Man Sentenced to 9 mos for Shooting Car Prowler

[Cosmoline]

The guy made his first mistake in going out on the street with the gun. He made his second mistake in shooting it.

I see nothing wrong with going out, armed, to confront people who are breaking into your house/car/whatever. When they ran off, he was successful. End of engagement, call 911. The rifle is there to protect your life from criminals. That's legitimate. And it worked fine here.

The problem came when he decided to SHOOT the guy who was running off with his subwoofer.

 

[hardluk1]

ncpatrolar You might want to talk to your da or even better call the department of justice as i just did and get your info corrected so a leo is not putting out pore info in the public. More than one gun could be construed is ilegal-depends on the da.. Any weapon carried open can also be (going armed to the terror of the people) also open to the da to screw your day, just add scared person. And that covers guns, tazzers, battons, and most non standard pocket knives like any knive on hip covered or not. Under a CC side of these nothing other than a gun a small pocket knive and spray, again a second gun can leave you at the da's judgement. Go to ncdoj .com or .gov and look around the 35 some odd pages for starters and make your notes and call for your own knowlage. It is a 2007 issue but it is current. I can carry spray but even that is subject to problems ,the jails are going to be spray less be the end of the year just because of allergy issues with inmates.

 

[rainbowbob]

The much bandied about statement he was shot running away? who said this? the shooter did not, he said the thief lifted an object he could describe (sub woofer) to the side of his head, now a movement after that one, other hand dropping to waist, threat! eye focus moves from perceived threat to sights, person turns (1/2 second) trigger press, head now facing other way, hence bullet impact to the back of head.

Old Grump provides a good description of how a "fleeing" thief could present what appeared to be daedly threat and STILL get shot in the back of the head.

In addition to that, we don't have the forensic description of what part of the back of the head, the angle of entry, etc.

It is easy for me to envision how this could have happened - back of the head and all - and still been a genuine self-defense shooting.

I'm not saying it was, because we don't have enough information to make any definitive statement on that.

If it was me - and if I really had been in fear for my life - I don't believe I would have plead guilty.

 

[Kleanbore]

I see nothing wrong with going out, armed, to confront people who are breaking into your house/car/whatever. When they ran off, he was successful. End of engagement, call 911. The rifle is there to protect your life from criminals. That's legitimate. And it worked fine here.

Where I live I cannot lawfully do so...with a rifle. I cannot exhibit a weapon in a threatening manner except in lawful self defense and I cannot carry openly.

I could go out with my concealed weapon and would not do so without it, but my real concern has to do with the physical risk. The airline mechanic in Houston who lost his arm had a shotgun and he lost to only two guys, one of whom had a knife. I just think it's wiser to stay inside. That's in the case of an urban or suburban setting. In a rural area one would have different things to consider.

In this case the guy took after five crooks with a bolt action rifle. Even Alvin York chose a .45!

I don't think it "worked fine here" though, but perhaps you jest. "When they ran off he was successful?" Heck, they had his subwoofer and I doubt they intended to stay around with it. And look what it got him.

 

[NCPatrolAR]

ncpatrolar You might want to talk to your da or even better call the department of justice as i just did and get your info corrected so a leo is not putting out pore info in the public. More than one gun could be construed is ilegal-depends on the da.. Any weapon carried open can also be (going armed to the terror of the people) also open to the da to screw your day, just add scared person. And that covers guns, tazzers, battons, and most non standard pocket knives like any knive on hip covered or not. Under a CC side of these nothing other than a gun a small pocket knive and spray, again a second gun can leave you at the da's judgement. Go to ncdoj .com or .gov and look around the 35 some odd pages for starters and make your notes and call for your own knowlage. It is a 2007 issue but it is current. I can carry spray but even that is subject to problems ,the jails are going to be spray less be the end of the year just because of allergy issues with inmates.

I don't need to talk to the DA or the DOJ again. I know my answers are correct. Thanks though

 

[Zoogster]

If he had kneecapped the bad guy, he would have got off with a slap on the wrist. A head shot? Bad judgement.

