Why He’s Facing Up to 10 Years in Prison

Why He’s Facing Up to 10 Years in Prison

Why He’s Facing Up to 10 Years in Prison

This past week, several people forwarded me the story about the Washington state man who is facing up to 10 years in prison for shooting a thief who was stealing his car. In case you didn’t see the story, here’s a quick recap…

One morning, a gentleman starts his car in his driveway because he’s getting ready to take his wife to work. He runs back into the house to get something and leaves his car running in the driveway as many of us have done before.

When he comes back out of his house he sees a thief driving off with his car. He chases the car down the street and fires one round from his 9mm handgun at the thief. In a one in a million shot that he probably couldn’t do again, he hits the thief in the back of the head and kills him.

As I just mentioned, the car’s owner who took the shot has been charged with manslaughter and is facing up to 10 years in prison.

I hate hearing about these stories because although the car owner thought he might have been doing the right thing, he clearly has no idea what his state’s law is when it comes to the use of deadly force.

And understanding the use of deadly force is obviously one the first things you should do if you ever carry concealed. The fact is, when it comes to deadly force, Washington state law says you (the person) must be in immediate and imminent physical danger.

In other words…

Like the majority of states in this nation, you can use deadly force to protect life but not property. Clearly, when the owner of the car was chasing after his stolen vehicle he was not in any physical danger caused by the car thief and he should have immediately called the police instead of firing a round from his gun.

I do feel sorry for the car’s owner because I am sure he is a good family man and all around good person. But if I was called to be an expert witness in this case I would have to say this was a bad shooting and the shot should never have been taken.

That’s why if there is even the smallest amount of doubt in your mind as to what the deadly force laws are in your state, you should look them up right now. Simply Google “Virginia deadly force law” (or whatever state you live in) and one of the top choices should be the government website for your state.

Read over the deadly force law and if you don’t understand it, ask around or pay a lawyer for an hour of their time. As much as I dislike lawyers, if you have to spend $300 bucks so you feel comfortable with your understanding of the law, it would be money well spent in my opinion.

By the way, the owner of the car has set up a legal defense fund and is fighting his charges and it will be interesting to see the outcome of the case. But I pray all of us will study our state laws so we never have to find ourselves in his position.

  • Jimmy Mcdonnell

    Your article will save lives. This is extremely unfortunate for everyone involved. Thank you for the reminder!

  • art

    the person that committed the crime ( the one stealing the car ) should be charged not the person protecting his property

    • Stacy Green

      ummm, the one stealing the car is dead. Can’t file charges on a dead man. I carry concealed myself and hope, and I repeat hope, that I would only make the decision to use deadly force when it became an issue of life and/or death to me or a loved one….

  • Gregory Carver

    In the bad old days police could shoot fleeing felons but that was more than 40 years ago. This homeowner made a serious mistake and I’m sure he will pay for it. It’s just fine to shoot someone who is an eminent threat to you or someone else but unless the thief was trying to run down the owner, that won’t qualify. I would make the assumption that since he was hit in the back of the head, he wasn’t driving backward, using the mirror, and trying to run down the owner.

    • don russell

      u never aiim for the tire, it probably won’t puncture it, it wont stop the car, you probably wont hit it, it’s an ADMISSION that you weren’t under deadly threat, richochets and misses belong to YOU, no matter where they go or what they hit.

  • Vans40

    I believe, but am not positive, that Texas is the only State that allows the use of deadly force for property theft. That said, I wouldn’t shed any tears if other States adopted that rule of law (fat chance). You work hard all your life for the things you have and then have to stand by as someone takes them, with your only practical recourse to call 911. That’s being “civilized”?

    • tionico

      last I checked, believe it or not Calironia also provides that deadly force can be used to protect property. Of course, the rub there is GETTING a gun and the Mother May I slip allowing one to carry it in public. Crazy “does not compute” state of affairs, right?

      • DWBAMMO

        Oklahoma has the castle doc along with the stand your ground so deadly force is authorized for protection of property

        • BeGe1

          Castle doctrine and stand your ground have nothing to do with protection of property. They have to do with at what point you are considered in danger for your life. Some states say that the moment an invader has entered your home you can consider your life in danger (castle). Some states say that you do not have to have exhausted the option of retreat to still consider your life in danger (stand your ground). Neither of them mean that you can shoot a man that is running away after stealing your wallet (protection of property).

