Close Encounter With a (Likely Not) Justified Shooting
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 16

Thread: Close Encounter With a (Likely Not) Justified Shooting

  1. Close Encounter With a (Likely Not) Justified Shooting

    So, this was my first close encounter with a defensive shooting situation, I was at work yesterday afternoon and heard a commotion outside, someone yelling stop, myself and a few others went to the door of the store, which is one of a dozen or so in this shopping center, seeing a man being chased by an older man with a firearm. The man being chased approaches a car where a woman is getting out and assaults her with a can of pepper spray in attempt to steal her car, as she runs out of the way the older man fires several shots at the one attempting the car and he runs away. Unknown whether any were hits (by that point I and others had locked the door and retreated inside) but at least there seemed to be no casualties left in the parking lot. Story goes from someone who was in the other store at the time that the older man (the shooter) is the owner of the shop, and the one running had just moments prior assaulted his wife (also working there, it is a jewelry store by the way) and grabbed something from her hand running out of the store, when the owner gave chase. This part is what leads me to believe it is not justified, you don't go running after a thief who has already left with your firearm waving about yelling for him to stop, that and apparently said thief's only weapon was a can of pepper spray, regardless of a prior assault he might have made to the owner's wife. Though I suppose it could be argued at THAT point the car itself could have been a weapon had he managed to steal it, however it seemed clear said thief was trying to get away and no longer a direct threat to life or bodily injury, at least to the shop owner doing the shooting.

    Edit: Not long after the shooting the police arrived at the store in question to take statements from people there, the owner was not arrested at that time however I suspect he might be later, at the very least for negligent discharge of a firearm if not something more severe, it clearly wouldn't fall under stand your ground though castle doctrine does extend to vehicles in this state and I'm sure he can argue he was defending the woman in the car, but quite a stretch.

  2.   
  3. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Wisconsin & Arizona
    Posts
    542
    Nice story, where's the link to the news article ?

  4. Believe what you want but here is the link, their account differs slightly from what I heard from bystanders but then, bystander word of mouth is never too reliable and I certainly wasn't going outside to get in the middle of it and find out.

    Police seek jewelry store bandit - The Prescott Daily Courier - Prescott, Arizona

    Also note I wrote yesterday in OP but started writing this post late last night and didn't post it till after work today, anyway, no troll just a close encounter that I thought was worth discussing.

  5. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Wisconsin & Arizona
    Posts
    542
    A link gives the story credibility.
    Agree, I would not have been shooting.
    Usually once the person has turned to flee the courts don't consider him a threat. Take a description and turn it over to the police.

  6. I suppose its lucky he didn't hit anything he may only get a misdemeanor charge for discharging his firearm unlawfully instead of a murder or attempted murder...

  7. #6
    What state?

    Some states allow the use of deadly force to protect "stuff", some don't.

    Shooting an unarmed person that poses no threat to the individual, but just to prevent the loss of a commodity (stuff), typically insured against theft does seem a little over the top.
    “Religion is an insult to human dignity. Without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things.
    But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.” ― Steven Weinberg

  8. Ah yes, it's in the article but state is AZ, great on gun laws but deadly force is not allowed to protect 'stuff', only lives. Also the shooting location in a shopping center in the crowded downtown of a small city with a huge tourism draw (meaning in particular the downtown area is always heavily crowded), in a parking lot adjacent to a park across which is a charter school... and the shooter has no idea where any of his rounds went... not good. Hope he has a ccw (which isn't required in AZ anymore so many don't bother) or he is probably also in violation of federal gun free school zones act.

  9. #8

    Close Encounter With a (Likely Not) Justified Shooting

    If I was him I would also have given chase with my firearm (albeit still holstered.) When the BG is running away there is no reason to a draw a weapon. You can always attempt to make a citizen's arrest to stop property theft but firing on him is a little more complicated. If the older man was directly in front of the vehicle when the thief assaulted the woman and jumped in, I might have fired, feeling the vehicle to be a weapon. However if he was just catching up to the guy and was behind or to the side of the vehicle, I feel firing lacks justification.

  10. Not a justified discharge of his firearm. Agreed other charges coming.

  11. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by r1derbike View Post
    Not a justified discharge of his firearm. Agreed other charges coming.
    is that so? are you an attorney? do you know what location this incident took place in? do you know the laws there?

    On the surface a quick interpretation taking into account the laws in effect in many places one could make the argument that is was a justifiable shooting. why? while it might be a stretch to justify the shop owners chasing the alleged criminal once that fleeing criminal assault the woman driving the car in an attempt to steal the car she was in the act of committing multiple felonies, and in most jurisdictions shooting a person in the act of kidnapping, assault or a "car jacking" would be a legal and permissible use of deadly force.

    the 3 immediately preceeding messages that I am responding to is a prime reason that people need to allow the legal system proceed unimpeded by people coming rash, ill informed knee jerk conclusions

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast