CCW'ing car-jacker shot by CCW'ing victim!

[SJG26]

Father Knows said:

"What is Pennsylvania's stance on CCW? I'm at work and so can't access packing.org or I would look it up myself...."

PA is shall issue - what exactly is your question??

 

[mp510]

Not mentioned yet so I guess I will do this part - how did the perp (car jacker) get a license to carry a weapon ? If he has the criminal record indicated would that not stop him from acquiring a CCW ?

The article made no mention of his prior convictions. It only mentioned his current charges:

Lt. John Walker of Southwest Detectives said Edney had been charged with robbery, carjacking and related crimes.

Remember ever BG has a clean rap sheet until his first conviction.

 

[Byron Quick]

In Georgia, a felony committed using force, or the threat of force, is a forcible felony. You are justified in shooting a person committing a forcible felony. I would maintain that committing a felony while armed is a livid threat of force and I would act accordingly.

hso,

The following is Tennessee code relating to self defense:

39-11-611. Self-defense.








(a) A person is justified in threatening or using force against another person when and to the degree the person reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force. The person must have a reasonable belief that there is an imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury. The danger creating the belief of imminent death or serious bodily injury must be real, or honestly believed to be real at the time, and must be founded upon reasonable grounds. There is no duty to retreat before a person threatens or uses force.





(b) Any person using force intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury within the person's own residence is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or serious bodily injury to self, family or a member of the household when that force is used against another person, not a member of the family or household, who unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and forcibly entered the residence, and the person using the force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred.





(c) The threat or use of force against another is not justified if the person consented to the exact force used or attempted by the other individual.





(d) The threat or use of force against another is not justified if the person provoked the other individual's use or attempted use of unlawful force, unless:





(1) The person abandons the encounter or clearly communicates to the other the intent to do so; and





(2) The other nevertheless continues or attempts to use unlawful force against the person.





(e) The threat or use of force against another is not justified to resist a halt at a roadblock, arrest, search, or stop and frisk that the person knows is being made by a law enforcement officer, unless:





(1) The law enforcement officer uses or attempts to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest, search, stop and frisk, or halt; and





(2) The person reasonably believes that the force is immediately necessary to protect against the law enforcement officer's use or attempted use of greater force than necessary.








[Acts 1989, ch. 591, § 1; 1990, ch. 1030, § 8.]

Look at "A person is justified in threatening or using force against another person when and to the degree the person reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force. The person must have a reasonable belief that there is an imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury."

Someone is stealing your truck while holding a pistol. Shooting that person would not constitute using force you believe is immediately necessary to protect against an 'attempted use of unlawful force?' You would not have a 'reasonable belief that there is an imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury?'

Under the circumstances related in the story, I'd have a reasonable fear of death or severe bodily injury. Being in the presence of a felon committing a felony while armed, I'd also have a reasonable fear of the imminent 'attempted use of unlawful force.' If such a situation would not be considered such by authorities in Tennessee, I need to know so I can avoid the place in the future.

 

[10 Ring Tao]

Sounds like he still had the gun pointed at him. If I can still see muzzle within 7 yards, its justifiable.

 

[BrennanKG]

While I don't claim to be any sort of expert of SD laws, I personally feel that since the would-be robber threatened his intended victim with a gun that lethal response was warranted.

As mentioned above, what else would have been needed? To be shot, pummelled, dragged from the car?

 

[fresno_kimber45]

The way I would look at it is the mans age, he in my opinion was no match for the younger man and had the right to shoot. What happened to the ability to shoot a man for stealing your horse? That is what are cars are to us now.

If these crimes had a higher punishment we would not have to worry about them anymore. I am in Fresno California and we have a very high car theft rate. So high that people are just used to it. I have heard of at least 20 personal friends who have had their cars stolen and 3 were this year and it is getting worse.

I would take the situation as I could and hopefully get the person to drive towards me so I can legally protect my property. I just find it irritating that I could get in trouble and serve possible jail time for protecting my property if it wasn't done in the so called "right manner"

 

[mnrivrat]

The article made no mention of his prior convictions. It only mentioned his current charges:

OOPS ! Your 100% right -

I should read a bit more carefully - my apoligys !