If possible all shots will be below the waist unless he has a gun aimed at me. Then head shot. Imagine what a load of buckshot or birdshot would do to a knee. The perp would pay for the rest of his life even if he is not convicted. He also wouldn't be able to run away the next time.

Unlikely, intentionally aiming to wound is used as evidence against the shooter that they were not in fear of thier life.
The outcome for the shot criminal may not be as bad, but the ability to even argue that the shooter felt they needed to put the threat down immediately due to fear for thier safety is removed. Someone hit in the leg can still shoot back, so why would you be shooting for the leg if you felt you were in danger of being shot?
The answer is that you shot them in the leg because you were not in fear of being shot, hence it was even less likely to be self-defense than in this specific case.

There are a couple of problems with this type of shooting first. One is that you don't know what is going to come back at this guy from the other people who are friends or family of the guy he killed. I think he should move far away. I have no sympathy for people who steal, or commit any crime, but death for stealing a speaker while running away, is taking self defense out of the realm of common sense. The second is not all of his friends and family are going to like what he did.

This is not at all unheard of. If the family of the hurt individual live in the same area, likely have the address and other information through court proceedings of the shooter, and clearly know where the shooting took place (next to his home), they have many chances of seeing the shooter in the future accidentally or tracking them down intentionally.
Family are almost never likely to agree with the shooting of thier loved one, even when it is clear self defense. They are arguing from an emotional point of view. When it was an action clearly felt to have been an overreaction by the majority, thier sense of the shooter's wrongdoing will be even greater and encouraged through others.
There is certainly a percentage of family or friends that will then choose to take matters into thier own hands, against the very guy now prohibited by law from having a firearm for life.
Some of them will have sat in the court room watching the person who shot thier loved one, clearly able to identify them at any point in the future.
There is even people who may be entirely willing to throw thier life away to get revenge for a loved one. Not caring about the consequences as long as they can hurt or kill the person who harmed the loved one.
Friends or gang members also may seek revenge.
The legal system is unable to protect anyone who uses lethal force from such retaliatory actions, but it may be able to punish those responsible for them after the fact.

 

[Kleanbore]

If it was me - and if I really had been in fear for my life - I don't believe I would have plead guilty.

Whether you were or were not in fear would not really affect the outcome. The issue is whether you would be able to present evidence that would indicate that you had reason to believe that you were in imminent danger ("A, O, and J"), that you had no choice other than deadly force ("P", though retreat is not required in WA). If a jury decided, based on that evidence, that a "reasonable person" would have done the same thing, great. Otherwise you are out of luck.

The man's decision to plead guilty was obviously made on the advice of his attorney, weighing the chance of acquittal vs. conviction and the chance of a much more severe sentence.

I think one can reasonably conclude that the attorney did not feel that they had a very good case and that a guilty plea was the wiser choice.

 

[Cosmoline]

I don't think it "worked fine here" though, but perhaps you jest. "When they ran off he was successful?" Heck, they had his subwoofer and I doubt they intended to stay around with it. And look what it got him.

It drove them off, which is a win. That's the goal. Not to arrest, not to shoot, but to drive off. If they manage to carry off something that's yours that's unfortunate but it's a matter for the police.

Obviously if the state absolutely forbids open carry like Texas does then the fellow has no real choice--he can't go outside but must remain a prisoner until they're finished taking what they want. It's an idiotic law.

In this case the guy took after five crooks with a bolt action rifle. Even Alvin York chose a .45!

I'm not Alvin York. I'll take a Mosin over a sidearm any day.

The answer is that you shot them in the leg because you were not in fear of being shot, hence it was even less likely to be self-defense than in this specific case.

Exactly. Shooting to wound is a horrible idea. Besides which a bullet in the leg, hip or whatever is still highly deadly.

 

[coppermouse]

Shooting a guy in the back of the head with a rifle from a balcony does not remotely resemble self defense which is the only justification for shooting somebody. He is lucky he got off as easy as he did.

