saltydog
Member
I am playing a violin!
CCW'ing car-jacker shot by CCW'ing victim!
- Thread starter Preacherman
- Start date
- Status
I am playing a violin!lucky_fool
Member
ChestyP said:
When has he ever not made a fool of himself?
Mannlicher
Member
Father knows best does not read either. The point is that gramps shooting the perp is perfectly legal. There was threat, ability, intention and action. Bang. Why do you insist on being an apologist for the criminal?
Father Knows Best
Member
Nice try, Mannlicher, but don't put words in my mouth that aren't there. I have never been "an apologist for the criminal." In fact, I have never said one thing in defense of the criminal.
I'm simply pointing out that legal justification may well be lacking. The news story as printed describes the events in a way that would constitute unjustifiable homicide in quite a few places. A quick review of the many posts above indicate that many others share the same view. In some states (Texas has been discussed above), the shooting may be legally justified based on the facts presented. In many other states, it may not be.
That's not an indication of my personal view as to what this creep deserves. I agree wholeheartedly with the assessments of many here that he got what was coming to him. I am concerned, however, that the shooter may also get a visit from the police and the prosecutor if the facts are as described in the article (that's a big "if", of course), and he may not get off easily.
People have gone to prison in the past for shooting criminals who were trying to steal their cars. In most places, it is a felony to shoot a criminal who is fleeing the scene, even if you would have been justified in shooting the criminal to prevent or stop an attack.
You might want to check the name of the board. It's "The High Road." I suggest you stay on it, rather than using epithets and straw men.
Good job
It's sad when one must consult local laws to determine whether shooting an armed carjacking aggressor who has threatened your life is ok or not. I'm sorry for the hassle Newton was put through, and I hope this is the end of it. Although I have a feeling this guy will do ok if even if additional challenges are raised (i.e. civil suit).
Stevie-Ray
Member
"
Meh, tough luck, kid. I probably would have done the same. Where do you draw the line? Say somebody puts a gun to your head and says "I want your TV!" Guess he's not really a threat if he only wants some of your stuff, right?
Might be tough to get the blood and gore out of the upholstery, though.
Meh, tough luck, kid. I probably would have done the same. Where do you draw the line? Say somebody puts a gun to your head and says "I want your TV!" Guess he's not really a threat if he only wants some of your stuff, right?
Aguila Blanca
Member
Count me in the "morally justified but legally questionable" camp.
The way I read the story, Newton had stopped the vehicle and exited it under his own initiative before he was approached/accosted by the bad guy. The bad guy didn't force Newton out of the vehicle, he just made Newton hand over the keys. The bad guy then got into the vehicle and attempted to drive away, at which point Newton, from a position of comparative safety OUTSIDE OF THE VEHICLE opened fire on the bad guy. Then, having taken one shot through the (presumeably) passenger window, Newton "ran" (whatever running is to a 78-year old) around to the opposite side of the vehicle and cranked off another shot for good measure.
I am 100% sympathetic to Mr. Newton, and I sincerely believe that he did the city of brotherly love a real service. However, under what I understand of PA law (as a holder of a non-res CCW that's not a lot), I do not think that if subjected to close scrutiny this shoot would pass muster as legally justified.
However, given the shooter's age and the fact that he has friends in low places, it may never be subjected to that level of scrutiny.
The way I read the story, Newton had stopped the vehicle and exited it under his own initiative before he was approached/accosted by the bad guy. The bad guy didn't force Newton out of the vehicle, he just made Newton hand over the keys. The bad guy then got into the vehicle and attempted to drive away, at which point Newton, from a position of comparative safety OUTSIDE OF THE VEHICLE opened fire on the bad guy. Then, having taken one shot through the (presumeably) passenger window, Newton "ran" (whatever running is to a 78-year old) around to the opposite side of the vehicle and cranked off another shot for good measure.
I am 100% sympathetic to Mr. Newton, and I sincerely believe that he did the city of brotherly love a real service. However, under what I understand of PA law (as a holder of a non-res CCW that's not a lot), I do not think that if subjected to close scrutiny this shoot would pass muster as legally justified.
However, given the shooter's age and the fact that he has friends in low places, it may never be subjected to that level of scrutiny.
