Car drives on sidewalk, CCer shoots driver, 12.5 years imprisonment

[Snejdarek]

A 2017 case from the Czech Republic that was decided today. Details in the Wikipedia article.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Chomutov_incident

I was wondering what kind of view of this incident and trial outcome US armed inteligentsia might have?

 

[Jack B.]

According to the link that you posted. In the Indictment "the shooter did not act in legitimate defense as the shooting happened after the danger elapsed (there were no more people in the driving path of the car". Imo I think in most states you'd be in trouble in the same situation. I don't think there are statues in most places that would let you use deadly force against some one driving on the sidewalk.

 

[danez71]

I quickly read it.

Since this isn't the legal section, I'll given my opinion.

ETA: I could swore this wasnt in the legal section when I 1st replied.

If the driver was later determined to be a terrorist or some mass killer, the shooter would have been called a hero.

Since the driver was only drunk and on drugs, the shooter is the villian.

The Texas church mass shooting comes to mind. The good guy actually drove after the bad guy for a few miles and ended up shooting him. He's a hero. If the situation was any different, I think he would have been prosecuted.

 

[Snejdarek]

The Texas church mass shooting comes to mind. The good guy actually drove after the bad guy for a few miles and ended up shooting him. He's a hero. If the situation was any different, I think he would have been prosecuted.

Not exactly, they exchanged fire in front of the church. The perpetrator was hit by two rounds in front of the church, and then he committed suicide later.

Stephen Willeford did chase the car and did train the gun on it once it stopped, however there are no mentions in any source I could find of him firing at the car at a later stage.

The perp committed suicide at that moment in the car. He was already shot twice and bleeding heavily, so he might not have had enough blood pressure for anything else than just ending self.

Otherwise I agree with what you write. Had there been any casualties of the driver, the prosecution would probably just let it be, even though from the legal standpoint the situation would be the same (shooting AFTER incident).

 

[danez71]

Not exactly, they exchanged fire in front of the church. The perpetrator was hit by two rounds in front of the church, and then he committed suicide later.

Stephen Willeford did chase the car and did train the gun on it once it stopped, however there are no mentions in any source I could find of him firing at the car at a later stage.

The perp committed suicide at that moment in the car. He was already shot twice and bleeding heavily, so he might not have had enough blood pressure for anything else than just ending self.

Otherwise I agree with what you write. Had there been any casualties of the driver, the prosecution would probably just let it be, even though from the legal standpoint the situation would be the same (shooting AFTER incident).

Thanks for the correction.

 

[George P]

The judge said that "in the moment when the defendant came outside, he did nothing to assess whether there is any imminent threat, he immediately started shooting and emptied his entire magazine into the car. At the moment of the shooting, the car was not endangering the defendant, nor anybody else.[18] Thus, the shooter used his firearm without any cause,

This is why he got in trouble

 

[Hasaf]

Reading the linked article does put it in a bit of a different perspective. My first thought was a delivery man or repair man. Then I read the link:

The innitial police report describes the incident that took place at 3 AM on 27 May 2017 as follows: "A man (b. 1980) heard a loud noise from the street in the night, and from his window situated in a block of appartments he saw a van that was crashing into parked cars and driving into people assembled on the pathwalk in front of the house. He immediately took his legally owned firearm and went outside, where he opened fire towards the van that was passing by his side. The driver (born 1983) was hit by several bullets and suffered serious injuries that proved fatal. The suspect awaited arrival of police and admitted to the shooting." Media reported that one woman had her leg run over by the driver, while several parked cars were damaged.

. . . At the time of his death, the driver was under influence of both alcohol and drugs.

from here

Again, it does not excuse the action (if there was no threat at the time of the shooting); but it does put it in more perspective.

 

[danez71]

Otherwise I agree with what you write. Had there been any casualties of the driver, the prosecution would probably just let it be, even though from the legal standpoint the situation would be the same (shooting AFTER incident).

There were injuries in your examples... correct?

Reading the back ground in the wiki you linked to, it seems that the convicted man had at least a tiny bit of some basis to do what he did.