 

[miket]

I see nothing wrong with going out, armed, to confront people who are breaking into your house/car/whatever. When they ran off, he was successful. End of engagement, call 911. The rifle is there to protect your life from criminals. That's legitimate. And it worked fine here.

Yeah, nice way to get popped with a threatening/brandishing a firearm charge there, sport.

 

[Zoogster]

The man's decision to plead guilty was obviously made on the advice of his attorney, weighing the chance of acquittal vs. conviction and the chance of a much more severe sentence.

This seems likely to me as well, and makes it even more likely that the guy did in fact shoot the guy from behind simply out of anger.

For killing someone illegally he received an almost unheard of sentence. Even police officers found guilty of killing someone after raiding the wrong house often get more time than that.

He was on a balcony with a rifle shooting at someone getting away with his property.
That he has such a massive subwoofer in his car also paints an image of the type of individual this likely was.
What type of individual typically wants that much bass coming from thier vehicle?
Probably not a saint themselves. What type of history may they have had which could be brought up during a trial?

Certainly it proves nothing, but there is certainly a stereotype of the people that drive down the road with enough bass to rattle the cars around them, often playing some sort of rap music.
Did the shooter fit such a stereotype? The shooter using one of the cheapest and most affordable firearms available, living in an apartment complex high in crime, who spends his likely limited resources on massive bass systems?
Probably.
Would that stereotype have hurt him in such a case? Very likely.


So he got off with a felony record and 9 months, most of which sounds like it will just be a work program if he actually was shooting just to punish the thief.
If he really was in fear of his life, well unfortunately he is now a lifetime felon.
That he did get such a low or practically non existent sentence tells me he had some facts on his side. But for whatever reason, perhaps the stereotype he fits, perhaps some past or history we are unaware of, combined with the case, they decided to plead.

 

[miket]

That he has such a massive subwoofer in his car also paints an image of the type of individual this likely was.
What type of individual typically wants that much bass coming from thier vehicle?
Probably not a saint themselves.

Way to profile there... PLENTY of people appreciate high end automotive audio systems. Not just the gangbangers, you racist SOB.

 

[Zoogster]

Way to profile there... PLENTY of people appreciate high end automotive audio systems. Not just the gangbangers, you racist SOB.

I never said anything about race.
Rather someone with limited resources living in a low income apartment complex, who has one of the cheapest firearms for sale that exists as home defense (a bolt action rifle at that), who chooses to prioritize his vehicle's sound system.

They could be of any race, but it sounds like a person that prioritizes other people being able to hear thier music as they drive down the road over almost everything else. Someone who may fit the stereotype of someone who is most concerned about appearance rather than substance.

This was not someone with a lot of resources who also happened to have an expensive sound system. This is someone that prioritized that one aspect of thier life while living in a low income area.

Sounds an awful lot like a hip hop culture that prioritizes appearance, bling, and expensive cars, even at the expense of living conditions and other things (like the firearm used for self defense.)

That does not mean the guy is at all at fault. But it gives some insight into the person who may have thier entire life's history dissected in a court room. Would that history and appearance hurt or help thier case?

 

[Hoxviii]

Old Grump provides a good description of how a "fleeing" thief could present what appeared to be daedly threat and STILL get shot in the back of the head.

In addition to that, we don't have the forensic description of what part of the back of the head, the angle of entry, etc.

It is easy for me to envision how this could have happened - back of the head and all - and still been a genuine self-defense shooting.

I'm not saying it was, because we don't have enough information to make any definitive statement on that.

If it was me - and if I really had been in fear for my life - I don't believe I would have plead guilty.

I was thinking the same thing. perp could have known the guy was there, turned to taunt, look, whatever, shooter sees move to waist band, lifts rifle, perp goes "OH $#!^", spins right as trigger drops. Voila, shot to back that would have started as self defense.

None of us have the forensics report, we don't know the ranges involved, just way too much speculation to know what happened. but saying shot to back cannot equal self defense is just short sighted.

 

[rainbowbob]

I never said anything about race...Rather someone with limited resources living in a low income apartment complex...This is someone that prioritized that one aspect of their life while living in a low income area.

