(FL) Man Shoots Alleged Thief In Head With Shotgun

[Drizzt]

Man Shoots Alleged Thief In Head With Shotgun, Police Say
Boy Tried To Steal Car, Avila Says

Posted: 7:01 a.m. EST February 24, 2003
Updated: 8:16 a.m. EST February 24, 2003

MIRAMAR, Fla. -- A Miramar man claims his life was in danger when he shot a 13-year-old boy he says was stealing his car.
That teenager, Anthony Campbell, is in critical condition with a shotgun wound to the head. Alejandro Avila claims he saw Campbell back his Saturn out of his driveway. Avila then said he grabbed his shotgun, and when he ran out to the street, Campbell turned the car toward him. That's when Avila said he fired.

Campbell's mother, Tina Jones, thinks Avila overreacted.

"They trying to say that my son deserved what he got. I told him there's no justify cause his back was turned when he shot him. He ran in his house and got that gun. He had a chance to think what he did," said Jones.

Jones says her son has been in trouble in the past but nothing like stealing a car. So far there's no word on whether Avila will face charges in the shooting. If Campbell survives, he'll be charged with grand theft and battery charges.

http://www.click10.com/mia/news/stories/news-199893520030224-060210.html

 

[Chaz]

Does not look good for him. This ain't Texas!

On the other hand a 13 year old stealing a car???

Where were the parents?

 

[tetchaje1]

If Campbell survives, he'll be charged with grand theft and battery charges.

This is the crux of the situation. The fact that the boy is going to be charged with these things if he survives states that there is reasonable suspicion that he was trying to assault the homeowner.

If the man did not shoot until the kid tried to run him over, then I think it would be a righteous shoot. After all, we have all learned from the media in recent weeks about what happens to a man when a person (in that case, his estranged wife) runs them over with a car.

 

[El Tejon]

Too bad Mr. Avila is not a federal agent. That "tried to run me over with car" defense works every time (if your a fed) for Problem #2.

 

[Cal4D4]

Works form local PD also. Remember the video of the officer who put one leg in front of a car that was stopped getting off freeway after a chase? As the driver crabbed the wheels to avoid him at 1-2 mph the officer emptied his service pistol into the drivers chest. Driver lived and shooting ruled proper.

 

[Kharn]

Jones says her son has been in trouble in the past but nothing like stealing a car.

There's a first time for everything, lady.

Kharn

 

[Standing Wolf]

Jones says her son has been in trouble in the past but nothing like stealing a car.

She was supposed to say he's a good boy who's never caused any trouble to anyone, and anyway, it's society's fault.

 

[DeltaElite]

It doesn't sound good for the car owner.

I'm sure the lead catcher was a good kid who was pushed too far by an unjust society.

 

[Gary H]

A bad kid gone. Family must be crushed. Car owner might just have bad dreams the rest of his life. It was only a car..probably insured. I'm not saying that I think that the owner should go to jail, but I am saying that he may live to regret that split second decision (anger???).

 

[tetchaje1]

I forgot to offer the caveat that I would obviously disagree with the shoot if the homeowner did so out of anger or just "trying to get his car back". A human life, no matter how trashy, isn't worth an insured lump of metal.

 

[DadOfThree]

He ran in his house and got that gun. He had a chance to think what he did," said Jones.

I guess the kid had no time to think about STEALING this guy's car before he found himself inside and the car driving away with him in it. :banghead:

 

[Oleg Volk]

A bad kid gone. Family must be crushed. Car owner might just have bad dreams the rest of his life. It was only a car..probably insured. I'm not saying that I think that the owner should go to jail, but I am saying that he may live to regret that split second decision (anger???).

Either that, or he'll give it as much thought as others do to eradicating a rat in the pantry. People who are being victimized don't, as a rule, feel bad about injuring or killing their tormentors.

This brings up an interesting practical question: if his vehicle was being driven away, could he have pockmarked the trunk with shot and called the cops with a request to look for a vehicle of such-and-such year/make/color/license plate and with distinctive marks on the back?

