Shooting in defense of property... potential problems

I'm generally against lethal force to stop a felony theft in progress, but in this veteran's case I think there are extenuating circumstances, so while I wouldn't have done the same thing, I wouldn't vote to convict him of anything if I were on his jury. A thief taunting someone who's got a rifle is not the brightest thing in the world to do. In perhaps a more "civilized" society, that sort of thing would be an automatic challenge to a duel, and suspect the ex-marine would have won any such duel.

The problem I have with use of lethal force to stop a fleeing robber/burglar from fleeing with stolen property is simple. Those laws were designed I hope primarily to protect important property that's someone's livelihood. That's fine. But too many gun-toting law&order types would use such a law as justification to shoot a fleeing burglar/robber to prevent loss of any property even if it's insignificant to their livelihood or well being. While the law makes it legal in a state like Texas to use lethal force in such a situation, assuming all the requirements are met, I think it goes against the intent, or what I think should be the intent, of the law.

Before you value a criminal's life at less than a stereo or TV or jewelry or anything like that, remember that they're probably an ex-con, and if so, while it was their own (often poor) decisions that got them into prison in the first place, it was the prison system itself that likely made them into a career criminal. The same prison system that law&order types love sticking more and more people into, for lesser and lesser crimes.

therealdeal said:
I won't shoot him in that situation, but I'll bust him up in the head before he walks away w/my TV. If he escalates, that is on him.
Click to expand...

You would voluntarily start a close quarters fight with a burglar?
 
good point Tyme. No, I wouldn't. However, as described by the person from Minnesota and in a unique scenario, it is definately possible.

If I came down the stairs and some idiot was 5-10ft from me with his hands full of TV, yes I think I would. It would be better than verbally starting a confrontation with him.
 
as for the thief...he messed with a bleeding heart and got more than he bargained for. Sometimes a good person will snap. That thief was lucky he was a good person because I think he missed on purpose.
 
Before you value a criminal's life at less than a stereo or TV or jewelry or anything like that, remember that they're probably an ex-con, and if so, while it was their own (often poor) decisions that got them into prison in the first place, it was the prison system itself that likely made them into a career criminal. The same prison system that law&order types love sticking more and more people into, for lesser and lesser crimes.
Click to expand...

I have some problems with this statement;

1. I believe it stereotypes.

2. Two of the reasons we have so many people in prison is:
A. Because we are a nation of laws.
B. We expect legal remedies every-time we are inconvenienced.

3. I feel one reason people end up in prison a second/third/fourth... time is because they continue to make poor judgements. The prison system does not make them in to a career criminal, them not accepting responsibilities for their actions makes them in to career criminals.

4. Blaming society for your ills is not the answer.
 
Uncle Buck makes a good point

Some people aren't able to FACE their wrongs. This isn't always, but sometimes you have to face your issues, problems, etc to experience the other side. It is easier to keep using a drug instead of facing your problems as an example IF this drug is destroying your life and/or making you go to jail, be a criminal, and so-on. It isn't comfortable to do the opposite and face life without it, but if you can do it things get better eventually. The quick fix has consequences. I know this is only an example, but sometimes you have to do the right thing and BREAK THE CYCLE.

If you are going to jail 2, 3, 4 times in a row you need to make changes accordingly. You can do this if you ask for help plus put your mind to it. There have been many cases of people facing and overcoming their issues even though it isn't easy&can be uncomfortable. Others don't step up and face their issues. Make the choice or pay the price. Take responsibility, don't blame everyone else. And when you point fingers, usually three people are pointing fingers back at you for every one you point.
 
tyme said:
The problem I have with use of lethal force to stop a fleeing robber/burglar from fleeing with stolen property is simple. Those laws were designed I hope primarily to protect important property that's someone's livelihood. That's fine. But too many gun-toting law&order types would use such a law as justification to shoot a fleeing burglar/robber to prevent loss of any property even if it's insignificant to their livelihood or well being. While the law makes it legal in a state like Texas to use lethal force in such a situation, assuming all the requirements are met, I think it goes against the intent, or what I think should be the intent, of the law.
Click to expand...

We're in general agreement on this part. If someone is in my driveway stealing my car, that -- IMHO -- should be the equivalent of the Old West crime of stealing a man's horse. I use my car to make a living, even if it's just to drive a few miles in each direction. Depriving me of it not only costs me money, but makes me vulnerable in other ways.¹

The problem is that we cannot put a definitive dollar value on material goods versus a thief's life. Stealing a 42" HDTV from Donald Trump's vacation home will hurt him a lot less than stealing a 19" Color portable from someone living in public housing. Nor does our system of laws permit making the distinction based on "class" (rich v. poor for example). Laypersons may believe Mr. Trump is merely inconvenienced while believing the poor person was "substantially damaged", however this is based on community morality more than codified law.