Sounds an awful lot like a hip hop culture that prioritizes appearance, bling, and expensive cars, even at the expense of living conditions and other things (like the firearm used for self defense.)

I love it when these threads careen off into wild unsupported speculation.

First of all...as stated in my OP - this occurred a mile from my home. It is NOT a "low income apartment complex" as Zoogster stated as though it were fact.

We have no idea what kind of music the shooter listens to on his sub-woofer - and of course it is entirely irrelevant. To characterize him as someone that "...prioritizes appearance, bling, and expensive cars, even at the expense of living conditions.." is just plain silly.

 

[batjka]

The shooter was only 20 years old. Skinny white kid. Probably couldn't afford anything more expensive than a Mosin. Although he did afford a sound system in the car. Well, at 20 people's priorities are a little screwed up.

 

[miket]

First of all...as stated in my OP - this occurred a mile from my home. It is NOT a "low income apartment complex" as Zoogster stated as though it were fact.

Yup, racist SOB, that Zoogster guy... Again...

 

[MM60]

ConstitutionCowboy #112 - "It isn't about the subwoofer or a candy bar or a loaf of bread. It's about the act of stealing."
I totally agree with this statement. The fact of the matter is that people who steal things for personal gain really are worthless, as are rapists, pedofiles, drug dealers, etc. It is a shame that there are laws to protect them, because most of society really would appreciate it if we were permitted to permanently rid the nation of their presence. (Note: I made a point of writing "for personal gain" to exclude the acts of stealing information and supplies from the "Imperial" forces to be used by the "Alliance." Death to the New World Order!)

John Wayne #116 - "Or, since he had a Mosin, he could have just shot the engine block of the getaway car. Then the police wouldn't have had to look as hard."
I think this would have been a great course of action. Does anybody know whether or not there could be any legal repercussions for shooting criminals' vehicles to prevent their getaway (assuming nobody was injured or killed in the process)?

Gym #125 - "What happened to, the punishment should fit the crime."
This would be wise for judges and jurors to consider when sentencing a criminal. For example, instead of sending a thief to prison for stealing, he should just have his hand cut off and then be set free. He would probably never steal anything again. If he did, he would have his other hand cut off. Now he would probably not even be able to steal if he still wanted to, but if he managed to do it a third time - he would have his head cut off and that would be the end of the criminal. I would think that this sort of thing would only have to make the news once or twice before crime dropped rapidly nationwide.

 

[miket]

Does anybody know whether or not there could be any legal repercussions for shooting criminals' vehicles to prevent their getaway (assuming nobody was injured or killed in the process)?

Yes, many things. Starting with reckless endangerment involving the use of a firearm, brandishing, destruction of private property (I know, but it's true and HAS happened), discharging a firearm within city limits, etc...

 

[MM60]

Thanks for your response, Miket, but I was thinking more along these lines:
-You effectively disable the vehicle
-No people are injured or killed
-The criminals are captured by police
Would the criminals, who had just stolen property of some sort, be able to press charges against you and succeed? Or would the damage to their vehicle be considered justified in preventing their escape from the crime scene?

 

[divemedic]

Yup, racist SOB, that Zoogster guy... Again...

He said nothing about race, and to be fair I went to the website of the paper that produced the article, and the original article did say that the area has a gang related crime problem.

Thanks for your response, Miket, but I was thinking more along these lines:
-You effectively disable the vehicle
-No people are injured or killed
-The criminals are captured by police
Would the criminals, who had just stolen property of some sort, be able to press charges against you and succeed? Or would the damage to their vehicle be considered justified in preventing their escape from the crime scene?

Discharging a firearm into an occupied vehicle is still a crime.

 

[gym]

MM60 if you really believe that nonsense you should move to Iran,or Iraq that's why we are fighting to liberate countries that cut off your hands if you steal. It's nice to see that you just set us back a couple hundred years with your scholarly legal views. Pull back the troops and let them go back to biblical ways of restoring order. Kids fall in with bad crowds when they are in their teens and early twentys, that's no excuse to go around shooting them. The guy was no threat, that's the bottom line. Now the guy has a real problem, he will be looking over his shoulder the rest of his life. And he put his entire family at risk. If they are gang bangers, they will eventually get high one night and go back to his house. If he is smart he will leave town before it happens. You never know who knows who in this world, until you start shooting people over something as stupid as a speaker. And please spare me the part about the "act itself", it was a speaker period. Really a dumb move.