    • Mary

      Yes, that’s exactly being civilized, because as far as I know do not live in the cow-boy times of yore anymore. If you use a deadly weapon like a gun when you yourself are not in mortal danger and have other recourses, then you should use these other recourses first. The guy was no sheriff.

      • Vans40

        As a retired LEO let me point out that when seconds count the police are only minutes away. If you rely on the police to save you, you’ll wind up raped, robbed and/or murdered. Because bad guys know, in large part, they can thumb their noses at law-abiding citizens, sue them and the police we find ourselves in the position we’re in today. And by the way, exactly why aren’t WE the sheriff when it comes to our property and our belongings? Why are we sheep that have to cower?

        A few more sheriffs in town isn’t necessarily a bad thing.

        • Dootlebug

          Except this guy was in no danger of raped, or murdered. The guy would have gotten his car.
          The death penalty seems harsh for what appears to have been a non violent crime. I’m glad you’re off the streets kemosabe.

          • Vans40

            Hey bubba, when I was on the street (12 years in the ghetto, midnight crime patrol) I obeyed the law to the letter. That’s what I took an oath to do, tempered with common sense. After 12 years the end came when my partner was killed and I was hurt. What I want to do, what I believe should be done and what we can actually do are two different things. What we’re doing now isn’t working and hasn’t worked for quite some time.

          • MrWonderful

            Hey, the thief had no idea if the rightful owner of the car was rushing to get his wife to the hospital. Or was going to lose his job because he was going to necessarily be late again for work. Or was on his way to buy his winning lottery ticket.

            The thief apparently had no concern for whatever might happen to the owner as a direct result of his action.

            What IS the appropriate penalty for that kind of inconsideration? Death seems a bit extreme, but maybe its better to be safe than sorry.?

        • Mary

          Again, this guy was not in physical danger, that would have been a whole other matter. Now I agree that the law is not necessarily effective all the time, that’s the problem of our over-bureaucratic society; then again, if we were all starting to make our own laws and shoot at someone for a reason we deemed legitimate, well I am not sure it will work either… We all have slightly different representations of what’s good or bad, and that’s why it would be dangerous if we ALL played the sheriff. A few more sheriffs, why not, as long as they are trained and know how and when to use a gun. The point here is not really that the guy should not have acted at all when seeing his car stolen, that’s a normal reaction after all; the problem was the gun part. In the end, something should be done about the dysfunctions of the police system before everyone feels the need to make their own personal laws, and that in the end we live in anarchy (I know I’m going extreme here, but it’s to make my point).

          • Right=Right

            You should have the right to sit back and watch your things be stolen. I should have the right to make sure everyone knows that stealing my things comes with extreme risk. What if it’s not an automobile or other insured item? Then I should just take it on the chin and let some worthless-to-society thug have it? Or perhaps your suggestion is that I start carrying insurance on everything that I own? Funny how some people expect me to be inconvenienced and to spend more of my money in order to protect the lives and wellbeing of those whom volunteer to put those things in danger. Seems pretty backwards to me but, to each their own. The problem is, those on your “side of the aisle” have turned your beliefs into my problem.

          • Mary

            Well I believe that the items that are stolen are those relatively expensive, so usually they are ensured – I do hope you will not want to shoot at someone for stealing a lamp. I am not defending the stealer anyway, if that’s what you think, and really if the thief had broken into the house of the guy, the gun pulling would have been more legitimate. Of course, to each their own, but the gun seems to me a bit too much extreme, when you could have other means to make this “extreme risk” possible. If someone wants to kill you, then fine you can defend yourself on the same grounds. But if the aim is not to kill you, whatever big the thing stolen, then use other means. There are plenty of other weapons that don’t have such a fatal consequence after all, but still allow you to defend yourself and your stuff (and are still very deterrent). Stuff are stuff, in the end, but someone’s life (anyone’s life) is not as easily replaceable. I’m sorry to hear that wanting the fewest deaths possible is your problem.

          • Freedom Fighter

            You have a rude awakening one day Mary!