 

[preWWWIIbuff]

You must be 21 to apply for a Concealed Firearms Permit.

Pennsylvania is a shall issue state handled by County Sheriff's offices with the exception of the city of Philadelphia which is handled by the Police Department. An application form is required. Whether you need to apply in person is dependent upon the county. There are some other differences as some counties require a passport like photograph for processing.

 

[yy]

I interpreted the "unjustified" comments to mean that the victim (old ccw'er) was no longer under direct threat of death or bodily injury after the carjacker (young robber) had the keys, sat in the car, and was fumbling with the shift.

Notice how this view only works if you split the entire event into second-by-second frames and critique each frame. I understand that is exactly what happens when the prosecutor (against the victim) present the case to a jury. But it still burns.

Look, people react to the robbery as a single event, a fluid, changing event. Judges and juries should reject such frame-by-frame analysis because people aren't digital cameras processing by milli-second scale. And so should we reject/resist such views.

The robber threatened deadly force. The robber is fair game. It should be up to the self-defending victim to decide if he/she will show mercy. No court can mandate mercy or fair play in felonies involving the use or threat of deadly force. The frame-by-frame analysis is one tactic to get the court to mandate the unrealistic.

The robber threatened deadly force. The victim was still in range of the robber. The threat of deadly force has not abated. The frame analysis only misleads the jury that the threat has ended. That is a false conclusion because the same logic would require that the victim draw only while the robber has him in sight.

Self-defense use of deadly force doesn't get any clearer than a carjack or a home-invasion robbery. Indeed, "when else?" if not this kind of instance?

 

[Father Knows Best]

PA is shall issue - what exactly is your question??

You answered it, thanks. According to the article, the carjacker had a license to carry a firearm. I wondered if Pennsylvania was one of those states that require some showing of special need (security guard for bank, someone routinely carrying lots of cash, etc.), or issued only on discretion of local law enforcement. If that was the case, then I wanted to know how the carjacker got his license.

Since Pennsylvania is "shall issue", however, it doesn't really matter.

I am still suspicious, though. In my experience, those who go to the trouble of applying for and obtaining a concealed carry permit are not the type who routinely do things like jack cars. Carjackers tend to either have records that prevent them from obtaining permits, or just don't see the point in obtaining a permit.

So what was this guy's deal? Did he really have a permit, or did the paper get that detail wrong (shocking!)? If he did, I want to know more about him because he doesn't sound to me like a typical street thug.

Bottom line -- something about this story just doesn't smell right to me. I think there are some important facts that have yet to come out.

 

[Father Knows Best]

Notice how this view only works if you split the entire event into second-by-second frames and critique each frame. I understand that is exactly what happens when the prosecutor (against the victim) present the case to a jury.

You nailed it. Unfortunately, the practical reality is that whenever someone gets shot, prosecutors and the media are likely to look for any basis on which to say that the shooter could have avoided the situation. Unless there is incontrovertible, overwhelming evidence that the shootee was charging at the shooter with a deadly weapon in hand and a clearly expressed intent to kill at the time the shots were fired, SOMEONE will say that the shooter wasn't really in danger at the time. In a courtroom, there are lots of ways to say it, using terminology like "last clear chance doctrine", or "duty to retreat."

The law has been changing a lot, lately, both through judicial decisions that have gradually cut back on the so-called "duty to retreat" and more recently with the "castle doctrine" and "stand your ground" laws, but the law in many places, or at least the media and prosecutors who decide to bring charges, still have in mind that shooting to defend property is generally not justified, and that once an assailant breaks off the attack and is leaving (or attempting to leave) the scene the threat has ended and there is no basis for using deadly force.

 

[NineseveN]

It's a tough call, but I'd say given the age of the shooter, the felony being comitted in his presence, the gun in the criminal's hands still being a factor, I would say it was a good shoot, but very borderline in some areas (legally at least, morally I say 100% good shoot straight down the line).

 

[Father Knows Best]

Let me add this...