Last edited:
yhtomit
Member
Hawkmoon - what's a "red CCW"?
You wrote "However, under what I understand of PA law (as a holder of a non-red CCW that's not a lot) ..."
Would you mind explaining that phrasing? My PA permit is sort of beige Are there red ones with special significance?
Thanks for any insight,
timothy
You wrote "However, under what I understand of PA law (as a holder of a non-red CCW that's not a lot) ..."
Would you mind explaining that phrasing? My PA permit is sort of beige
Are there red ones with special significance? Thanks for any insight,
timothy
Byron Quick
Moderator In Memoriam
Mr. Newton's first and second shot would have been legal here in Georgia. In fact, any number of shots into the felon would have been legal as long as he was still committing the forcible felony.
Georgia's definition of a forcible felony is any felony in which force is used or the threat of force is used. Just having a visible weapon in hand is sufficient. It doesn't have to be pointed at you. Once the gun was seen, the forcible felony would be ongoing as long as he was stealing the truck.
In fact, he could be running away with the pistol in hand and still be committing a forcible felony under Georgia law. You have witnessed him committing a felony. You have witnessed him with a pistol. A felon in possession of a firearm is committing a felony. A weapon in hand is a threat during the commission of that felony, thus making it a forcible felony.
This is somewhat tongue-in-cheek here folks. I'm not an attorney. It does seem to be a reasonable interpretation of the relevant statutes, though.
Apparently, the Philadelphia police don't think they have a case against Mr. Newton. He hasn't been charged from all reports. From what I've heard of the Philadelphia city government's attitude towards legal carry, if they thought they could make a charge stick, they'd make one. Maybe the police know more about the applicable Pennsylvania laws than we do.
Georgia's definition of a forcible felony is any felony in which force is used or the threat of force is used. Just having a visible weapon in hand is sufficient. It doesn't have to be pointed at you. Once the gun was seen, the forcible felony would be ongoing as long as he was stealing the truck.
In fact, he could be running away with the pistol in hand and still be committing a forcible felony under Georgia law. You have witnessed him committing a felony. You have witnessed him with a pistol. A felon in possession of a firearm is committing a felony. A weapon in hand is a threat during the commission of that felony, thus making it a forcible felony.
This is somewhat tongue-in-cheek here folks. I'm not an attorney. It does seem to be a reasonable interpretation of the relevant statutes, though.
Apparently, the Philadelphia police don't think they have a case against Mr. Newton. He hasn't been charged from all reports. From what I've heard of the Philadelphia city government's attitude towards legal carry, if they thought they could make a charge stick, they'd make one. Maybe the police know more about the applicable Pennsylvania laws than we do.
TallPine
Member
anytime a violent criminal gets shot in the act of a crime then it is a good thing IMO
saves the cops and judges and jury and taxpayers a lot of time and trouble and expense
saves the cops and judges and jury and taxpayers a lot of time and trouble and expense
Carl N. Brown
Member
Father Knows Best has a point we all should be aware of:
the law on self defense can change from case to case as
they are adjudicated in your jurisdiction. I hate to admit
this, but I have not reviewed the most recent case results
on SD and it is wise to err on the side of caution.
the law on self defense can change from case to case as
they are adjudicated in your jurisdiction. I hate to admit
this, but I have not reviewed the most recent case results
on SD and it is wise to err on the side of caution.
I completely support Newton. I hope that if this is a 'gray area' borderline case in terms of it's strict legality, that they let Newton slide because of the "78 year old" factor, and then subsequently it becomes a legal precedence for future situations.
That said: Newton is actually quite lucky. If his bullets had missed or ricocheted and gone through someone's window (or worse, hit an innocent by-stander), of if Edney had passed out at the wheel from his gun shot wounds and had run over a pedestrian on his way to driving himself to the hospital, this would be a totally different case.
That said: Newton is actually quite lucky. If his bullets had missed or ricocheted and gone through someone's window (or worse, hit an innocent by-stander), of if Edney had passed out at the wheel from his gun shot wounds and had run over a pedestrian on his way to driving himself to the hospital, this would be a totally different case.
