Impulsiveness = Jail time, even well intentioned

Status
Not open for further replies.

Dnaltrop

Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2010
Messages
1,538
Location
Portland, Oregon
Always be aware of your target, and what might be beyond it...


GRESHAM, Ore. -- A man who was trying to be a Good Samaritan was arrested Tuesday after police said he fired his gun twice at a getaway car used by robbers.

Gresham police said two robbers stole about $2,800 worth of cell phones from the AT&T store on NW Division St. near NW Eastman Pkwy. at around 7:45 p.m. As the robbers were driving away, a customer inside the store stepped out, pulled out a gun, and fired two rounds at the car, aiming for the tires, according to Sgt. Rick Wilson.

Sgt. Wilson said Roger Witter, 48, had a concealed weapons permit but he was at fault for firing the shots in a public area, even though no one was injured in the shooting.
Wilson said Witter fired in the direction of a TriMet bus stop while trying to stop the robbers.

The robbers escaped and police arrested Witter on several charges, including unlawful use of a weapon and reckless endangerment. He was released from the Multnomah County Jail overnight on his own recognizance.

"By Witter's own admission, he never felt that his life or anyone else's life was in danger," Sgt. Wilson said. "He was just trying to detain the suspects for police... It is important to remember that no matter how frustrated one may be with crime and the criminal justice system, it is not permissible to use deadly force in this type of situation. Those two rounds could've gone anywhere... in fact, we're still not sure where they went."

Gresham police continue to look for the suspects. They're described as possibly being in their 20s, African-American, 5'10", 150 lbs., skinny, and possibly driving a silver Chrysler car, possibly a 4-door Sebring. They were both wearing blue jeans and hoody-type jackets.

Police believe the suspects are also responsible for another AT&T store robbery at Mall 205 in Portland, which occurred about 30 minutes prior to the robbery in Gresham. An AT&T representative said in a statement that the company is taking the matter very seriously and employees are cooperating with law enforcement

http://www.kgw.com/news/local/Man-arrested-after-shooting-at-robbers-94897679.html

Edit _ More from another local source Added, pared down to the newer bits.

Wednesday morning, a gun lobbyist said he realized that Witter was trying to do the right thing but didn't show good judgment.

"I understand the person's frustration," said gun lobbyist Kevin Starrett, with the Oregon Firearms Federation, a pro-firearms group. "I can understand his desire to be helpful. But it was not the thing to do. You cant shoot someone's tires out; its just not TV."

The two suspects, who fled in a silver-colored Chrysler, remained at large this morning.

Both are described as 5-foot-10 to 5-foot-11 inches tall, and about 20 to 30 years of age.

One was wearing a gray and black horizontally striped hooded sweatshirt, blue jeans and white tennis shoes. The other was wearing a brown hooded sweatshirt, blue jeans and dark shoes. Their Chrsyler was last seen heading westbound on Northwest Division.

Witter, meanwhile, has been released from jail.

Reached at his Rockwood home this morning, Witter talked to The Oregonian.

"I'm not a cowboy," he said. "I'm not a hero. I was just doing what I always try to do: help."

http://www.oregonlive.com/gresham/index.ssf/2010/05/police_witness_to_iphone_theft.html
 
Last edited:
already Yanked...

On the morning broadcast one of the witnesses said he thought he heard the guy laughing as he was being stuffed into the Cruiser.

Something else to consider, if one of those rounds struck one of the fleeing robbers, he could be sued, jailed, and if the robber dies...
 
"By Witter's own admission, he never felt that his life or anyone else's life was in danger," Sgt. Wilson said. "He was just trying to detain the suspects for police... It is important to remember that no matter how frustrated one may be with crime and the criminal justice system, it is not permissible to use deadly force in this type of situation. Those two rounds could've gone anywhere... in fact, we're still not sure where they went."

Too many heroes out there who think they should be getting LEO pay.
 
I live in the Portland metro are where this guy was and the feedback on the local NorthwestFirearms forum is pretty unanimous. This guy is an idiot! Unfortunately there are anti 2A media and legislators out here who will try to use this incident to tar all CHL holders with the same brush.
 
The only thing we can do is put our best faces forward.

It does not matter one whit if we have 999,999 sober CCW holders singing in chorus in a televised event.. The news will find and replay the 1 guy who got drunk before they came and shoots himself in the leg.
 
When I heard about it and his CHL (which has been taken away) that ^ was my first thought. This isn't good for the CHL community at all. Guy must have slept through the use of force segment of his CHL class.
 
You don't shoot to stop people fleeing unless in their fleeing they are likely to kill or seriously injure someone.
 
if he wanted to shoot something he should have done it while they were still in the commission.


Stupid but I agree with the general principle that the "gentlemen" in the car needed shooting.


You folks should use those little smiley icons so we can be sure you're joking.


In case you're NOT joking...

I hope neither of you believes that you can (or should) shoot a thief unless they present an imminent threat to life or limb.

As frustrated as we all are by crime - we still don't allow summary executions for theft.
 
+1 vote for modernizing the Town Square Stocks.

Unusual, but as long as you don't let people throw rotten vegetables at them ... not too cruel.

Put it on a Cable access channel with Name and Crime hovering over their head, and a countdown timer till their release.

First timers only.
 
rainbowbob said:
I hope neither of you believes that you can (or should) shoot a thief unless they present an imminent threat to life or limb.
. . . he said, speaking of (presumably) Washington state law.


This isn't the case in all states.
 
+1 vote for modernizing the Town Square Stocks.

Hey, now THERE'S an idea! Put criminals in stocks on the town square, and have free Tazers and cattle prods for passersby to use on 'em if they wish.
 
You don't shoot to stop people fleeing unless in their fleeing they are likely to kill or seriously injure someone.

Texas CHL law appears to disagree with you...at least from the legal standpoint:

Protection of Third Person's Property

A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property of a third person if, under the circumstances as he reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.41 or 9.42 in using force or deadly force to protect his own land or property and:

(1) the actor reasonably believes the unlawful interference constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or criminal mischief to the tangible movable property; or

(2) the actor reasonably believes that:

(A) the third person has requested his protection of the land or property;

(B) he has a legal duty to protect the third person's land or property; or

(C) the third person whose land or property he uses force or deadly force to protect is the actor's spouse, parent, or child, resides with the actor, or is under the actor's care.​

(for reference, 9.41 and 9.42)

PC §9.41.

Protection of One's Own Property

(a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property.

(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, movable property by another is justified in using force against the other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession and:

(1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or

(2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using force, threat, or fraud against the actor.
PC §9.42.

Deadly Force to Protect Property

A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:

(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under

Section 9.41; and

(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or

(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and​

(3) he reasonably believes that:

(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or

(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.​

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/txchlaws.htm


Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but looks as though one can use force or deadly force to stop a burglary or to attempt to stop the criminals from fleeing. In Texas of course, not in Oregon.

I have no idea what Oregon's property protection and CHL laws are.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top