            With your kind of thinking, your more than likely going to end up as a victim in a horrible crime scene! I hope and prey I’m wrong but you better wake up and realize that their are evil people in this world that care 0% about you and most don’t want any witnesses around when they come in to steal your lamps, property etc…….Wake up and get into reality Mary!

            I have been in law enforcement and I have seen and heard it all!

          • BeGe1

            When you become a criminal, you are the one deciding your life is worthless and putting it at risk. It’s not the guy that pulled the gun on you that made that decision, it was you.

      • mal

        Awesome. I’ll be sure to break in to your house and ask you kindly to leave.

    • Freedom Fighter

      I also live in Texas and I have zero tolerance for thieves period!

      So do not come into my yard or home looking for property to steal because your going to leave in a body bag.

      Now don’t get me wrong, I would call 911 just as soon as I’m done shooting them because I do need them to remove the body from my property!

      • hurricane

        call for a ”bus”

  • Alan Longnecker

    Hunh. In Las Vegas the cops shot a fleeing 17-year-old handcuffed suspect in the back a couple of years ago. It’s perfectly OK if you’re a police officer.

    • Freedom Fighter

      But it’s ok if your a Vegas cop, they are corrupt like our government!

  • ACitizen

    The Times They ARE A Changin!! They used to hang horse thieves regularly as an expedient norm. But we have become a police state, with the rights and behaviors of the citizenry restricted and overly scrutinized (often without cause!) – But the excessive use of Force (sometimes deadly) by law-enforcement personnel is now a national norm. JM2C

    • Dootlebug

      In the days horse thieves were hanged, loosing your horse meant being stranded in the wilderness, and very possibly dying. Loosing your car today means missing a day of work and filling out some forms.

  • ksbgreyowl

    Jason, as someone who advocates conceal carry you would encourage that everyone who carries has spoken with a lawyer at least once before they need them.
    This article is not designed to save lives, but to point out what can happen to those who are ignorant of their local laws; this is more of an awareness issue.

    • Jim Sloey

      I would encourage them to take the NRA PPIH or PPOH classes or similar training. Some states (Florida,Arizona and others) require a class that includes legal use as a part before granting a permit.

      • AZSDFT

        Jim, that is no longer the case in Arizona. In as much as I love the idea that I don’t have to have a permit to carry concealed IN the State of Arizona, the NEW requirement for a CCW is “Minnimum of a 1 hour Hunter Safety Course”. There is no requirement for any “Law training” or even range time to show that you know how to handle a firearm. Wish that wasn’t the case though…..
        By the way this discus crap to sign is bullshit. I have had to “join twice because they keep changing shit and it’s a pain in the ass.
        AZSDFT

  • Mark Marshall

    I hate reading about people doing exactly what they’ve seen on TV and having no idea it’s completely wrong.

  • Hawkeye325

    Too bad he was such a bad shot, assume he was aiming for the tire. Unfortunate accident, another reason to spend more time on the range.

    • Jim_Macklin

      Accidents are not a defense. Don’t shoot to save property unless your life depends on it.

    • BeGe1

      I am curious if a tire shot would have been legal, or if the discharge of the weapon at all was illegal.

  • bob

    According to the law it was a bad shoot. I hope the jury knows about jury nullification.

  • Patriot Mom

    Unfortunately it is the misinformed person like the one charged above who gives lawful concealed carry holders a bad reputation. It’s everyone’s personal responsibility to know the law. Thank God no innocent bystander was hit. Huh — he did shoot fairly well, though. Hopefully justice and not public emotion will rule in this case.

  • Kimber45

    I think the moral here starts long before he fired the shot… Do not leave your vehicle unattended and running with the doors unlocked. You are inviting disaster. a large number of criminals are creatures of opportunity.

    • hurricane

      I agree, do not create the ”problem’.’

  • It’s a shame that the law doesn’t mimic morality. Saying it was “only property” is just one more tool of the liberals to diminish the accomplishments of productive society. Insurance costs go up and have become another tax to support criminals who for the most part (this case being the exception), have nothing to worry about. Yup, the “law” says let him have the car.

    • maddog 81 mm

      I agree , wsith you Gary , it’s a matter of common sense , shooter was wrong !!!