ETA: I could swore this wasnt in the legal section when I 1st replied.

 

[Zoogster]

It may have gone the same way it is hard to say.

If there had been injuries it would have lent more credibility to him preventing additional injuries.
If there was really screams of people that he ran over their legs it may have been mitigating circumstances at least.

The legal system is different for sure.
He was convicted of premeditated murder, I doubt that would have been the charge here. He was given only 12.5 years, probably in line with the manslaughter charge it would have resulted in here, though here they may have tacked on additional charges.
And then he is only prohibited for 10 years after release from owning a firearm. In the US they defunded the ability to petition to ever get your rights back and even non violent felonies can make you prohibited for life making it less of a right and more of a privilege the government allows you as long as you never do anything they say you shouldn't. Interesting that it is almost more of a right under the Czech system.


The problem with the scenario of a real vehicle attack is only someone coming to the aid of others in chasing down the vehicle and firing at the occupant are likely to stop it. People actually in the path of a speeding vehicle will probably not know the danger is coming soon enough to provide defense for themselves or others until and unless it misses them and has passed. So the only people that can stop it are typically going to be those not at immediate risk of being run over. Unless of course the vehicle gets stuck on something and the driver is trying to back up, drive over something they are stuck on, or otherwise get it back into operation.
The Nice Paris vehicle attack killed more people than any of our mass shootings. They were under high terrorist alert or a state of emergency at the time, so police were as prepared for a terrorist attack as they should have been under their system.
The only people that almost stopped the attacker prior to engagement by police, was a bicyclist and a motorcyclist that both chased him down, but being unarmed they were unable to stop the terrorist.

 

[Snejdarek]

There were injuries in your examples... correct?

The people hit by the car were family members, none came forward to testify that they were injured.

 

[flphotog]

According to the link that you posted. In the Indictment "the shooter did not act in legitimate defense as the shooting happened after the danger elapsed (there were no more people in the driving path of the car". Imo I think in most states you'd be in trouble in the same situation. I don't think there are statues in most places that would let you use deadly force against some one driving on the sidewalk.

The bold portion above would be the same in FL, you are permitted to respond to a forceable felony, but only while it is in process, not afterward.

 

[MachIVshooter]

The bold portion above would be the same in FL, you are permitted to respond to a forceable felony, but only while it is in process, not afterward.

Exactly. Use of force by one private citizen against another is only justified when it is preventative, not punitive. If the actor is no longer a threat, self defense or defense of another is not a legitimate justification.

 

[piettakid]

If the driver was later determined to be a terrorist or some mass killer, the shooter would have been called a hero.

Since the driver was only drunk and on drugs, the shooter is the villian.

.

Does that make sense?? Drunk drivers kill people every day. Maybe they don't TRY to kill anyone but so what?. Dead is dead. It appears this driver was a huge public menace.

 

[Bang!]

The shooter looked out of his window and saw the attack (screaming crowd, driving into vehicles, screams that a woman was ran over) in progress. Went outside and the driver is still driving on pathway. Still driving on pathway-that attack is not over.

 

[hdwhit]

Bang! wrote:
Still driving on pathway-that attack is not over.

If there's nobody in the path of the car - as the court found - the attack is over since there's nobody left to maim or kill.

This is where people get into trouble. Someone assumes if the car just mowed down a bunch of people on the sidewalk and is still driving on the sidewalk (even though there is nobody left in its path) that the driver is still intending to maim or kill and starts shooting even though the law and the courts don't see it that way.

Seems to me the shooter asked himself the question, "When can I shoot?" rather than "Do I have any alternative to shooting?" and is paying the price.

 

[mjsdwash]

There was a high profile shooting in Washington state a few years ago where a cop shot a man in the back, and claimed just being drunk in a car was an immediate threat to public safety, and a jury agreed. In much of the US, there would be a similar conviction, but would result in a few years prison, and early release.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

I do not understand the premeditated murder conviction. In most US jurisdictions, that implies planning with malice. The details from the linked article would support at most a manslaughter conviction.