 

[miket]

Would the criminals, who had just stolen property of some sort, be able to press charges against you and succeed?

Dude, criminals (and/or their families) have successfully pressed charges, sued, etc from injuring themselves in a break in or getting shot in the process and WON. ANYTHING is possible.

 

[Zoogster]

We have no idea what kind of music the shooter listens to on his sub-woofer - and of course it is entirely irrelevant. To characterize him as someone that "...prioritizes appearance, bling, and expensive cars, even at the expense of living conditions.." is just plain silly.

I was basing it merely on the information provided, after looking up the very apartment complex on satellite images. The rent there does seem some of the lowest for that area. It is noted for having some gang culture in the vicinity in the report.
So it appears to be someone with very little income choosing to prioritize other people hearing him on the road.
He uses one of the cheapest firearms on the market, with surplus mosins being a fine gun, but certainly not the best thing for home defense. Combined with his age and living circumstances it leads me to believe price point was the criteria.
So he didn't just get a nice stereo system because he could, that was a major priority he intentionally used his limited income for.
I don't care who you are, inside your own vehicle you can only make use of something so loud. The primary purpose of such a massive bass system is for the effect on other people outside of the vehicle.
Hence appearance. Certain sub-cultures in our society prize that appearance.

Yup, racist SOB, that Zoogster guy... Again...

Having lived in many places around the nation there is a stereotype of someone who fits all these criteria. Him being a white 20 year old certainly does not change that stereotype or mean he does not fit it. It has nothing to do with race, even though the sub-culture may be more prominent amongst some ethnicities. It is a well identified sub-culture which is 'coincidentally' involved in a lot of the violent crime in the nation.
I do not know why race is so prominently on your mind.



Of course it doesn't mean he does belong to it either. It is merely speculation with only the limited information available. I was speculating on possible reasons and motivations for the decision to plea bargain, and speculating as to why the sentence was low.

Someone who felt they could beat the case would probably not plea bargain. So why did they not feel they could beat it?
Someone who could certainly and easily be convicted would not result in a prosecutor giving such a drastically low sentence in a plea bargain.
So it leads me to believe he had enough facts on his side to make it a difficult prosecution, but that he ultimately had a good chance of conviction and if convicted certainly would have received more than 9 months of a work sentence.
So they went with the plea, 'benefiting' both sides. He got almost no time instead of many years, and the prosecution got a conviction for a serious violent crime, manslaughter.

 

[MM60]

Gym #148...
"you should move to Iran,or Iraq that's why we are fighting to liberate countries that cut off your hands if you steal. It's nice to see that you just set us back a couple hundred years with your scholarly legal views. Pull back the troops and let them go back to biblical ways of restoring order."

I don't know of any law in the Bible that mandates cutting off hands for stealing. The law of the Old Testament states that, if a person steals from another, they must pay back the original worth of what they stole, plus several fold more. I just figured that cutting off a hand would get peoples' attention a lot faster than requiring them to pay back their victim. I don't know what you think is scholarly about that. Also, we are not in the Middle East to liberate anyone. The U.S. is in the Middle East because the U.S. belongs to the U.N., and the Islamic nations are an obstacle to world government.

"Kids fall in with bad crowds when they are in their teens and early twentys, that's no excuse to go around shooting them."

There's no excuse for "falling in with bad crowds." Some people are just bad, and in a more perfect world - such a person commiting a crime would merit shots being fired in his direction without consequence.

"And please spare me the part about the "act itself", it was a speaker period."

It wasn't his speaker to take, period. Stealing should involve being shot at and killed if possible. It would be one less scumbag in the world. If the man in the article had shot and killed all five of the criminals as they were fleeing, and I was the judge in his trial, I would have thrown out the case.