  • kirkmcloren

    the gentleman in Washington – we should put his picture on the 5 dollar bill as a hero.

  • Pat Murray

    Other than in my home, I have come to the determination that I will not kill for STUFF. Stuff can be replaced. It is why we have insurance. I will not allow my family or me to be moved fro the place of the carjacking or convenience store robbery. Try to make me or us go with you, or mover to the “back of the store”? Then we have problems.
    I will not shoot to prevent a robbery or the like. I am not a law enforcement officer. I am armed to protect my family’s life, my life and the lives of those around me.

    But let me find you in my home, uninvited, EVER? You are leaving in a box. Two A.M. is not the time to determine why that stranger is walking down your hallway toward your bedroom door.

  • Paul E

    If you own a weapon, even if you do not want to carry a weapon beyond your home, take a CCW class to learn the use of force laws in your state and safe weapons handing procedures.

  • Paul

    RCW 9A.16.050

    Homicide — By other person — When justifiable.

    Homicide is also justifiable when committed either:

    (1) In the lawful defense of the slayer, or his or her husband, wife, parent, child, brother, or sister, or of any other person in his or her presence or company, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design on the part of the person slain to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury to the slayer or to any such person, and there is imminent danger of such design being accomplished; or

    (2) In the actual resistance of an attempt to commit a felony upon the slayer, in his or her presence, or upon or in a dwelling, or other place of abode, in which he or she is.

  • Lance

    Thank God I live in Texas. You wanna steal my vehicle (plane, boat, motorcycle) that I worked my *** off for?? EXPECT to be shot at! Living where I do, the chance of something like that being recovered is quite minimal, and THAT is what makes it “legal” to use force (even deadly force) to recover property. (Texas PC Sec. 9.42) And, if it was during night/early dawn hours, even MORE justified.

    Don’t want to risk injury/death? Don’t mess with my stuff / life / family.

    • Freedom Fighter

      Amen to that brother!

      God Bless Texas!

      • Amber Collier

        what Anna implied I am amazed that anyone able to earn $4887 in a few weeks on the internet. did you look at this site link w­w­w.K­E­P­2.c­o­m

      • Darlene S. Esser

        as Angela answered I’m taken by surprise that someone can profit $4058 in a few weeks on the internet. did you read this web page w­w­w.K­E­P­2.c­o­m

  • Amy Sykes Sparks

    First, stealing an automobile is not punishable by death. Secondly, ignorance of the law is no excuse. The man SHOULD be charged for murder.

    • okseabat

      Amy you could have lived on that street and your child run over and seriously injured but not killed by that thief speeding down the street that’s not a death penalty either, but what is your response to the shooting now.

      • Amy Sykes Sparks

        That didn’t happen so what is your point? Why would a kid be in the street at 7 in the morning? And why would you use a gun if there is the possibility of a child in the street? You would shoot a gun with kids around just for a car? Your argument works both ways. I certainly wouldn’t use a gun just for my car ESPECIALLY if an innocent bystander could get shot. It’s just a car. I have a very nice car – a 2011 Jetta SE that I love. It’s my favorite car and the first brand new car I’ve ever owned. But it’s still not worth killing for.
        Also, the kids in my neighborhood don’t play in the street. They know better.

        • AlwaysWatching

          According to some news reports there were kids down the street on their way to school. I’m not saying the thief should have been shot, but I understand why he was.

          • Amy Sykes Sparks

            Can you paste a link that says there were school children on their way to school? I’d be interested in reading it. If there were indeed children on their way to school, that’s an even better reason not to pull a weapon. Why would you shoot a gun with children around? Thank God none of them were hurt.

          • okseabat

            We all live in glass houses, don’t punish the man that caught the rock that could have hit yours or another unsuspecting victim.

          • Amy Sykes Sparks

            That is an illogical argument. Was someone hit by a car? Did the shooter know for a fact that someone was about to be hit by the car? The article says nothing about the possibility of someone being hit by the car. Was the thief speeding? You can’t shoot someone based on the argument you presented – there is zero evidence to support your claim.
            Should I shoot a stranger who comes to my door because I don’t know what his intentions are? You are grasping at straws in an effort to justify an unlawful act.