Bottom line is, the shooter saw the incident in the context of previous vehicle attacks (including one in Czech Republic with 20 fatalities) when it was just a drunk escaping from a brawl with his uncle.


It was drilled into us in the self defense law part of carry permit certification (4 hr class, written exam): use of lethal force is justified against imminent threat of death or grievous bodily harm from an attacker with ability, opportunity and means to put life or limb in jeopardy then and there. If an attacker breaks off the attack and attempts to flee, justification to use lethal force evaporates. And you are expected to make the judgement that jeopardy no longer exists in a split second while still in a cloud of fear of death or mayhem. Taking on the responsibility of going armed in self-defense has been a sobering experience for everyone I know who went through the process.

I also know how local police, prosecutor, grand jury, trial jury, and trial judge would view a magazine dump on a city street: not very favorably, even in a justifed shooting.

The follow up on this case could be interesting. A harsh intitial sentence to send the message unnecessary use of force will not be tolerated. A reduction in sentence on appeal and calm review of evidence and developments.

 

[Kleanbore]

In most US jurisdictions, that implies planning with malice.

Actually, it implies that a decision to kill had been made. Making such a decision can take mere seconds.

A reduction in sentence on appeal and calm review of evidence and developments.

There may or may not be a basis for an appeal, but the review of the evidence has been performed in the trial court.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

Premeditated murder is the crime of wrongfully and intentionally causing the death of another human being after rationally considering the timing or method of doing so, in order to either increase the likelihood of success, or to evade detection or apprehension.

The guy told the police he did the shooting to stop what he perceived as an ongoing vehicular attack. He did not try to evade detection or apprehension. The time between hearing the cries in the street and firing at the driver did not allow much time for rational consideration.

There have been several US cases where (premeditated) first degree murder charges were brought, and the evidence convinced the jury that the case was manslaughter (negligent or reckless) or even self-defense. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angela_Corey Murder convictions are often sent to appeals court to assure that all the i's are dotted and the t's crossed because (especially in a politically charged case pretried in the court of public opinion) proper procedure may not have been followed.

 

[Kleanbore]

Premeditated murder is the crime of wrongfully and intentionally causing the death of another human being after rationally considering the timing or method of doing so, in order to either increase the likelihood of success, or to evade detection or apprehension.

That requires very little time indeed.

The time between hearing the cries in the street and firing at the driver did not allow much time for rational consideration.

The jury thought otherwise.

There have been several US cases where (premeditated) first degree murder charges were brought, and the evidence convinced the jury that the case was manslaughter (negligent or reckless) or even self-defense.

That did not happen here.

Murder convictions are often sent to appeals court to assure that all the i's are dotted and the t's crossed because (especially in a politically charged case pretried in the court of public opinion) proper procedure may not have been followed.

As I said, there may be a basis for an appeal, such as jury instructions or admissibility issues. Such an appeal may be successful--or not.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

In any case, if you ever have to use lethal force in self-defense, it is simply the lesser of two evils, it is something to rue, and your life will never be the same. The only consolation is the life you acted to protect (yours or another's) . And if you misconstrue the circumstances, as it appears the defender did in this case, you have to live with that too.

 

[Snejdarek]

I do not understand the premeditated murder conviction. In most US jurisdictions, that implies planning with malice. The details from the linked article would support at most a manslaughter conviction.

Bottom line is, the shooter saw the incident in the context of previous vehicle attacks (including one in Czech Republic with 20 fatalities) when it was just a drunk escaping from a brawl with his uncle.

Yes, I too take an issue with that.

The court's reasoning is that he looked out of the window and decided to shoot the driver (for a reason that does not exculpate him), got back to his room, got his gun, ran downstairs, ran outside, and emptied entire magazine towards the driver.

I.e. the decision to shoot the driver was taken already in the flat and it was performed in a way that was likely to lead to his death.

I do hope that the review will result in lesser conviction and somewhere around 4 years imprisonment for manslaughter.