The real problem is that theft is wrong and, with rare exception, it is always wrong. Laws distinguish between misdemeanor (petty) theft and felony grand theft, usually by the cost of the item(s) stolen. Stealing a cell phone may fall into the "petty theft" category, yet also be a serious theft if the person relies on that phone for a living (e.g. a consultant, doctor, repairman). So where do we draw the line? When a man is in your garage taking items, you can't value that theft without knowing what he's taking.

A thief is a person who thinks he has as more rights to your property than you do. He disregards the normal boundaries that legitimate citizens respect - property lines, doors, windows, locks, etc. He shows his contempt for property rights and in some cases may show his contempt for your life. ² He may enter locked places, causing damage on top of the theft (which may cost more to fix than the theft). In short, he has spit upon the laws and societal rules and will do as he pleases.

Catching such a person in the act carries inherent risks. What starts as a petty crime can quickly turn into a lethal encounter when the thief decides his departure is more important than your life.

I don't advocate shooting at the fleeing thief since a personal threat is diminishing. A thief caught in the act, who fails to comply with your commands and/or makes threats or threatening moves has, by his actions, declared himself outside the law -- and I consider such people an immediate threat to my safety.

Most thieves are self-employed. As such, they should carry their own insurance against common hazards of their jobs -- falls, cuts, dog bites, blunt force trauma and gunshots from angry victims. His failure to look after his own welfare should not be construed to obligate his victim to do so.


¹ Lacking a car, one becomes dependent upon public transit where assaults are more frequent, exposure to airborne illnesses and/or weather extremes, etc.
² Some thieves set fires to cover their crimes, regardless of the proximity of others. Some will threaten the owner with a weapon to prevent capture or losing his loot.
 
If the guy points a rifle at police, the outcome should not be a suprise. Did he get suprised by police and turn at them with no intention of shooting? Maybe. I wasn't there, the guy is outside with a gun, they order him to drop it, and then shoot. I don't see the problem here.
Click to expand...

The problem is that, at this point at least, it does not appear that Sturdivant ever pointed the rifle at the police. Actually, given the "I hope there's a gun" comments of the police in the video, it seems that the police may not have even seen the rifle in Sturdivant's hands prior to shooting him. If the police are given the right to shoot anyone who they think might have a gun then we're beginning down a very slippery slope.
 
They did a SWAT style raid against a guy for selling illegally imported fish. It turned out it was the guys teenage son selling the fish for money on the side. Seriously, about 10 guys, geared up with AR's and shotguns raiding a house over illegal fish....what if they had startled the homeowner and shot him...over illegal fish...just saying
Click to expand...

Funny how it does not sound like much, but USFWS and various state game wardens do get hurt, shot, and sometimes killed over issues of illegal game procurement. There is considerable co-occurrence of additional illegal activities.

Remember it is usually the criminal that turns a situation into a life or death situation...just saying.
 
Another says, “You got a shot, take it.”

“Drop the gun,” one officer shouts.

A second later one rifle shot is fired.

I would say they saw a gun and ordered him to drop it. I do not know that for certain, nor do I know that he pointed it at them. I read the article and this part jumped out at me. Plus, another part of the story says a bullet went through the sling and struck the gun. I would hazard a guess the police saw the gun, and it was in his hands in order for the bullet to hit it. If the rifle was on the ground or in the house, how did the police shoot it.

I believe he may have been startled and turned towards the officers giving him commands, maybe turning the rifle as he looked.

Bad situation all around.
 
These Officers responded in an agressive military manner without knowing what the situation was.

Their rules of engagement were that of an Infantry squad assualting a position in a combat zone. This is appropriate for Irag or Afganistan. It is not appropriate for Fulton county GA.

Shooting had ceased prior to their arrival. They had time to assess the situation before they opened fire on an unknown individual in and unknown situation. The list of unknowns was far greater than what they knew. In fact they had two knowns 1) shots had been fired. 2) An individual had a weapon. Just off the top of my head I can think of 10 or 20 unknowns which should have been addressed before they opened fire.

Many times we have seen standoffs go on for hours while police determined what the situation was. These generally end in a positive manner. Here a bunch of hot shot bad asses did not think. They lacked effective command and control. I would lay odds that the officers violated volumns of departmental procedures and regulations.

Look at the Miami Dade response to the FBI shoot out. Shots were being exchanged. The local Law enforcement could not determin what the situation was so they held position and waited until they could determine who and what was going on. This is the response which should have occurred in this incident.
 
These Officers responded in an agressive military manner without knowing what the situation was.