          • okseabat

            The illogical thinking is on your part, not mine. The examples were given to present another avenue of though about the situation and the fait of the theft victim. Apparently your thought found an alley and not an avenue. Thanks for you thoughts though.

  • MrMrsJPM

    In Florida, use of deadly force means you’re saving a life from imminent death or serious injury, or you are protecting yourself from serious harm or death from an attacker. You can’t use the weapon in defense of property unless you fear for your life in a violent breakin. More often than not home invasions are extremely violent and you can defend yourself and your loved ones from an attacker IN YOUR HOME. If they are leaving, you can’t shoot them in the back. If you do, you go to jail.

  • BenGoodLuck

    What he did is legal in Texas.

    • Shipwreck

      No it’s not. Read all of section 9.41 Use of Force and 9.42 Use of DEADLY Force.

  • R.A.M.B.O.

    It’s just like watching bait car. Just because you see a car running with no operator doesn’t mean you can have your way with it. So with me saying that, if it was the LEO’s bait car they surely wouldn’t have a problem doing what he did even if the thief was reaching in his/her pocket to light a cig, and the saying is “God don’t like ugly”

  • eagleeyes

    considering some a’hole got off for shooting a women recently because he wouldn’t have sex with him. he thought he paid the escort to include sexual services but she refused and he shot her! and got away with it no jail time ;( i’d say let this man go ……..the man that shot that woman should have imo been jailed for life not just for being a pervert but for shooting the woman for refusing to have sex with him …….i think it was in texas and happened at night so under the law of the state he was allowed to roam free ??? i can almost justify this guy shooting this car thief…like another poster said take my stuff and you should expect to get shot and it should be like that imo but i know in my state it’s not something we can do here.. a vehicle loss can make a break a person financially in many cases it may cause them to miss work or loose their jobs that is bodily harm imo

  • jac

    Hi, I do feel sorry for the car owner, he acted completely out of impulse unless he is a smart psychopath and intent to bring down the thief. The law should see that most people authorized to carry a licensed gun may act like the owner, at least hoping to stop the car from going any further. However it clearly does not deserve deadly force. Interesting to see if this deters other potential car thieves. Perhaps Stickers saying you will be shot if you steal this car ! Perhaps a sentence of 2 years community service as it is not a premeditated crime and I am sure the owner did not want to kill the thief. Even police have no right to shoot a car thief or do they?

  • woodart

    Right or wrong, good or bad, you’ll save yourself a lot of grief by knowing the law and following it. Laws are changed at the pole booths with a pen not on the streets with a gun.

    • bobfairlane

      Or at the bench after the news rush.

  • Grandma

    I believe in conceled carry, but come on for the price of a car. That’s what insurance is for.

  • David From Lavonia

    It all depends what car it was, if it was my 67 fastback mustang I would have emptied my clip! Just kidding, well, maybe not! If it were my wives mini van no!

  • notasheep

    Why should I have to pay my deductible so a thief can get away with a crime. I work hard for my property and shouldn’t have to pay more to protect it if this kind of stuff happened more often there would be less thieves and more respect for other peoples lives and property

  • Lawrence Malcolm

    This guy will go to prison in a state where it’s quite alright to kill unborn babies but not a disavantaged minority who would NEVER have nice things in life because WhyTee keeps slappin’ the (insert skin color, national origin, religion, homo or non-homo status here) down……

  • Lawrence Malcolm

    Wow. Censor Censor Censor, Hey Carry: remember the 2nd protects the first…..,

  • vern

    gotta know the law before you even think about pulling a weapon. understand why he did it but he is in the wrong. wish him the best

    • okseabat

      Vern, the law today punishes the victim and lets the criminal continue to run the streets to do it again. I’m not familiar with the criminal but probably not his fist crime. The owners person was violated but the theft of his property. Don’t do the crime unless ready for the punishment. The thief received his punishment. He threw the rock and the owner caught it before it hit his glass house or someone elses’s

  • Steve

    It’s simple, don’t shoot unless your life is in danger. F the car. Insurance will buy another. EVEN if your in a state that allows you to shoot for property, at civil level that persons family (yes, even though it’s VERY wrong) can destroy your life and keep you in the court system for ever. You think your presumed INNOCENT until PROVEN Guilty? HAH!

