will be forwarded to the Maricopa County Attorney's Office for review.

Jacovo refused an interview with police on advice from his attorney, said Detective Mike McCullough, a Phoenix police spokesman. That has made it more difficult to piece together what happened.

"He's the suspect in a homicide," McCullough said. "Obviously if there's a self-defense issue, that will be addressed by the County Attorney."

The shooting happened around 2:30 a.m. at the Eucalyptus Village apartments in the 4900 block of north 39th Avenue, just after Jacovo's brother told him two men were attempting to steal his car.

As Jacovo ran down the stairs to confront the pair, one man tried to escape in the Oldsmobile while the other hopped a fence, according to neighbors.

Jacovo allegedly fired up to 15 shots at the car, killing the man, who has not been identified by police.

Jacovo then fled in his sister's car. Police suspected he was hiding at his grandmother's house in central Phoenix near 10th and Hadley streets. They quickly surrounded the house and used bullhorns to call Jacovo out.

FBI agents swarmed the area in anticipation of Wednesday's visit by President Clinton to nearby areas.

At about 8 a.m., police forced their way into the home, only to find that Jacovo was not there.

A resident of the complex, Joshua Anthony, 22, said the man who jumped the fence attempted to break into his apartment.

Anthony said the shooting seemed "a little excessive."

Jacovo has a criminal record that includes a 1995 indictment for burglary and theft, according to court records.
==========================================

Well?

I know that is someone was trying to streal my car I certainly wouldn't put bullet holes in my ride trying to stop him. Two phone calls--one to the police and the second to Allstate. I know the details are sketchy and vague but this doesn't seem like a good shoot. Maybe the thieves were armed? But why put yourself in harms way over a car? Nobodys life was in danger until the owner chose to confront the thieves. I hope the antis don't jump on this--but then again details are still few...
 
Off the cuff, it looks like a bad shoot, and the fact that he ran away doesn't help change that opinion...

Of course, all we know is what is being reported. It might turn out that there is more to the story than we know, such is often the case.

It is possible that he knew the suspects. It is possible that they had weapons and fired first (although it seems like that bit would have come out by now).

It is possible that he felt like the guy in the car was going to try to run him down, and he shot in self defense, not just in defense of his property. Of course, that is what he should say... depending on what angle he shot at the car from......
 
HarryB, are you saying that, if within the law, you would NOT shoot to protect your property?

You mean just let the *criminal* HAVE your possessions?

No flame here, just curious as to your position.

CMOS
 
As open to interpretation as the "self-defense" laws are around here, and with a bunch of Liberal DA's lurking about, I personally wouldn't risk my life (or my freedom)for my CRV (don't like the thing much anyway), or our Ranger. Just call Progressive...

Now, if I was in the vehicle...different story, there's a lot of car jackings around here in Dallas.

Ah, these times we live in...

------------------
"...What will you do without freedom? Will you fight?... Fight, and you may die, run and you'll live, at least a while. And dying, many years from now, would you be willing to trade all the days from this day to that, for just one chance, to tell our enemies, that they may take our lives, but they'll never take our FREEDOM!!!"
 
CMOS,

Yes, most states only allow you to use deadly force when you (or a third party) are about to suffer death or great bodily harm. This certainly is not the case when someone is backing out of your driveway, or running out your door with a TV in their arms.

Aside from the legal issues, Ayoob makes a good point that even if you are justified in shooting, you are going to have a long, perhaps costly, and certainly no-fun period. You're life will take a turn for the worse. You certainly don't want to bring this on yourself just because some dirtbag is running away with something you can replace.

Koski
 
CMOS: Good question. Harry B can tote his own water, but I've thought about this situation a good bit, and I think other threads here on the Line have addressed it.

Circumstances. In a crowded urban area like Houston, I would be hesitant about turning a bullet loose in the event of a miss. Unless you are very well trained and very cool under stress, you will tend to shoot high, at night. I watched a guy with a shotgun, one night, miss a Chevy Blazer--three times!

Arizona might have it as a felony to shoot at an escaping crook. Some states do. In Texas, you have to "proof-fully" believe the escapee is a threat to the community--armed, etc. So, pragmatism at work.

Here in Terlingua, the community mood is different from most cities. And, no crowding. Even so, no matter how much I'd like to have "instant gratification", I'd probably use the telephone and put my tax dollars to work.

Part of my attitude is that there is no capital crime involved in sneak-thieving a car; there is no death penalty for unarmed theft.