Mannlicher
Member
its a sad, sad thing, when anyone will question the 'legality' of an old man to defend himself, when he was accosted at gun point, threatened, and robbed.
Posture all you want, and pontificate to your hearts content. Gramps did the right thing morally and legally.
Posture all you want, and pontificate to your hearts content. Gramps did the right thing morally and legally.
Mannlicher
Member
its a sad, sad thing, when folks will question the 'legality' of an old man to defend himself, when he was accosted at gun point, threatened, and robbed.
Posture all you want, and pontificate to your hearts content. Gramps did the right thing morally and legally.
We sometimes get High Road, and High Horse confused...................
Posture all you want, and pontificate to your hearts content. Gramps did the right thing morally and legally.
We sometimes get High Road, and High Horse confused...................
The carjacker had a CCW permit....
You guys just better get used to stories like this. As CCW becomes more popular, it is inevitable that the wrong kind of person will get a permit. A background check sometimes only means that the person hasn't been caught yet. People who shouldn't have them get top secret clearances and are admitted into various programs having to do with nuclear weapons. No background investigation is perfect.
A CCW permit is not a guarantee that someone is an exlemplary citizen. All it means is that when the person applied for the permit, he/she had no criminal record.
If anyone was to do a study they would probably find that CCW holders commit crimes in about the same proportion as other segments of the population that undergo a criminal background check, bus drivers, day care workers, teachers, school support staff. The key is to keep the anti's from using cases like this to make the requirements for a CCW permit so invasive that no one applies.
Jeff
You guys just better get used to stories like this. As CCW becomes more popular, it is inevitable that the wrong kind of person will get a permit. A background check sometimes only means that the person hasn't been caught yet. People who shouldn't have them get top secret clearances and are admitted into various programs having to do with nuclear weapons. No background investigation is perfect.
A CCW permit is not a guarantee that someone is an exlemplary citizen. All it means is that when the person applied for the permit, he/she had no criminal record.
If anyone was to do a study they would probably find that CCW holders commit crimes in about the same proportion as other segments of the population that undergo a criminal background check, bus drivers, day care workers, teachers, school support staff. The key is to keep the anti's from using cases like this to make the requirements for a CCW permit so invasive that no one applies.
Jeff
The texas dPs has some conviction statistics showing that people with active concealed handgun licenses are far less likely to run into legal problems than the general population.
you can bring it up here if you have adobe:
http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/chlsindex.htm
However, you are totally right in that some real wing-dings occasionally receive licenses and keep them for a while. A penchant for alchohol related behavior sticks out more once you have a license and a bigh number of our revocations come from DWI convictions. We had on active psychotic here who committed a string of offenses before his license was yanked.
you can bring it up here if you have adobe:
http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/chlsindex.htm
However, you are totally right in that some real wing-dings occasionally receive licenses and keep them for a while. A penchant for alchohol related behavior sticks out more once you have a license and a bigh number of our revocations come from DWI convictions. We had on active psychotic here who committed a string of offenses before his license was yanked.
Aguila Blanca
Member
That's the approximate colour of my complexion when tripped up by a typo.
I meant to write "non-res," as in non-resident. I have now repaired my statement. Sorry for the confusion.
mec,
I'm aware of the DPS statistics, but the comparison was with other segments of the population who also undergo criminal background checks like school bus drivers and day care workers. I don't know anyone who keeps such statistics but I'd bet the numbers are similar. A CCW holder wants to keep a clean record to keep his permit and school bus drivers and daycare workers need to keep a clean record to keep their employment.
The danger is that every incident will be more ammunition for the antis to make CCWs harder to get. look at where we've gone with background checks for people who work with children. Everytime someone slips through the system, bills are introduced to add more restrictions on who can have that job and what kind of background check they must pass.
The gun culture has lived for years with a smug attitude that CCW automatically meant good, upstanding citizen. As it gets more popular, that's not going to be a universal truth (it never was). We need to prepare for this when it happens or we may lose what we've gained.
Jeff
I'm aware of the DPS statistics, but the comparison was with other segments of the population who also undergo criminal background checks like school bus drivers and day care workers. I don't know anyone who keeps such statistics but I'd bet the numbers are similar. A CCW holder wants to keep a clean record to keep his permit and school bus drivers and daycare workers need to keep a clean record to keep their employment.