    • bobfairlane

      What kind of insurance buys you another car if yours is stolen? I think a lot of people just have liability insurance, and not all home-owners have home policies that cover their vehicles.

      • Steve

        Well, if somebody only has liability on their car then their asking for trouble. I don’t care whether you own it outright or not, unless you have a big bank account to fix or replace it when some uninsured (or underinsured) idiot wrecks it, they did that to themselves. If somebody owns a house and doesn’t includes vehicles again, they did it to themselves, especially since it’s the smartest way to go, it’s also cheaper. As far as theft, that covered under comprehensive.

  • mike m

    I agree with the idea of protecting your property and yes we should be able to however form what details are given here deadly force was not warranted. This guy is going to ned up in jail unless it’s a very sympathetic jury willing to just ignore the law for the betterment of society.
    Sometimes you have to realise reality. REALITY says most of my cars are worth more on paper than in the driveway. My car isn’t worth my life or life of my family. I’m more than willing to let it go down the road as long as it doesn’t put my family in danger. If your being asked to hand over the keys toss them and employ escape and evasion tactics if being pushed into the vehicle during the car jack or theft then fight for your life and it’s now kidnapping and NOT property crime. plain and simple.

  • Rob S.

    This man would be scott-free if he lived in NV, since auto theft is a felony.
          “NRS 200.120  “Justifiable homicide” defined; no duty to retreat under certain circumstances.      1.  Justifiable homicide is the killing of a human being in necessary self-defense, or in defense of habitation, property or person, against one who manifestly intends or endeavors, by violence or surprise, to commit a felony, or against any person or persons who manifestly intend and endeavor, in a violent, riotous, tumultuous or surreptitious manner, to enter the habitation of another for the purpose of assaulting or offering personal violence to any person dwelling or being therein.      2.  A person is not required to retreat before using deadly force as provided in subsection 1 if the person:      (a) Is not the original aggressor;      (b) Has a right to be present at the location where deadly force is used; and      (c) Is not actively engaged in conduct in furtherance of criminal activity at the time deadly force is used.”

    • DBird

      sorry Rob, applies to VIOLENT felony (or “surprise”, if you THINK you’re in danger and act in a split second during the felony). His car was already stolen, he was safe. According to the law, it was illegal. We should focus on changing the law, not getting around it.

    • BeGe1

      Those are the conditions under which someone doesn’t have a duty to retreat before considering their lives to be in danger and use deadly force. Their life still has to be in danger though, they just don’t have to retreat once their life is in danger. That is very different from saying that any time a felony is being committed you can kill the perpetrator, threat to life or not.

      Don’t get me wrong, I do agree with many cases of defense of property, etc. But you are interpreting that law TOTALLY incorrectly and that could bite you badly one day (or bite someone that read your post and took it as gospel). I’m not arguing against your moral view on the subject, only against your woefully poor interpretation of the NV law!

  • bobfairlane

    Check your state laws about leaving a vehicle running unattended, even on your own property. In some states it’s a minor crime even (TX). Even if not illegal, it may complicate matters for you if you shoot a car thief, and you were not in or near the car. Still, good job to the guy who wasted the car thief (from the article above).

  • D4RK_4NG3L

    The only plausible defense I can see is that he may have thought the thief was going to drive recklessly, endangering lives, and being his vehicle he could be responsible. (Devils Advocate Argument from me) I don’t think he should have fired the round.

  • hal

    Yes, the Criminals run the Asylum and they are the lawmakers. No matter how stupid the laws are, this guy was not to bright, as his round could have hit grandma or a schoolkid. I will only shoot an attacker, who is preying upon a family member, associate, or attacking me. I will not shoot a home invader unless he is armed or behaving agressively towards me or a housemember. I will not shoot a guy robbing a 7-11 unless he threatens me or others with me. Conceal carry does not turn one who carries into a law enforcement officer. The implications of a stray bullet, killing or maiming a bystander, or wounding a criminal and becoming responsible for their care and feeding for the rest of their lives to save a shopkeepers sales for the day is not in my best interest. If a crack head steals my 3 year old truck he can have it, as thats what I pay insurance for. However, if I am Hi-Jacked by a crack head and my family is in the car I will kill him. I do not want to become another Zimmerman, and I dont think you do either.

