Man arrested after shooting escaping car jacker

Status
Not open for further replies.
J

Jeff White

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 24, 2002
Messages
37,985
Location
Alma Illinois
That pesky provision in the law that requires you to be able to articulate that you were in fear of imminent death or great bodily harm has once again reared up and grabbed a gun owner....

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/ne...0C4BEA8683BAB5C8862572EC00142964?OpenDocument
Late-night truck fracas leaves one dead
By Bill Bryan
ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH
05/31/2007

St. Louis — A man accused of stealing a truck and the man he is accused of stealing it from both may face murder charges in the death of a third man accused of being an accomplice in what started out as a simple crime.

The theft victim opened fire on the third man's car late Tuesday night, fatally wounding him.

The shots narrowly missed two other occupants — one of them a small child.

Police sought warrants against the shooter, saying he was not acting to protect himself, and against a man they say is responsible for the death because it occurred during his commission of a felony.

The city circuit attorney's office requested further investigation Wednesday before deciding on charges.

The names of those two men were not released. The dead man was identified as Morio Claiborne, 23, of the 3400 block of Illinois Avenue.

Police gave this account:

Claiborne, driving a car with a male friend, a woman and a child, stopped for gas about 11:45 p.m. at a service station at South Grand Boulevard and Blaine Avenue.

About the same time, two men drove up and left a pickup truck running as they walked to the service window. Claiborne's male passenger seized the opportunity and drove off in the truck, with Claiborne following in the car.

The theft victim fired four shots at the car, wounding Claiborne, who was able to drive to St. Louis University Hospital before passing out. He died at 3:15 a.m. Wednesday.

Nobody else was hurt.

Police said the case was further confused when the shooter's mother reported the pickup stolen. Police later determined that he had called her to make the report because he was not authorized on the vehicle's lease.

Officials said the man who drove off in the pickup was arrested after members of Claiborne's family located him and held him for police.

[email protected] | 314-340-8950
Click to expand...

More details in yesterday's story:
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/ne...A0AF18BA0FF9EAAA862572EB003C1619?OpenDocument
City truck theft spurs fatal shot
By Harry Levins
ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH
05/30/2007

A driver left his pickup truck running late Tuesday when he got out to pay for his gas he had just pumped. The truck proved to be a temptation that led to a fatal shooting.

It happened shortly about 11:45 p.m. at a BP station in the 1500 block of South Grand Boulevard near Interstate 44, in the city's Tiffany neighborhood.

The driver and a companion left the pickup running as they went to pay. The truck caught the attention of two other men standing at the station, one of whom got into the pickup and the other into a white Hyundai.

The truck pulled away, followed by the Hyundai. The two men who had arrived in the pickup chased it and the Hyundai on foot onto Grand, where one of the men fired shots at the Hyundai. A round struck the driver in the back. He drove a short way before striking a parked vehicle. He was pronounced dead in a hospital at 3:15 a.m.

Police identified the shooting victim as Morio Claiborne, 23, of the 3400 block of Illinois Avenue.

Police say they have found the stolen pickup truck and taken a suspect into custody.

So far, police say, authorities have issued no warrants.
Click to expand...

KMOX Radio had this story on it's website today:
http://www.kmox.com/content_page.php?contentType=4&contentId=557439

This report is slightly more positive then the newspaper report, but it still doesn't look good for the guy who shot the fleeing bandit. He's probably going to be out many thousands of dollars to get probation and loss of RKBA forever.

Jeff
 
Yeah, this is "grand theft auto" (no, not the game silly) versus "carjacking" and not a reason to shoot under the laws of most states.

I would like to SEE it made legal, as to me property theft is morally no different from slavery - either way you're stealing a man's labor. But, the way our laws read, this wasn't a clean shoot.
 
Several big problems here:
1) He was NOT in fear for his life by any stretch of the imagination.
2) He was not a CCW permitholder, and as such should not have had a firearm on his person.
3) What kind of an idiot leaves their car running and unattended in the City of St. Louis? That's a special kind of stupid right there...
4) The person he shot was NOT the thief. He shot the driver of the car the thief exited. Even if you believe you should be able to shoot in defense of property, you need to target the thief, and not somebody else entirely.

There's no possible way I can see this guy as a victim of unfortunate laws. He's nothing more than an idiot and a criminal.
 
Technosavant,
Do you know for sure that he wasn't a CCW permit holder? The reason I ask, is that I heard a newscast on KMOX yesterday that said he was. There has been no mention of a permit since then, so I don't know.