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Contrary to the mother and commonly to popular opinion, there are no laws about shooting somebody in the back. Additionally, a person can still be a threat to you even with their back turned to you.

tetchaje1, man you are SO correct. There isn't a car around for which a human life is worth sacrificing. Too bad the kid did not reason that through before risking his life for that hunk of metal. The problem is, when people break the law like that, they somehow think the fault is with the property owner and not the bad guy. And, maybe in Florida that may be somewhat legally true, but as we know, laws don't actually protect you in a given circumstance. The kid still attempted to take what was not his from someone who was willing to defend the property. Darwin lives.

As for the mother's statements concerning her boy's character, what she neglected to say is that he had never been caught doing something as serious as stealing a car. Just because her boy had never been caught doesn't mean he hasn't been engaged in such activities.

Hey, send the kid to Iraq and let them chop off his hands for stealing and then maybe he will better understand what it means to steal and his mother will concur that her son got what he deserved.

 

[NewShooter78]

I agree that no car is worth a human life, but that's should be the price a criminal is willing to pay. If criminals knew that they had no recource in court against their victims, a few of them might think twice about what they are doing. Especially if they knew that they were putting their lives on the line to do it.

 

[TallPine]

They used to hang people for horse stealing. The theory was supposed to be that stealing a man's horse put him afoot and in danger for his life.

So a horse is worth more than a man's life but a car ain't ...?

An "an insured lump of metal" - well, mine ain't insured against theft, only liability. It's not worth it when they are over ten years old.

 

[Dennis]

No car is worth a human life... Hmmm.

How about the act of stealing the car? The "value" there is not just the car but the portion of the owner's life which he spent earning the money to buy the car.

Guess the dumb "wage slave" should have just stolen it.?.?

By the way, before unfounded accusations are made, I don't believe I'd shoot someone for the simple theft of my car--it's old and needs replacing anyway!

But I do not agree that the only justification for deadly force is the "imminent threat of serious bodily injury or death." There are other occasions where the PERCEIVED risk of like dangers are adequate cause for the use of deadly force.

Let's remember that the decision-making process is initiated by the Bad Guy (not his victim) when he (the Bad Guy) decides to commit the crime. That's something the whimpering, bed-wetting hand-wringers too often maliciously choose to ignore.

God bless Texas!

 

[Carlos Cabeza]

At thirteen years old, nothing would have happened to the kid anyway. He would have been given a light/reduced sentence and at eighteen been cleared of any wrongdoing. Kids of today know this and do not believe anything will happen to them. It is this kid's parents fault, and they should be held responsible. The kid is probably from a broken home and has zero parental guidance, sense of responsibility or respect for himself or others. There is no deterent action to prevent kids from having second thoughts about breaking the law. The owner of the car should not have endangered his own life by confronting the kid.

 

[El Tejon]

Dennis, the BG's "assumption of the risk" plays a large part in the Problem #2 evaluation process for all concerned.

I keep flashing back to another Florida shooting where a guy ran out of his house and shot an alleged car thief. A summary of the trial was on PrimeTime or one of those shows. Same city?

 

[FPrice]

I had my car stolen from me on my 36th birthday. I know better than most just what a pain this can be.

It may sound cold-hearted but I think the kid got what was coming to him.

I am curious to know if there was any way the owner could have known that the kid was a kid, such as the kid wearing a big sign that said "I am a 13 year-old kid and this is the FIRST time I have ever done this so don't do anything to me.".

 

[Blackhawk]

"They trying to say that my son deserved what he got. I told him there's no justify cause his back was turned when he shot him. He ran in his house and got that gun. He had a chance to think what he did," said Jones.

Sooner or later, we all get what we deserve.

The thief also had a chance to think before he stole the car plus he had a chance to stop, get out, and put his hands up when he saw Avila.

Why do thieves and their mothers always seem to claim they're exempt from being required to think...?

 

[Selfdfenz]

Don't know what the "facts" of this will turn out to be but given the mother's statement....

"They trying to say that my son deserved what he got. I told him there's no justify cause his back was turned when he shot him. He ran in his house and got that gun. He had a chance to think what he did," said Jones. "

.....this kid?, gangsta?, whatever, had nothing going for him at home and if he lives that situation will not change. As best Ms. Jones can articulate the issues....it's all the fault of some other person.

BTW....if the thief had run down the car owner or some other person escaping from the Police......I assume it would be THEIR fault. "No justify" for blaming anything on her baby!.

S-