Man arrested after shooting escaping car jacker

Status
Not open for further replies.
The shots narrowly missed two other occupants — one of them a small child.

Police sought warrants against the shooter...
Click to expand...

Of course the media had to make sure to say the VICTIM endangered kids with gunfire and then immediately refer to him as "the shooter." This is just another attempt by a biased media to vilify a gun owning VICTIM and turn him into the criminal in the eyes of readers even before they presented the facts of the story to the readers. :cuss: :fire: :banghead:
 
In VA the thief/carjacker would be charged with every thing.
They have this great little law where the perp of a crime is held accountable for every thing that happens as a result of their criminal actions or atemped actions.
Say in VA if some one broke into my house and I shot at them, missed and the bullet went through the wall and hit my car. The burgler would be charged with damaging my car too.
In VA they throw the book, all the time every, chance they get.
 
In Texas, if you catch someone in the act of stealing your property you have the legal right to stop the thief. This includes the use of deadly force. It happened about a year ago and the D.A. refused to file charges because the shooting was legal. (Personally, I wouldn’t take on the emotional baggage of killing someone over my property but that’s me. I carry VERY good insurance.)

That being said, this shoot (as described in the article) wouldn’t fly. Unless I misread this, the theft victim shot the friend of the thief, not the actual thief. There is no way on earth for the shooter to know if the friend was involved. The friend might have just decided to ‘get the heck out of Dodge’ after his buddy stole the truck. It would appear that he killed an innocent party as well as recklessly endangering the woman and child.
 
I think a lot of the replies have missed the point here. The man who was shot and killed did not commit a crime. He had no means of harming the shooter, (he was driving away), and there was no imminent threat to the safety of the shooter.

Maybe the law is different there, but in my opinion the shooter is in big trouble. This is not a justifiable shoot and leaves honest law abiding gun carriers in a bad light.
 
Folks, you're not reading the article. 748, the car thief WAS charged with his friend's death. Didn't save the shooter.
 
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?
Click to expand...

1) Yes, but it can be preempted by localities. I can't quote chapter and verse, but I'm positive that St. Louis City isn't one of the places where open carry is illegal.

2) NO.

Also, the news (KTVI Channel 2) described the shooter as being 19 years old. Unless it is a C&R handgun, there is at least a class A misdemeanor involved in that person even being in the possession of that weapon (due to the soon to be repealed permit to acquire).

Zen21Tao, I don't get where you figure this shooter was a victim.
1) He was not a lawful firearm owner- I can't figure a scenario where a 19 year old without a CCW permit even enters into that definition under current law.
2) He did NOT fire at a person who was a threat to his life. Nobody was driving a car at him- this is shots fired in vengeance, not defense.
3) There was a child in that car. St. Louis police have very restrictive policies on firing on motor vehicles as a result of firing on a car with kids inside. The shooter probably didn't know there was a child in there, but at no point was that Hyundai or anybody inside a valid target. Indeed, it can even be argued that the people in that car were all completely innocent (can you guarantee that the thief said "hey, I'm gonna steal that truck" or did he say "I need a Coke... let me out here"?). The only people who committed for-sure felonies are the car thief and the shooter, both of whom are currently alive and well. Those shots came darn close to where that kid was sitting (video was shown in the news report).
4) It wasn't even his truck. Apparently (according to the KSDK report I linked earlier), it was a LEASED vehicle. Leased to his mother (his name wasn't on it). Call me uninformed, but I believe leases require full-coverage insurance.

So, he shot to protect a few hundred bucks of insurance deductible. That's pretty far from being a poster child for the RKBA community. Often we wonder why certain other communities hold up gang bangers, illegal immigrants, and other lawbreakers as models of virtuosity. Backing this punk is doing the exact same thing.
 
Today 06:42 PM
Don Gwinn Quote:
I think that where I live that would be legal but I am not sure.

Then I REALLY don't recommend that you try it out.
_________________________________________________________________________________
Well considering I don't carry then I probably wont try it but I am 99% sure that it is legal here in Wyoming
 
Does it seem like something is missing from the story?

I am trying to figure why the shooter shot the male in the car, it doesn't make any sense.

Do you suppose the male in the car brandished a gun or knife, could the cars driver have been trying to run him over or something!!? It just doesn't make any sense at all. :confused:
 
Actually, under Oklahoma law, the driver of the car would have been charged with a felony for using a vehicle to commit a felony ie driving his friend around cruising for vehicles to steal. Not an innocent. He shot at one of the parties involved in the theft of his ride.
 