  • hurricane

    guy runs after car thief,kills him. yes its wrong. Topeka ks pass a city ordiance. if you are in your car and someone trieds to hijack your car you can use deadly force. again my opionion is if he has a deadly weapon ,has motive to inflict bodily harm to me/ family. I will do what ever I have to do.

  • Chris Caldwell

    Even if a shooting is legal most will end up in court. After all even thugs have mothers or loved ones that won’t understand why or be happy. This could spell financial disaster for you and your family no matter how justified.

  • Judge

    I can say that I think that the man who shot, the man who was stealing his car was
    well with his rights, (one) because the man who took his car, may have take other cars
    before, and lets tell the truth, many people who steal cars, or have a record, of other things have

    dune before. ( two) They take peoples cars, chop them up, and sell the part, the copes will tell you will

    Like not going get your car back!!! so now the man as no way to get back, and forth to work

    and (three ) I think that by shooting that person he may saved others peoples cars, and may be some one
    Life!!

  • Texas Joe

    One thing we need to take away from the Zimmerman case is that right or wrong if you shoot someone you’re looking at some expensive legal fees. So what you’re trying to protect by shooting better be of high enough value to justify the legal expense.

  • cojo

    “..But if I was called to be an expert witness in this case I would have to say this was a bad shooting..”

    Jason, please…you are NOT an expert here, so why would you even entertain the notion that anyone could call you as one? Do you also entertain notions that you can be brought in as an expert on brain surgery, or perhaps a structural engineering?

  • Lorin Chane Partain

    Just because the politicians don’t think you should be able to defend your property doesn’t mean it’s a “bad shoot”. I guess it’s expecting too much for former CIA to take sides with the people over the state’s idiotic dictates.

  • Seth

    So what about the people who have or say they will defend their property if it comes to riots and looting, for one reason or another? Aren’t looters basically just stealing? Aren’t you risking the same as this guy of you defend your stuff like that?

  • Lynn B Tussey

    Don’t take this the wrong way, but for a place that’s called the United States…..there is very little that we unite and agree on. Example…Gun Laws. What laws govern one State, should be the governing laws of the other states as well. We should try to simplify the and consolidate the gun laws…what applies in Texas should be the same as what applies in KY. What would be so hard about that?

  • Lynn B Tussey

    I personally feel that deadly force should be an option for property protection as well. These punks should know that us law abiding citizens work hard and long for the nicer things that we own. There will always be thieves but perhaps a lot less of them if their jobs got a bit more dangerous to do.

  • Shipwreck

    I also live in Texas, and I would never shoot a thief in broad daylight. Section 9.41 of the Penal code defines the “USE OF FORCE” to protect property – not
    Deadly Force. Section 9.42 covers Deadly Force to Protect Property. You cannot legally shoot a fleeing car thief in broad daylight. The law seems clear that thieves can only be shot at NIGHT, Robbers, (aggravated or not), burglars & arsonists may be shot at any time. Presumably, if you are IN the car and he “jacks” it by force or threat of force, it is robbery & you can shoot him. If you were in the house, and he simply got in the car and drove away, that’s theft. Here is the section:

    Sec. 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.

  • cal10pilot

    But officer, I thought he was going to put it in reverse and run me over…. I was in fear for my life.

  • vincent

    Bad shoot imo. However sending a productive citizen to jail for killing a dirt bag in the process of a crime doesn’t make sense to me. I would treat it like a traffic violation for endangering the neighbors and fine him.

  • Tenzo Ali

    News like
    this makes me completely distrust the law system. Well, some
    people survived 28 shots to the body when the subject is submitted in time to
    the hospital. but some subject die from a bullet in
    any part of the body. Well, not all have the same resistance. Be condemned
    for defending your life your family or your property It is an act of betrayal
    by the law system. The system does not value the citizen the system only steals
    and take your money and make you work as a slave and the end pay for you is a
    miserable retirement, and you are to old for enjoy your money, and the money is
    waste in medication and doctors, for make a a little more long your life, and
    die with empty hands, by all in your hands belong to the system. For all of us
    we cannot trust our lives to the system, Maybe all of us need stop being civilian,
    for make the system give to all of us the same right as those who work for the
    system

Quantcast