Assuming I had my wits about me, I don't think I would have shot the guy had I been in the situation as described in the article. If someone has just taken my car and is about to drive off in it, I'd rather let him have it than deal with the likely aftermath of a shooting, regardless of whether I would be legally justified in shooting. My answer would definitely be different, of course, if you vary the facts. For instance, if my kids are in the car, the only way you're taking it from me is by killing me first. If you stick a gun in my face and demand my keys, I may decide that the better route is to draw and shoot rather than take the risk of you shooting me even after I hand over the keys. But if you've got the keys, and in the car trying to drive off, and I'm outside the car and free to walk away, I think the best thing to do is to head for cover. Insurance will replace the car. It will not replace my career, my mental and physical health, and the well-being of my family if I am charged with murder or have to face a wrongful death lawsuit from the aggrieved family members of the carjacker.

Of course, that all depends, as I stated, on the big assumption that I would have all my wits about me. I will freely admit that in the heat of the moment, with adrenaline coursing through my veins and the full "fight or flight" reflex kicking in, I may not make the same decision.

 

[LaVere]

Let's see 78 year old man shoot carjacker stealing his ( only transportation to get to the doctor, hospital ,medicine, cemo therapy, fill in any and all you want.) it is self defence the old man is just taking longer to die, than a gunshot.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

To shoot an armed thief, or not?

If "reasonable and porportional force" is justified in recovering
stolen property, and the thief is having trouble driving away
because he has a gun in his gearshift hand , what is the
"reasonable and porportional force" justified?

Gramps may have saved some soccer mom from being shot by
that carjacker in the future.

 

[Steve in PA]

Robbery of a motor vehicle in itself is not justification for use of deadly force.

PACC §3702. Robbery of motor vehicle.

(a) Offense defined.—A person commits a felony of the first degree if he steals or takes a motor vehicle from another person in the presence of that person or any other person in lawful possession of the motor vehicle.

(b) Sentencing.—The Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing, pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. §2154 (relating to adoption of guidelines for sentencing), shall provide for a sentencing enhancement for an offense under this section.

PACC §507. Use of force for the protection of property.

(a) Use of force justifiable for protection of property.—The use of force upon or toward the person of another is justifiable when the actor believes that such force is immediately necessary:
(1) to prevent or terminate an unlawful entry or other trespass upon land or a trespass against or the unlawful carrying away of tangible movable property, if such land or movable property is, or is believed by the actor to be, in his possession or in the possession of another person for whose protection he acts; or
(2) to effect an entry or reentry upon land or to retake tangible movable property, if:
(i) the actor believes that he or the person by whose authority he acts or a person from whom he or such other person derives title was unlawfully dispossessed of such land or movable property and is entitled to possession; and
(ii)(A) the force is used immediately or on fresh pursuit after such dispossession; or
(B) the actor believes that the person against whom he uses force has no claim of right to the possession of the property and, in the case of land, the circumstances, as the actor believes them to be, are of such urgency that it would be an exceptional hardship to postpone the entry or reentry until a court order is obtained.
(b) Meaning of possession.—For the purpose of subsection (a) of this section:
(1) A person who has parted with the custody of property to another who refuses to restore it to him is no longer in possession, unless the property is movable and was and still is located on land in his possession.
(2) A person who has been dispossessed of land does not regain possession thereof merely by setting foot thereon.
(3) A person who has a license to use or occupy real property is deemed to be in possession thereof except against the licensor acting under claim of right.
(c) Limitations on justifiable use of force.—
(1) The use of force is justifiable under this section only if the actor first requests the person against whom such force is used to desist from his interference with the property, unless the actor believes that:
(i) such request would be useless;
(ii) it would be dangerous to himself or another person to make the request; or
(iii) substantial harm will be done to the physical condition of the property which is sought to be protected before the request can effectively be made.
(2) The use of force to prevent or terminate a trespass is not justifiable under this section if the actor knows that the exclusion of the trespasser will expose him to substantial danger of serious bodily injury.
(3) The use of force to prevent an entry or reentry upon land or the recaption of movable property is not justifiable under this section, although the actor believes that such reentry or caption is unlawful, if:
(i) the reentry or recaption is made by or on behalf of a person who was actually dispossessed of the property; and
(ii) it is otherwise justifiable under subsection (a)(2).
(4)(i) The use of deadly force is justifiable under this section if:
(A) there has been an entry into the actor’s dwelling;
(B) the actor neither believes nor has reason to believe that the entry is lawful; and
(C) the actor neither believes nor has reason to believe that force less than deadly force would be adequate to terminate the entry.
(ii) If the conditions of justification provided in subparagraph (i) have not been met, the use of deadly force is not justifiable under this section unless the actor believes that:
(A) the person against whom the force is used is attempting to dispossess him of his dwelling otherwise than under a claim of right to its possession; or
(B) such force is necessary to prevent the commission of a felony in the dwelling.

