Lafayette Man Arrested for Firing AK-47

[Geronimo45]

Good thing he didn't kill anybody (criminal or not), they'd probably put his head on the chopping block for using 'an automatic weapon spraying fire from the hip'.

 

[BlackBearME]

I don't necessarily disagree with the arrest - after all, you're responsible for every bullet that comes out that muzzle. If you fall, you twist and protect the rifle. That's just my take, though.

What gets me is the headline - before you read the story, it makes you think someone was shooting an AK at a range and got arrested for it. He wasn't arrested "for firing an AK" he was arrested because stray bullets went into someone else's property. Now, whether the rifle being an AK had something to do with the severity of the charges...that's another story.

 

[jakemccoy]

What's funny is that if Pitre had said the first shot was intentional like the other shots, he'd be in the clear.

How do you guys feel about that one?

 

[Zoogster]

What's funny is that if Pitre had said the first shot was intentional like the other shots, he'd be in the clear.

How do you guys feel about that one?

This is true, and why people who think they know the law, but really don't should just shut up until they have a lawyer.

That one shot fired because he tripped and fell, a story that likely came directly from him, was not fired in defense of his life, and was therefore criminal negligence.

The same goes if he was using a handgun, and in the gunfight of his life with rounds going back and forth. A round fired in defense of his life that damaged the house would not have been as serious. That same round fired by accident because he fell is a more serious crime.

Most people would not realize that. They would think the rounds they were shooting at a person actualy trying to hit and stop someone require more accountability than the round fired because he tripped which damaged some property.
The law is a funny thing sometimes. Shut up until you have a good lawyer. The minor things could have serious consequences even if the major ones are judged in your favor.

It is obvious in this thread most people are focused on whether he was in the clear to keep shooting at the men or not. They are judging the major events, whether they were justified etc Yet the most clear thing he did without other witnesses, and his own statements as witness against himself is fire the gun damaging another person's property on accident.
Whether he was still in danger after running the truck down, whether they fired more rounds at him at that point etc would be a big argument and is not a clear case for a prosecutor.
That he fired a round not in defense of his life, by accident through a confession of his own, and that round then caused serious property damage (felony if over certain dollar amount) is a more clear case of negligence with the firearm.

 

[jakemccoy]

Zoogster,

Lol...this is the Internet, dude. Take the stake out of your ass.

You think your opinion is more important than it really is. It's funny when dudes like you have to flex on others over a simple one-liner.

Nobody really cares, Matlock.

-Jake

P.S. I've been practicing law for eight years and am well paid.

 

[LawBot5000]

If you're going to use a gun for home defense, you should equip the gun for night shooting. At the very least, glowing iron sights. Better yet would be an EOTECH. A laser works fine for night also. Flashlights are also cheap.

I have a laser on my saiga-12 and a red dot and flashlight on my AK. I don't think I would miss with either, even at 100 yards, though with the saiga I would probably hit other stuff as well.

 

[Zoogster]

jakemccoy you obviously didn't read the post right. I was in agreement with you. Saying someone just involved in a shooting should "shut up" not you.

Whether you misunderstood or not, your comments are not very high road.

 

[El Tejon]

Good lessons here for those at THR who think they somehow can "spray bullets" in defense of their property (only on the Internet):

1. The Four Rules will save your life in more than one way.

2. You will be held responsible for every bullet. There is a lawyer attached to every bullet you send downrange.

3. If it's property, let it go. You cannot shoot someone over property, and, no, Skippy, you don't live in Tejas or live in a Western.

 

[jakemccoy]

Zoogster,

My apologies, you're right. I went off half-cocked...lol (at myself).

-Jake

 

[Sage of Seattle]

Pitre says" as I opened the door I heard what sounded like five or six shots. That's when I fell to the floor and my rifle accidentally went off and hit another apartment."

*sigh*

You have the right to remain silent! Use it!

 

[eatont9999]

If I see some one smashing my car up outside my house, can I open fire on them, provided I do not hit any one innocent? It would be protecting my property, but not necessarily my life. Would they have to be brandishing a firearm?