Jeff
 
As politically incorrect as it may be, and very unhighroad of me,I would also be willing to shoot someone over stealing a major piece of my property. While I would try not to, and also try to minimize the situation as much as possible etc so I would not have to. In the end I would shoot.


Theft of property is theft of part of my life that I worked to get that property. Remove some of that property and I will have problems making my living.

I wonder what the odds of conviction are if this goes to trial? I doubt if they are very good if the shooter has even a decent lawyer.
 
Depends on the jury. We call them "jury dice" for a reason.

Around here juries are not sympathetic to alleged thieves and figure it is some sort of Cosmic Justice. Don't know about a death though and how that would impact any Cosmic Justice calculation.

Years ago (maybe '96) I prosecuted a case where a record store employee cracked a shoplifter over the melon with a baseball bat. Jury convicted and told me that the thief had it coming but was glad he was all healed up now.
 
Theft of property is theft of part of my life that I worked to get that property. Remove some of that property and I will have problems making my living.
Click to expand...

Won't you have a hard time making a living while serving a life sentence?

I think the chances of this guy being convicted of murder are very high, if the story we know so far is accurate. Shooting a thief who is fleeing and poses no threat to you is plain and simply murder.
 
Anyone shooting a criminal while said criminal is in the middle of committing a crime, should be given an award. Not a murder charge.

No. I don't give a fig what laws legislators have passed that interferes with an individuals Right to his property and life. They are as criminal in my eyes as the carjacker...
 
Around the 2002-2003 time frame a trucking company owner caught three people stealing anhydrous ammonia from a tank parked in his business. He chased them off at gun point and shot two of them as they were fleeing. No one was killed and no charges were filed against him. The states attorney wanted to send a message about the theft of anhydrous ammonia. It helped that the thieves were not local and had no family in the area to put pressure on him to file charges and I doubt the trucking company owner would have walked away clean if he had killed one or both of the thieves.

Community standards often have a lot to do with if these cases are prosecuted or not. That's just another thing you're gambling on if you shoot at someone fleeing from a crime.

Jeff
 
First thing I noticed:
The truck proved to be a temptation that led to a fatal shooting.
Click to expand...
-so, I guess the thief was really the victim?

Otherwise, sounds from afar like a bad shoot. Chase the bg's away and get a good description.
 
Technosavant,
Do you know for sure that he wasn't a CCW permit holder? The reason I ask, is that I heard a newscast on KMOX yesterday that said he was. There has been no mention of a permit since then, so I don't know.
Click to expand...

News article from KSDK shows Chief Mokwa (STL Chief of Police) saying that the shooter did NOT have a CCW permit.

http://www.ksdk.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=120674

Mokwa said the gunman did not have a permit.

"He had no permit to carry a firearm. And obviously (he) had no responsible reason to shoot an individual that may have been in an automobile with the actual thief, but it doesn't justify shooting and killing him," said Mokwa.

Mokwa said even if the pickup owner had a conceal and carry permit, he would still likely be charged with murder because the driver of the Hyundai did not put his life in danger.
Click to expand...

No permit. No justification. Even under MO's new Castle Doctrine bill (not yet signed by the governor, even then not in effect until Aug. 28th, applies to home and vehicle), he still would have to show legitimate fear for his life. No report I have yet seen shows he had any. If he was in fear for his life from the thief, why shoot the accomplice instead?

This guy is going to go to jail, and that is a good thing.
 
Thanks for the update. I think it's a good thing he's going to jail too although criminal defense attorney Don Wolf stated on KMOX that he saw the shooter getting probation. Even with probation you've got a felony conviction and that's a lifetime loss of RKBA not to mention the cost of hiring an attorney good enough to get you probation.

Jeff
 
Just to clarify something: in SOME states, had this been an actual carjacking (robbery of the car by force, esp. armed force) then shooting him as he fled may have been justifiable. In some states, those who commit a violent felony right in front of you are subject to being shot on sight, basically.

Under the circumstances in this case, only in Texas and then only at night might this have been justifiable. Even then it'd be a stretch as the guy shot wasn't the thief. For all the shooter knew, some guy had picked up a hitchhiker who got out and stole the truck :(.
 
The class on self defense required for a Tennessee handgun
carry permit emphases that a situation like this--a thief
escaping with stolen property--is not an imminent threat of
death or bodily harm, and does not justify lethal force.
Even the old "hue and cry" of "Stop! Thief!" would justify
detaining a thief for arrest, not shooting at him.
 
