Man Sentenced to Eight Years After Bullet Fired at Car Thief Hits Neighbor

Terrible. I feel bad for the family of the grandma. Really dumb to shoot at a fleeing bad guy. Even if you hit the intended target you could still be in a world of hurt.
 
I thought using deadly force to protect property is forbidden. Likewise shooting at someone who is fleeing.
 
To directly answer your question, use of deadly force to recover property is forbidden in many places, but not all. Similarly use of deadly force against a fleeing criminal is quite restricted but not always illegal.

However, it's not especially relevant in this case since he didn't actually shoot the car thief. Had he shot the car thief, then that aspect of the law would have become an issue in addition to the accidental killing of his neighbor. Since the car thief wasn't hit, the only issue was the accidental/negligent killing of his neighbor.
 
Accidentally killing one neighbor, he put a round into a different neighbor's house as well while trying to "shoot out the tires." As he was the only son and caretaker for his ill mother, it is a tragedy all the way around.

And FYI, hard flat surfaces like the street will usually ricochet bullets along the plane of the hard flat surface they strike. So shots that hit the street can end up quite a ways downrange.
 
The guy was wrong but giving him the max sentence seems way too harsh for someone with a clean record
Click to expand...

I'm not sure that the maximum was given. I'm also not sure that if it was my, or your grandma that the sentence would seem too harsh. Blazing away with no regard for the safety of anyone else, especially when the only threat was loss of property was criminally negligent and stupid IMO.

This case will be used as an example of why guns for self-defense should be left to sworn professionals. Like it or not, we will all be painted with that brush. This man recklessly took the life of another person. His sentence doesn't seem excessive to me. We civilians who carry for self-defense have a sacred responsibility to protect ourselves, but not at the expense of innocent bystanders. Anyone who doesn't understand that responsibility should not carry a gun.
 
No condoning what he did but the sentence seems a bit excessive. What we don't know other than what we read is his demeanor, was his over all attitude towards the incident indifferent/unremorseful? That plays into sentencing as well.
 
I have known since I was a kid that I was responsible for each bullet I shot. No I do not think his sentence is harsh. He took a persons life trying to do a movie stunt of shooting out a tire. Car are replaceable, it is just a thing. A human life can not be replaced.
 
FYI, this happened in Tacoma, Washington and as K_Mac mentioned the comments to the story are already questioning should anybody but the professionals be allowed to have access to guns.
 
....the comments to the story are already questioning should anybody but the professionals be allowed to have access to guns.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, when someone does a fool thing like that, some people will wonder about that.
 
Part of any professional mentality is being able to think things through rapidly and anticipate the results and consequences.
 
Part of any professional mentality is being able to think things through rapidly and anticipate the results and consequences.
Click to expand...
And even professionals make mistakes.

In my opinion, this is precisely why it is CRITICAL to think through things ahead of time and come up with a basic framework upon which to build real-time strategy.

I'm not talking about trying to come up with a scripted response to every possible situation--that's impossible.

I'm talking about using the advice of experts, personal experience, the study of real-world incidents and a knowledge of the laws of the area where you live to come up with a few basic rules to use as a foundation for your personal policy as regards the use of deadly force.

For example, the person in the news story would not be in the fix he is if he had as a part of his basic response framework the following rule:

Rule: I will not use a gun to solve a problem unless it is immediately required to prevent the serious injury or death of an innocent person.

I happen to live in a state where, under certain very carefully defined circumstances, it is legal to use deadly force to recover stolen property. The problem is, in the heat of the moment, it would be difficult to run through all the points of the law to determine the legality of a particular action. In spite of that complication, you won't be reading about me shooting at a car thief driving off in my vehicle. Because that doesn't fit into the basic framework/foundation of my personal rules for when I will and won't use deadly force.

I've decided that I'm willing to lose a car (or other property) rather than risk killing/injuring an innocent person or risk going to prison because I didn't quite work out the legal details properly in the time I had to respond.

I won't have to "think things through rapidly and anticipate the results and consequences" if I ever find myself watching a thief drive away in my car. I already have a very simple rule that covers that general kind of situation.

Make it EASY for yourself to stay on the right side of the law and common sense.
 
Most jurisdictions do not permit deadly force for the recovery of chattel.

I think the only arguable exception may be made is if such chattel, if not recovered, would result in the death of the victim. That was the reasoning for allowing to shoot a horse thief in the old days. If a man stole your horse and you couldn't get back to civilization, you died. Applied modernly, I would argue that if you had a one person snowmobile and someone wanted to steal it to get out before a monster storm him, then it was down to either allowing the thief to get away and live with the victim dying or the victim slaying the thief so as to escape the killer storm. A good lawyer could probably make a convincing case before a jury.
 
SIGSHR wrote:
I thought using deadly force to protect property is forbidden.
Click to expand...

Depends on the jurisdiction.

In Texas, deadly force may be employed to protect property under certain conditions.
 
Targa wrote:
No condoning what he did but the sentence seems a bit excessive.
Click to expand...

Not really.

As a society we have made the decision to allow everyone who doesn't have a criminal record for certain offenses and isn't currently in the criminal justice system to have as many guns as they want. Further, in the last generation we have also made the decision to let people carry handguns - sometimes concealed, sometimes openly - routinely with minimal training in the law or proficiency.

The "cost" of this level of permissiveness by society is that the individual is responsible for educating and training him/her-self in the proper use of the gun and in order to ensure compliance with that responsibility, those who will not comply must be severely punished so that the rest of society will know that we don't condone someone standing in the street shooting wildly.
 
That is wrong, the car thief should be charged with her death,....
Click to expand...
Not under the law. The man who took the truck did not commit a dangerous felony which would be prerequisite to a charge of felony murder.

Nor was the death a natural, probable consequence of actions of the fleeing thief.....

....but then again we're talking about liberal WA state.
Click to expand...
Where, pray tell, is the law materially different?

Certainly not where I live on the mississippi, or in Tennessee....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top