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

if it only went off once by accident how did he hit neighbors house more than once? story fails sniff test

 

[Zoogster]

If I see some one smashing my car up outside my house, can I open fire on them, provided I do not hit any one innocent? It would be protecting my property, but not necessarily my life. Would they have to be brandishing a firearm?

No eatont9999, especialy not in MA.

Different states have different rights, opening fire on someone over property is usualy not okay, Texas has some exceptions.
Your right to use a firearm against a criminal is to protect yourself or someone else's life, not your car.

However if you went out to stop someone involved in a crime while armed yourself as a precation, and they then attacked you or pulled a weapon on you, you could defend yourself in more places.
If you saw them with a weapon, were not in danger, and then grabbed your gun and went out to shoot them though because you could say they had a weapon, that would be murder. Going out of your home while not in immediate danger with the intent to punish them with bullets for the crime is murder.

In MA even going outside with a loaded rifle or even legaly concealed handgun to confront people involved in a property crime would likely result in bad legal consequences for you if shots were fired. You would be viewed as the lone nutcase, or a vigilante, unless of course you were an off duty officer, then those same actions could be okay.
MA would be a very bad place to expect legal sympathy for what is viewed by public opinion as unncessary use of a firearm (even if you placed yourself in a situation where it did become necessary.)



In some states however going outside to confront someone destroying or damaging your property and being armed as a precation is less likely to get you thrown to the vultures. Going outside and intentionaly entering a conflict in order to harm another human being is almost universaly unacceptable (with exceptions in Texas) but going outside to stop a crime in progress (not to use deadly force or shoot at them) and then being forced to defend yourself is sometimes okay.

It really depends where you live, the legal venue (not just state, but what part of the state) that would try and evaluate your actions, and your prosecutor and laws.
A jury of your peers in MA is very different from a jury of your peers in parts of the south.

All of us have a right to stop a crime in progress being commited against us or our property. That right does not justify the use of lethal force though unless our life or someone else's is placed in immediate danger.
It goes a step further. If you placed yourself in a situation that you were then forced to use lethal force your actions are going to be more thoroughly judged than if the situation came to you.
Which means a good shoot against a group of thugs which attacked you (lets say unarmed for example) could be judged a bad shoot if you put yourself in that situation to stop a property crime in progress.

 

[Cosmoline]

There's an odor to the whole thing. I suspect he was arrested because the cops don't believe there *were* any thieves. In other words they think the whole story was an invention to cover up an ND.

 

[jakemccoy]

^but 26 spent shell casings and lots of stray bullets into nearby apartments???

I guess Pitre must be a top notch fabricator.

 

[gripper]

I used to keep a 16 inch SKS for a housE gun;along with a Ruger 10-22 in other settings(butler creek 25 rounders and mini mag hp's). In the conditions I was living under they suited me well. That said;if you do not train/practice....range conditions are not particularly stressful. Add the stress of an honest tp goodness bad situation and not much will go right.

 

[MudPuppy]

lol, so what he trips and ND's one off into "somewhere"...then panics and thinks, oh crap, I know--ROBBERS.
BLAM. BLAM. BLAM.

Oooh, wait....lots of robbers!

BLAM. BLAM. BLAM. BLAM. BLAM. BLAM.

Oh, and then they ran!

BLAM. BLAM. BLAM. BLAM. BLAM. BLAM. BLAM. BLAM. BLAM. BLAM. BLAM. BLAM.

rofl

 

[Line Rider]

Jake,

I'm a LEO in Alabama. Yes, I think that a LEO who fired 26 round at fleeing suspect would face termination from the department, criminal and civil charges. Why? LEO are held to a higher standard, because of their training than Joe Citizen.

 

[Halo is for Kids]

So I imagine myself taking my dog out at 4am for an early shift. So I'm out in the yard and the puppys doin her scouting and BLAM... BLAMBLAMBLAMBLAMBLAMBLAMBLAMBLAMBLAM

Then some car speeds by and chasing him down the road is a guy on foot with a rifle, blasting away. What would I think?