In some states, those who commit a violent felony right in front of you are subject to being shot on sight, basically.
Click to expand...

What states and what violent felonies? Tennessee v. Garner is still the law of the land and shooting at felons will still be judged by that standard. Remember the law doesn't always mean what it says, it often means what the courts have ruled it to mean. An ancient state law might save you from criminal prosecution, but it certainly won't help you in the wrongful death suit that will inevitably follow.

Jeff
 
A quick search brought up this case on using deadly force to prevent the escape of a violent felon:
http://patc.com/weeklyarticles/escaping_felon.shtml
Deadly Force to Prevent the Escape of a Violent Felon
By Jack Ryan

Most discussions on law enforcement’s use of deadly force focuses on those circumstances where an officer is faced with an imminent threat of serious bodily harm or death to him or herself or some third party who is present at the scene of some law enforcement event. Little time is usually spent on discussing when an officer may use deadly force to prevent a suspect’s escape. A recent case, Mason v. Horan 2003 WL 22000316 (9th Cir. 2003) from the United States Court of Appeal for the 9th Circuit reiterated the rule announced in Tennessee v. Garner.

Danny Mason, the plaintiff in this case, filed suit after being shot during a pursuit with law enforcement officers. During the pursuit Mason had driven his truck in reverse straight toward a law enforcement officer causing the officer to jump out of the way and land in a cactus. Agent Horan of the DEA observed this apparent assault and fired at Mason as he drove away, attempting to flee. Mason, was charged with, and pled guilty to, assault on the agent with his motor vehicle.

The United States Court of Appeal for the 9th Circuit reviewed the trial court’s grant of qualified immunity for Agent Horan. The real question was whether an officer could prevent this type of escape by the use of deadly force. Secondly, if this use of force was not reasonable, then was the law clearly established that the use of deadly force under these circumstances sufficient to put an officer on notice that such a use would violate the Constitution.

In upholding the grant of qualified immunity, the court simply quoted the language from Tennessee v. Garner: “The standard for the use of deadly force against fleeing suspects was articulated by the Supreme Court in Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985). While noting that ‘the use of deadly force to prevent the escape of all felony suspects, whatever the circumstances, is constitutionally unreasonable,’ the Court held that ‘where the officer has probable cause to believe the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force.’ Thus, said the Court, ‘if the suspect threatens the officer with a weapon or there is probable cause to believe that he has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm, deadly force may be used to prevent escape’ and if warning has been given.”

The court concluded that Mason’s use of the vehicle in driving toward the other agent, gave Agent Horan the probable cause to believe that Mason had been involved in the type of violent felony contemplated by Garner and thus, his use of deadly force to prevent Mason’s escape was protected by qualified immunity.

Policy Considerations

Many deadly force policies from police agencies around the country more significantly restrict the use of deadly force as a means to prevent escape. A common theme in many policies prohibits the use of deadly force when officers are dealing with assaults by means of a motor vehicle. This case provides an example of a court’s current interpretation of the law as it relates to the constitutional use of deadly force. It is also an example of how agency policies are sometimes more restrictive than the law.

Best Practices would include a strict limitation on the use of deadly force to prevent escape to only those circumstances where the fleeing violent suspect poses a threat to others by his escape.
Click to expand...

Jeff
 
Isn't missouri a state that has the right of open carry without a permit?

Does missouri have a defense of property law like texas? where one CAN use deadly force in defense of property after nightfall?
 
OK, this has been said many times, but it bears repeating--from what I've heard, the famous Texas law that allows deadly force to prevent "criminal mischief" at night is full of holes and not something you want to bet the next few years of your life on. There are conditions your case has to meet before you can claim that defense.

Jeff posted a pretty thorough discussion of the issue here.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

D
  • Locked
(MO) Grocer foils robber in fatal holdup, police say
Replies
8
Views
920
Jim V
J
J
  • Locked
CCW Holder Charged with Murder
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
137
Views
6K
Art Eatman
A
T
  • Locked
Police rescue woman from kidnapper
Replies
3
Views
530
Malone LaVeigh
M
J
  • Locked
Driver is accused of running down girlfriend..
Replies
8
Views
488
TallPine
T
J
  • Locked
Four Killed in Shooting Spree
Replies
17
Views
1K
Jeff White
J
Back
Top