Security guard shoots suspected car thief
- Thread starter azurefly
- Start date
If the guard stayed in his car, he could either put the car in reverse or hit the bad guy with his car if the thief approached his vehicle. So where is the threat to the guard's life? A safe distance would depend on how fast the thief would be able to approach and reach the car, if the thief intended to at all. How many yards away is a safe distance can probably be measured by a small number of car lengths, enough time to back up or hit the thief with one's car if he ran towards you to attack. Doesn't that sound reasonable? What's lacking in the article are critical details....but the point that still remains is that the legal system can ruin anyone's life and juries are a crap shoot. A person can lose more than their car for shooting someone else, even if they think they were right at the time they could be found wrong under the law by a jury! When a person shoots, they're gambling with their own life. 
If there's no threat to the guard's life, he shouldn't be hitting the thief with his car, either. A car is just as much a deadly weapon as a gun - witness the number of people who get shot for trying to run over a cop.
Or is it your argument that the car would be a preferred weapon over a gun?
I guess I'm really confused with your response and your advocacy of using the car as a weapon: "How many yards away is a safe distance can probably be measured by a small number of car lengths, enough time to back up or hit the thief with one's car if he ran towards you to attack. Doesn't that sound reasonable?"
It sounds like you're saying that if you stay back 50 yards and the thief approaches, it's OK to hit him with the car (a deadly weapon in this usage) but if you stay back 50 yards and shot the thief as he approaches, that's bad.
arcticap said:
Here are some factors that should be considered:
- What if he simply wanted to tail the car thief to where he stops, so that he could recover his vehicle (or have the police come there and charge the thief)?
- What if he has no ability to afford theft insurance on the car (maybe it's too old to be cost-effective to insure against theft, but it's all he has for his wife to drive)?
- Why should he have to simply sit at home, call the police, and wait for them to NOT recover his car or solve the crime of who stole it?
He traveled public roadways, happening to be behind the guy who had just stolen his car. That person then threatened him to the point where he feared for his own safety, and he shot the thief.
Are you really sorry for a car thief having been shot? What's so wrong with the way this played out? I'm GLAD the scumbag thief got shot. I just wish he had died.
-azurefly
I was trying to say that if the guard stayed in his car, it would have offered a security blanket of protection to his position on the scene. In the event the thief did have a weapon like a knife, etc...the steel body offers an extra degree of protection to allow a defensive or offensive move, whether that move was using the car as a weapon in order to end the threat to his life or not. I'm not advocating using the car over another weapon like a pistol, but it's merely an option that one has to recognize as part of a given reality, from the limited facts that we're given. Under the circumstances, maybe a jury would be more sympathetic to the use of the car as a weapon than even a firearm.
What seems to be misunderstood by my initial argument is not that there is anything wrong with using lethal force against a reasonably perceived threat to one's life, but rather one should not use any deadly force unnecessarily just for the sake of the recovery or protection of property, especially if it has already been taken off of your property. After all, irrespective of any particular or peculiar state law, the average person in just about every state could end up facing a trial, prison or both.
Intent is 99% of the law, and if the pure intent of the shooter is not to end the perceived "reasonable" threat to one's life, then it may not matter what the jury believes, the prosecutor will do his job and one's life could be left in ruins, win or lose!
Am I against using a firearm or other weapon against a real and reasonable threat? No, of course not, but simply stealing property and fleeing the scene does not necessarily constitute a threat.
Usually police can more readily avoid the threat of prosecution for doing the job that they were trained to do because of their extensive training and reputability.
It's often better to be safe than sorry, and I have a hard time believing that the car thief in this instance was just joy riding while the guard followed him. But those facts are missing and witness statements may not yet be available to the public.
It's not a good thing to promote and reinforce a Yahooistic revenge motive of this sort when most states have laws, prosecutors and a citizenry that by and large, just won't support it.
What seems to be misunderstood by my initial argument is not that there is anything wrong with using lethal force against a reasonably perceived threat to one's life, but rather one should not use any deadly force unnecessarily just for the sake of the recovery or protection of property, especially if it has already been taken off of your property. After all, irrespective of any particular or peculiar state law, the average person in just about every state could end up facing a trial, prison or both.
Intent is 99% of the law, and if the pure intent of the shooter is not to end the perceived "reasonable" threat to one's life, then it may not matter what the jury believes, the prosecutor will do his job and one's life could be left in ruins, win or lose!
Am I against using a firearm or other weapon against a real and reasonable threat? No, of course not, but simply stealing property and fleeing the scene does not necessarily constitute a threat.
Usually police can more readily avoid the threat of prosecution for doing the job that they were trained to do because of their extensive training and reputability.
It's often better to be safe than sorry, and I have a hard time believing that the car thief in this instance was just joy riding while the guard followed him. But those facts are missing and witness statements may not yet be available to the public.
It's not a good thing to promote and reinforce a Yahooistic revenge motive of this sort when most states have laws, prosecutors and a citizenry that by and large, just won't support it.