FWIW, Art
 
It's sometimes a crazy country in which we live. Lets say your a hard working person, honest, and law abiding. You don't have much money and try very hard to get by on what you make (even though you make many sacrifices). Someone attempts to take your car. You can only afford liability insurance.
So, if someone takes your car (lets just say it's worth $3500) you don't go to work tommorrow. You live about 15 miles from work just on the outside of town. You make minimun wage and work 40-50 hours a week. That car is your lifeline.

What do we expect this person to do? Call the police. Lets say this person dosen't have a phone. He's between a rock and a very hard place.

Lets say that we don't have any such thing as car insurance. You see somebody taking your new SUV that you got last month for $35000. If they take it your just out $35000 in an instant.

I'm not saying this is the same as what happened in AZ. Just something to ponder.
 
If I heard someone breaking into my car I would not try to stop them with deadly force. Primarily because Arizona does not allow it. Second--I don't know what I'm getting into--who knows how many there are and how (if) they are armed? I am not going to risk my life for a vehicle especially one thats not paid off :) On the other hand someone coming inside my house is going to get hurt. Someone pointing a gun or other weapon at me demanding my car while my wife and/or kids are in it is going to be met with force as well. I just feel in that situation the risk was not worth it, not to mention possibly outside the law. I can sympathize with someone having their property stolen--my cars have been broken into before and $3000 of stereo equipment was gone. I had a check the next day. Arizona juries have had sympathy as well. A while back a man shot a burgler in the back of the head with a .22 rifle as he was running down the street with his TV. The shooting clearly was outside the law yet the jury refused to convict. I have little problem with their decision mainly because I have no sympathy for criminals. They deserve what they get--if not from the law then the public...
 
BAD SHOOT.

------------------
Every man Dies.
Not Every Man Truely Lives...
FREEDOM!

RAGE AGAINST THE MACHINE
 
The law generally doesn't allow you to shoot someone who is making off with your property, but you are usually allowed to confront them and attempt to stop them using less-than-deadly force. It is easy to imagine how a reasonable person could interrupt a car thief, and in the process of stopping the theft (say by dragging the thief out of the driver's seat) see a weapon and be forced to shoot. That being said, I won't defend the actions of a guy with a record who didn't wait around for the cops after killing a man in a gunfight.
 
Thansk for the responses guys.

Steve K. - you said, "Yes, most states only allow you to use deadly force when you (or a third party) are about to suffer death or great bodily harm. This certainly is not the case when someone is backing out of your driveway, or running out your door with a TV in their arms."

In Texas you indeed can shoot to prevent the theft or the escape. Here in Houston we have a very good DA. He even supports CCW.

So, if one were to reside in Texas and this situation were to occurr, again, would you shoot? For me it's not just about "the law". It's not just about "it's only a car and I have insurance".

What about the fact that what the criminal is doing is WRONG? If we legally have the right to shoot to defend life, limb and property, where do we draw the line and say, "oh ,I'll just let him go because it's only a [insert noun here]"?

Why would we turn our backs (thereby condoning their behavior?) when we have the RIGHT to stand up for what is "right"?

What would crime statistics be like if more citizens exercised their right to protect? What would a would-be thief think if he knew he had a very good chance of being shot for the *attempted* theft of someone's property?

A word that comes to my mind is deterrent. I'm not saying that I would *definitely* shoot, because in reality I wouldn't know until I was actually faced with the situation but I would like to continue the discussion as to the "greater picture" involved here.

We have the right to say "NO" to crime in a big way, but we won't use it?...

CMOS
 
This one smells as bad as limburgher cheese. The operative indicator the D.A.'s in California use when it comes to a citizen shooting is the prevalent emotion present in the shooter evoked by the circumstances at the time of the shooting. Was the emotion ANGER or FEAR. Generally speaking the former will get you criminally prosecuted; the latter released without charge if your story is convincing. In any event, the perp and/or his relatives will sue you. Count on it.

------------------
Safe shooting - PKAY
 
I think it's not just a bad shoot, but it's a stupid shoot. I know we don't have all the facts yet, but it seems to me, why go out and confront, while armed, 2 guys stealing your car? Why shoot up your car, and the guy in it?