I'd be po'ed if he had a good reason (fwiw I can't think of one). When I found out he was chasing down some rim thieves :banghead: I'd be concerned that I live so close to a wreckless dumba$$.

This guy doesn't sound like he fits the profile of a "Reasonably Prudent Person"

 

[quatin]

I would think his neighbors would be more concerned that those stray rounds could have hit someone.

 

[akodo]

It is a very interesting dichotomy we have here at THR. On one hand you the group of people that literally come unhinged if they are "swept" by a gun in a locked case.

On the other hand; a fella "accidentally" shoots the neighbors house at a time when folks are most likely in it and people here say " put some putty on it and it's all good"

Interesting point. However, I believe BOTH. See, the difference is in one the person is simply being careless because they are just not attentive enough, the second, the person is attempting to save their own life.

My life is more valuable to me than my neighbor's life.

My property is not more valuable to me than my neighbor's life, or even the burglar's life.


But let's go back to the car analogy for a minute. Everything you do in life can potentially harm another person. If I was shot, and bleeding, and already in my car with no cellphone, I would try and drive to a hospital or a place where I could call an ambulance or othewise get help. I would drive as faster than the posted speed limit. Doing this would increase the likelyness of me getting in an accident and harming someone. However, that chance is still very small, and my life is in grave danger. In the same way, a shot that misses, or a wild shot, has a very very very low chance of actually hitting anyone. Now, even a small chance must be avoided EXCEPT WHEN YOU LIFE IS ON THE LINE. That is why shooting in the air is not an acceptable way of celebrating newyears, it isn't even an acceptable way of scaring off a burglar. However, a shot that goes wild in the middle of a gunfight for your life, that is acceptable.


However, I am really suprised that the guy didn't get in trouble for the shots he fired as the people were fleeing. I guess he could argue that once they started shooting at him once, there was no way of knowing if they were fleeing or were going to turn around and start shooting again. However, it also makes me wonder if maybe he isn't telling exactly the whole truth. Maybe even at the time of the first shot they were turing tail to run

 

[Zoogster]

If I was shot, and bleeding, and already in my car with no cellphone, I would try and drive to a hospital or a place where I could call an ambulance or othewise get help. I would drive as faster than the posted speed limit. Doing this would increase the likelyness of me getting in an accident and harming someone. However, that chance is still very small, and my life is in grave danger.

Actualy that chance is very high. You see what happens when you lose enough blood is you become unconscious often suddenly and unexpectedly, even when still a ways away from death.
What is going to happen with someone who is driving very fast, and is speeding well above the speed limit by your reasoning becomes unconscious?

They are going to crash, and a more severe crash than normal due to higher than normal speeds, as well as being unconscious and unable to react or apply the brakes at all prior pretty much insuring additional injuries and likelihood of death especialy considering thier already weak state, as well as potentialy cause the death of others.

However since your point is that your life is simply more important to you I won't dwell on those other people.
Instead I will highlight that you are in fact even more likely to die if you crash having already sustained serious injuries and blood loss previously than if you had been taken by someone else, whether emergency personel or another citizen.

I am not suggesting you not try to live, just thought it worth mentioning.

 

[OMGWTFBBQ]

I think he pretty well crossed the line from simply defending himself to being reckless, and should face some sort of hassle/punishment to discourage future dangerous behavior. IMO, give the guy a couple months of probation and a few dozen hours of community service and call 'er done.

I dunno about the rest of you, but I'd have some pretty strong words for anyone who peppered my house with small arms fire over a set of rims .

 

[b.thomas]

It's one thing to defend yourself when someone breaks in you house but just start popping off rounds for a couple of hub caps is just plan stupid!
If I had a neighbor do that I'd be inclined to put my foot up his azz.
I'm damn sure I don't want a stay round going thru a wall and killing my wife and kids.:banghead:

 

[Geno]

When I say that we bought a brick home for this very reason, some people think I'm joking. I am not. While a brick wall may not stop a .50 BMG, it is very effective against most other calibers.

All I can say about the underlying issues is:

1) train consistently
2) keep the finger off the trigger
3) buy a shotgun