The danger is that every incident will be more ammunition for the antis to make CCWs harder to get. look at where we've gone with background checks for people who work with children. Everytime someone slips through the system, bills are introduced to add more restrictions on who can have that job and what kind of background check they must pass.
The gun culture has lived for years with a smug attitude that CCW automatically meant good, upstanding citizen. As it gets more popular, that's not going to be a universal truth (it never was). We need to prepare for this when it happens or we may lose what we've gained.
Jeff
Justifiable in my book. At the very most you could argue Manslaughter. Definately not murder since it was done in the heat of passion(and a passion initiated by anothers attack on him at that).
As far as I'm concerned though, the agressor had a gun(ability) and he was committing a violent felony(intent). So that first shot, when the threat was an arm's length away, was completely justified.
Then once the guy was ten, twenty, fifty feet away; already shot, presumably quite angry at being shot, and still driving(not incapacitated), he was infinitely more likely to turn around and seek revenge.
Basically, when a man's life is threatened war is waged, and as such, he may wage war in return. It is not just to limit him at the agressor's border. He has the right to fight to the capital, and he may claim the other country as his own.
As far as I'm concerned though, the agressor had a gun(ability) and he was committing a violent felony(intent). So that first shot, when the threat was an arm's length away, was completely justified.
Then once the guy was ten, twenty, fifty feet away; already shot, presumably quite angry at being shot, and still driving(not incapacitated), he was infinitely more likely to turn around and seek revenge.
Basically, when a man's life is threatened war is waged, and as such, he may wage war in return. It is not just to limit him at the agressor's border. He has the right to fight to the capital, and he may claim the other country as his own.
tuckerdog1
Member
If the PA authorities want to give Newton grief, he can offer to leave the state & move down here to TX. He'd be more than welcome here.
Tuckerdog1
Tuckerdog1
Geez what a bunch of whiners about rules of engagement. Newton was being robbed at gun point. He had every right to shoot the perp until he wasn't a threat. He really needs some range time to make better shot placement. Any DA or civil attorney that hassles Newton over this needs castrated.
MudPuppy
Member
If the old man was instead a cop in a patrol car and the car-jacker did exactly the same, would not the police man fired at the perp?
I say it's a good shoot--if the laws say otherwise, the laws are wrong. This whole pandering to the sensitivities and rights of gun wielding crimminals disgusts me. The biggest problems with our current society is we've somehow ended up where people think they can do what they want and violate laws and as long as they try and skate within the legal mumbo jumbo and loopholes they can cry time-out when things go wrong.
This ought to be the norm rather than the exception. That is, you might get away with pulling a gun and car-jacking someone, but you're probably going to get shot.
I say it's a good shoot--if the laws say otherwise, the laws are wrong. This whole pandering to the sensitivities and rights of gun wielding crimminals disgusts me. The biggest problems with our current society is we've somehow ended up where people think they can do what they want and violate laws and as long as they try and skate within the legal mumbo jumbo and loopholes they can cry time-out when things go wrong.
This ought to be the norm rather than the exception. That is, you might get away with pulling a gun and car-jacking someone, but you're probably going to get shot.
stevelyn
Member
Mannlicher +1.
The old guy was threatened with deadly force and robbed. Good shoot legally and morally.
The only thing he is guilty of is poor shot placement in a situation which unfortunately allows the BG to still suck in free air instead of getting dirt shoveled on him.
The old guy was threatened with deadly force and robbed. Good shoot legally and morally.
The only thing he is guilty of is poor shot placement in a situation which unfortunately allows the BG to still suck in free air instead of getting dirt shoveled on him.
joab
Member
As the story is written I can't see legal justification.
But from the facts that may not have been mentioned in the article the DA obviously did find justification.
I will defer to his Monday morning quarterbacking skills
But from the facts that may not have been mentioned in the article the DA obviously did find justification.
I will defer to his Monday morning quarterbacking skills
HankB
Member
I'm trying to find the reference, but I remember reading that civilian CHL holders have a lower arrest rate than sworn police officers in some departments. (NOLA comes to mind.)
- Status