I'm sure he had a reason for shooting that man, just not a good one. If they see you're armed that makes you look confrontational, and they'll get jumpy. I can understand the sentiment in not wanting them to get away with his car. The law here in TX says deadly force is justified to prevent the imminent commision of murder, robbery/aggravated robbery, sexual assault, and aggravated kidnapping. Yes, at night time, it would be legal to just go and blow them away, but I can't see a jury failing to convict in these circumstances. He sure doesn't want me on his jury, if he killed someone just to prevent the theft of his car.

If'n it were me, I'd have pepper-gassed the guy in the car so he couldn't drive away, and had my gun on me but out of sight. You can't escape if you can't see....

------------------
--------------
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security."
-Benjamin Franklin
-------------------
"If it isn't Scottish, it's CRAP!"
 
This story offers a learning opportunity 'what if' for us all. We all know that the skell stealing your car is a s***-bag punk. But that at most, is a minor felony. When I began to carry, a long time ago, I made up my mind to earnestly follow this rule: 'If the penalty for what he is doing isn't 20 years to life, or the chair, you probably aren't justified in shooting him. Maybe knock him around a little....(grin). It has worked for me. slabsides

------------------
An armed man is a citizen; an unarmed man is a subject; a disarmed man is a slave.
 
My main motivation in saying earlier that I wouldn't shoot the punk making off w/ my car is this: I am safe in my home, and I have small children with me. I will not risk my life for a possession, merely for it's sake, if I or my family are not threatened. Possessions can be replaced: the cars aren't "mine" anyway-the bank owns 'em. :)

I wouldn't want to be taken away from my family, (when you shoot someone in self-defense in Dallas you're arrested and the case treated as a homicide until proven otherwise...)and put through the publicity, anguish, and a possible conviction just for a material possession.

But, as I said earlier, if some kid came up to me while I was in my vehicle with my children,and threatened me and/or demanded my car and my money, that's another story, he'll get canned!

Muddyboots,
in TX, you MUST have full-coverage insurance if'n you have just purchased a new vehicle and financed it, so I wouldn't personally be out the dough. I sure don't know anyone w/ $35k layin' around to pay cash for a car! :)
 
1) I have $1,000 deductible on both my cars just for this very reason.

2) Something y'all missed. Tell the police how much gas was in your car when it was stolen. That gives LE an idea of how far it may be able to go. (So said the cop when our neighbor's car was stolen in downtown San Antonio.)

3) In my area, most cars are chopped within a few hours of being stolen. Chance of recovery is very small.

4) Emotionally, I'd like to run out and blow the sucker away. I wouldn't do it. What if the thief has a comrade behind the hedge with a shotgun????
 
Definitely homicide and the issue is whether it is justifiable under the laws of that jurisdiction.

Under the Common Law, a man had a right to defend his chattel (property) by means of deadly force. The reasoning was that if you deprived a man of his chattel, you deprived him of his livelihood. Taking a horse from a cowboy or a farmer meant that neither had a means of subsistence. Likewise, taking a carpenter's tools or a musician's instrument had the same effect. Therefore, it was entirely reasonable to use deadly force to protect one's property. Later, a distinction was made between grand theft and petty theft, but the option of deadly force still exists. Jurisdictions like Nevada (Hurrah) still abide by the common law.

Modernly, the majority of jurisdictions have held that human life was far more valuable than chattel. The premise being that chattel could be converted to monetary amounts and monetary losses could always be replaced. Human life, on the other hand, was unique and could not be replaced. Thus, deadly force to protect chattel was held to be in excess to the threat it sought to prevent. States which follow the modern interpretation (California, New York, Masschusetts) do not allow for deadly force under the circumstances described in the incident above.

So, Arizona members, what type of law does AZ follow?

------------------
Vigilantibus et non dormientibus jura subveniunt
 
Three cheers for Nevada! Common law rules. This is what I have been saying. Corporate Law has taken over in this country and we the people are simply indentured servants to the feudal system and its damnable corporate law. One should be able to defend his property and it looks like Nevada may be the only place where he can.
 
No way is this a clean shoot! Ideals or what's right aside this shoot was a mess.
When it all boils down, he probably had stolen the car he was using so much ammo in an indiscriminate fashion protecting.
Hank {IM "always" HO}
 
The attitude of prosecutors in my area is that it is for a jury to decide whether or not a shooting is justifiable, so you will be prosecuted. Therefore, even if you are in the right and justified you are going to be out thousands of dollars in legal fees to defend your actions. Frustrating as hell to think that you are just suppossed to watch someone deprive you of your property but I guess paying the deductable and collecting your insurance is cheaper than a trial.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top