Their rules of engagement were that of an Infantry squad assualting a position in a combat zone. This is appropriate for Irag or Afganistan. It is not appropriate for Fulton county GA.

Shooting had ceased prior to their arrival. They had time to assess the situation before they opened fire on an unknown individual in and unknown situation. The list of unknowns was far greater than what they knew. In fact they had two knowns 1) shots had been fired. 2) An individual had a weapon. Just off the top of my head I can think of 10 or 20 unknowns which should have been addressed before they opened fire.

Many times we have seen standoffs go on for hours while police determined what the situation was. These generally end in a positive manner. Here a bunch of hot shot bad asses did not think. They lacked effective command and control. I would lay odds that the officers violated volumns of departmental procedures and regulations.

Look at the Miami Dade response to the FBI shoot out. Shots were being exchanged. The local Law enforcement could not determin what the situation was so they held position and waited until they could determine who and what was going on. This is the response which should have occurred in this incident.

Exactly how do you know this? I am curious what you know that we don't.
 
These Officers responded in an agressive military manner without knowing what the situation was.
Click to expand...

As in most situations, when the police respond, they do not know the entire incident. They do know that shots were fired. They do not know who fired them or why.

Stating why they did what they did is pure speculation. We have the newspapers side of the story. There are always things left out of the news stories.

Should the cops have walked to the front door and said "Hey, we heard shots over here and notice you have a rifle. Was that you?"

Don't forget where they were. (According to reports I have read, it is a very crime ridden area.)
 
yes there are unknown, extenuating circumstances always but I still say misplaced testosterone and reality TV adrenaline had something to do with this in a negative manner.
 
I think it would have been courteous to at least identify themselves before giving the command to shoot.

And maybe the order to drop the gun should have come before the order to shoot.

And of course the comments" did he see a gun" " I hope he had a gun" dont look to good.
 
As a retired Sheriffs Patrol Sgt., I absolutely agree with ltc444's post number 28. My wife and I discussed this at length the other night just based on what we see in our own little town. Worse in larger towns. I think police chiefs and sheriffs are buying into the paramilitary thing to the detriment of the people they are supposed to be serving. JMHO. YMMV.
 
Mesquito Whitey thank you for your comments.

As a retired LTC USAR with over 20 years of experience, I recognize Military Tactics.

As an Arkansas Deputy Sheriff, left as a LT and Training Officer, I had the oppurtunity to review and comment on the AR SWAT Training Manual.

The one point I emphasised and was adopted as policy, at that time, was as follows:

When facing an unknown situation with a potentially armed individual involved, The responding Officers will take cover and establish a permiter. They contain the armed individual until the situation can be evaluated and a determination made as to the threat.

This is not a direct quote but my recollection of my contributation to the Manual.

Given the time line, the Responding Officers did not use good judgement. They went in hard. I will not speculate on their intent. However, given the order of commands reported, the command to shoot was given prematurely.

The Prosecutor has agreed with this position as he dismissed all charges. This action has opened the County, Department and the individual Officers to a major civil law suit.

A review of the Canton Ohio incident, in particular the comments by Spats McGee, will support this view. Spats is a City Attorney and gives an excellent discussion of the position a Prosecutor is in when dismissing charges in a situation such as this.

Having observed the impact of PTSD close up, The Officers involved could/should be in fear for their lives. The authoriteis need to quickly insure that Davids sense of justice is restored. PTSD suffers and Marines in general have a strong sense of duty and justice.
 
As a retired Sheriffs Patrol Sgt....I think police chiefs and sheriffs are buying into the paramilitary thing to the detriment of the people they are supposed to be serving
Click to expand...

When the Fed radically increased crime fighting appropriations in the 90's(?) to local law enforcement agencies around the nation to fight the crack cocaine epidemic and other ills, the makers of police and military equipment got on the stick and sold the locals on a bill of paramilitary goods. These agencies were suckered in by slick sales people, pure and simple. I'm not saying that some of this money didn't go to good causes, but when you see little rural jurisdictions like Glenwood Springs, CO with their own armored personnel carrier, you know somebody flew over the cuckoo's nest.
 
I think there are two competing trends in LE work here. On the one hand, you have a strong pressure to prevent/limit active shooter incidents like Beslan or Columbine that has led police departments to respond much more aggressively if they perceive they are dealing with that type of situation.

On the other hand, you have the situations like this one. If you are the responding officer and all you know is you've got a guy with a semi-auto rifle who has fired four shots so far, you've got the problem that every second you wait to engage may mean more dead people on the other side of it; but by engaging quickly, you may not have all the information you need to best solve the problem.

I don't see a real easy answer to that; but it does look like a containment approach would have served the officers well in this particular incident.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top