Actually, under Oklahoma law, the driver of the car would have been charged with a felony for using a vehicle to commit a felony ie driving his friend around cruising for vehicles to steal. Not an innocent. He shot at one of the parties involved in the theft of his ride.
Click to expand...

That's assuming the occupants of the Hyundai KNEW the guy was looking for a vehicle to steal. Maybe they did, maybe they didn't. I highly doubt they would be able to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt. Even if so, it's not much of a reason to shoot somebody (especially if you aren't shooting the thief).
 
I am not sure savant. I am pretty sure if the service station had a camera and recorded him dropping the guy off, if he had not been shot, he would have likely been charged with a felony and accessory to a felony.

Know your passengers.
 
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.
Click to expand...
to my recollection, criminal mischief and theft of property are two seperate things. I'm pretty sure someone is not going to get away with shooting at a person who's bashing a mailbox, but if you're trying to steal my motorcycle, i'm not going to get charged with shooting you.
 
Lone_Gunman said:
To me it looks like this guy shot and murdered a fleeing car thief that was not posing a threat to the shooter's life.
Click to expand...
"Murder" generally involves premeditation and the intent to kill ... as opposed to an intent to stop or to wound.

I agree that the shooter was multiple stupid and it wasn't a good shoot, but I don't think his actions rise to the level of murder. Not unless you buy into the logic of a prosecuting attorney in another case I read about awhile back, who argued to the judge that "Premeditation can occur in an instant."
 
How long has Missouri had cc? He seems like some boy just itchin to try out his new found machoism.
Click to expand...

About 3 years. However, he had no permit and reports indicated he was an age that would not have been issued one anyway (19). Seems more like some young thug.
 
There is a reason....

for taking the keys out of your car when you are not in it........In Texas you cannot shoot someone for stealing your car in the day time, but you can at night.......chris3
 
"Murder" generally involves premeditation and the intent to kill ... as opposed to an intent to stop or to wound.
Click to expand...

Not second degree murder. While first degree murder requires both premeditation and malice, second degree murder only requires malice, not premeditation.

If the shooter fired at the thieves out of anger but without premeditation, he could be prosecuted just as a crime of passion.

However, Murder 2 may be hard to prosecute given that the shooter can always say he wasn't firing out of anger he was shooting at a tire go stop his vehicle and tragically missed.

This would be a much easier manslaughter case for a sa/da.
 
Sounds more like he shot a car thief than a car jacker, I can see that getting him less sympathy.

Shooting a thief who is fleeing and poses no threat to you is plain and simply murder.
Click to expand...
The generally accepted thinking it is only acceptable to shoot in defense of your life, in most states its the law too. While it may not be self defense I can see the case for people who are saying its justified. If I live in a low income area where there is more crime and someone is stealing my car that I have liability insurance on, the theft of my car might very well cause me to lose my job and potentially not be able to feed or provide shelter for myself and my family. The same goes over theft of tools. I'm not saying I'd shoot someone over material goods, but I can see why someone might feel like they needed to and I probably won't be feeling too bad for the thief either.

I personally think don't shoot unless your life is in danger and you have absolutely no other options, but I can see the case for shooting thieves.
 
As much as I would love to shoot someone stealing my truck I have insurance for a reason and I'd rather spend the rest of my life with my family.


On a second note, if the individual actually stopped me while I was in my truck, had a weapon on me, then I would shoot to kill. There is a big difference, in one scenario my life is in danger in the other it is not.
 
If BOTH the thief and the shooter are being charged with the SAME murder of the third guy, isnt that double-jeopardy and thus unconstitutional?
 
Sad that a man needs a permit to be able to defend himself. Perhaps we should rally around this man and help push the idea of Vermont carry in Missouri.
Click to expand...

Tecumseh, please tell me you're kidding. Please.

Haven't you read any of my posts? Rallying around this guy is like the Muslim community rallying around Richard Reid. MO has one of the best permits in the US. No, it isn't Vermont or Alaska style carry, but it is recognized VERY widely. I'll say it again: this kid is nothing more than a thug. I'm sure we can find a better poster child than somebody who:
1) Carries illegally
2) Shoots at those who are NOT immediate threats
3) Shoots in defense of property that isn't his anyway.
 
Am I missing something? This guy didn't shoot the thief.
He shot the driver of a car the thief jumped out of.

That's just plain wrong-headed, ineffective and negligent.

I challenge anyone to show me statute or case law that allows the shooting of a fleeing non-participatory accessory to a property crime.

Now, I am not saying that the dead guy was pure as the driven snow, or that he had no idea his rider had a felonious predisposition.

I am saying that it takes a lot gall to justify shooting people who are driving around with a bad apple.
 
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
529
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