 

[ORAG]

Probably Right but will get taken to court in the long run

In this litigious society, the shooter was probably right to shoot the BG but will probably wind up in court and have to pay for the hospital costs of the shootee. If the guy has the SUV and is leaving I say good bye and go call the cops. I can't imagine the number of laws broken concerning shooting a weapon in the city limits etc. What I want to do and what I do is generally modified by the old quandry "What If". Don't let your get even temper offset doing what's right.

 

[HerrWolfe]

Newton was perhaps justified because he was just responding to Edney challenging him with a firearm. Edney pointed his gun at Newton, and Newton just pulled his out and shot Edney. Straight forward! Newton is 78 years old and was just v-e-r-y v-e-r-y s-l-o-w g-e-t-t-i-n-g h-i-s g-u-n o-u-t . If that is not his defense, and if PA does not consider armed robbery as justified use of deadly force, hope he enjoyed his early years. Since he was previously a LEO, will probably get off though, hopefully. Maybe we need a federal law that justifies opposing force equal to that applied to the innocent.

 

[starbuck]

Yeh I dont think it's an issue of protecting property. He had a gun pulled on him. It was an issue of protecting his life.

Here in Florida, your car is considered an extension of your dwelling, and you can use deadly force to defend it.

 

[ChestyP]

Just for the record, except for a single column claiming Jewish Federation shooter Naveed Haq had a WA CPL (concealed pistol license), there is no other information supporting that claim. According to most accounts, and the Seattle PD spokesman, Haq undwerwent the five business day waiting period to pick up the pistols he used -- waiverable if he had a CPL.

Based on all of the circumstances reported in the Philly story, I'd eb very surprised if the 78 y/o shooter was charged. Unless Mayor Street wants to make a fool of himself.

 

[Sawdust]

Seems to me that the first shot was justified in order to get away from the bg, but running around the truck to the other window to crank-off another shot will probably get him in trouble.

Sawdust

 

[Mannlicher]

Apparently Father does NOT know best

Um, what am I missing here? Is it really o.k. in Pennsylvania to shoot someone who is attempting to drive off in your car? This doesn't look like a legally justifiable shooting in any jurisdictions I am am familiar with. It may be morally justifiable, depending on your own beliefs, but I have my doubts about legal justification

uhhhhh, the perp used a gun, threatened the old guy, and forced him out of his SUV. Thats plenty of grounds for a rightous shooting where I come from friend. The robber was using the threat of shooting and death even at the point he was trying to flee. Darn shame gramps did not kill him.

 

[Father Knows Best]

Apparently Mannlicher can't read

Note that I said it may well be morally justifiable. As I clearly stated, I was asking whether it was legally justifiable. There's a big difference. There are plenty of people walking the streets who probably "need killin'", to use the classic description of "morally justifiable." The law, however, doesn't always agree. Thus, you and I generally have no right to shoot people on the basis that they are morally reprehensible and deserving of death.

 

[Rumble]

Steve in PA: I was just looking at the statutes as well--wouldn't a car be considered "tangible, movable property," in which case this is justifiable? Am I misreading the statute?

Oh, oops: "deadly" force, versus regular ol' non-deadly force. My bad.

 

[Snap]

Carjacker plays Big Boy games, he can play by Big Boy rules. Hopefully the courts of PA will end up agreeing.