Armed robber shot while fleeing

MississippiBoy

http://www.msnewsnow.com/story/28240456/deputies-teen-breaks-into-home-with-gun-and-gets-shot-by-homeowner-while-trying-to-flee-both-arrested

I don't know how I feel about this. An armed robber breaks into a house, then a resident there manages to take his gun away from him. As the robber is fleeing, the resident shoots him, and is now facing some major charges; attempted second degree murder and illegal use of a weapon.
Ok, he shouldn't have shot at the guy as he was driving away. But come on.....

GunnerK19

Yup, homeowner screwed himself. Once he disarmed the guy and he fled, the burglar no longer posed a threat that justified deadly force.

NN

:popcorn:

bisley

If the facts are really that simple, the shooter is screwed, I think.

JasonMPD

GunnerK19 wrote: »

Yup, homeowner screwed himself. Once he disarmed the guy and he fled, the burglar no longer posed a threat that justified deadly force.

No longer posed a threat to whom? The homeowner or the next victim he robs in their home at gunpoint? :roll:

Gene L

JasonMPD wrote: »

No longer posed a threat to whom? The homeowner or the next victim he robs in their home at gunpoint? :roll:

Can't shoot people based on what they might do, just on what they are trying to do. Once the threat ceases, the need for self defense also ceases. And the right to protect property ceases if the threat to property no longer exists.

tennmike

Gene L wrote: »

Can't shoot people based on what they might do, just on what they are trying to do. Once the threat ceases, the need for self defense also ceases. And the right to protect property ceases if the threat to property no longer exists.

Unless you're a cop. The 'Fleeing Felon Rule' allows a police officer to shoot a felon fleeing to avoid apprehension. Probably 50 different statutes for the 50 states on that, though. Odd that it's all right for cops to use it, but not John Q. Public. More of that 'some animals are more equal than others' crap.

Gene L

A "Forcible Fleeing Felon" to be exact. Practically, the fleeing felon has to be armed and presenting an immediate danger to others. An armed felon fleeing from an armed robbery toward a group of people is an example for which I have knowledge.

The "Fleeing felon" without force rule was changed in 1977 or so, 1978 maybe.

Edited to add: In GA, a citizen has the same powers of arrest as a LEO, except a citizen can't arrest for an ordinance and a citizen can't arrest on a warrant. A citizen arrest is usually a very bad idea, however, since there is no constitutional protection for a citizen making an arrest.

Which seems to be the case in the OP.

JasonMPD

Gene L wrote: »

Can't shoot people based on what they might do, just on what they are trying to do. Once the threat ceases, the need for self defense also ceases. And the right to protect property ceases if the threat to property no longer exists.

No kidding.

And yes, you can shoot people based on what they might do. An armed man assaulting you might shoot you, but you may defend yourself before he does.

I understand state laws regarding the absence of immediate threat and using deadly force. What I don't understand is...

1. State laws pandering to criminal actions
2. State laws reserving certain justifications to LEO only

Gene L

No, you can't. If a guy is "assaulting you" he's committing the crime of assault. You may or may not be justified in using deadly force depending on the extent of the threat. If he's assaulting you with a pool noodle, you'd be hard pressed to justify blowing him away.

I'm not sure what laws pander to criminal actions. That such a broad statement as to be meaningless. Also, as I said above, cops and citizens in GA have equal powers of arrest except for two noted exceptions. That's pretty much boilerplate. I don't know about the laws in your state. Citizens aren't sworn to enforce the law where I live, an event that pretty much requires certain enforcement actions.

I think in your admirable zeal for law and order you're forgetting the Bill of Rights.

samzhere

Gene L wrote: »

Can't shoot people based on what they might do, just on what they are trying to do. Once the threat ceases, the need for self defense also ceases. And the right to protect property ceases if the threat to property no longer exists.

Correct. Sorry, Jason, but the homeowner has no legal authority to act to prevent future crimes by the fleeing thug. And it's also debatable whether he has the moral authority anyway.

Texas has fairly wide acceptance of allowing the homeowner to shoot a thief, even if the thug isn't posing a direct personal threat. In other words, you are likely not to be charged if you shoot a thief, even if that thief is fleeing. We've discussed this before. Some of us here say we'd shoot anyway, some of us say likely not.

But in other states, the law about such is generally more strict, and you're only allowed to shoot a thug if you're facing a direct threat to you or a loved one.

I think the homeowner may have crossed the line here, and is likely to be in deep trouble. I sympathize with him and understand the immediate feeling he may have had, causing him to fire on a fleeing thief who was no longer posing a threat. But he may be in for it, regardless.

The lesson we need to take from this is to have a strongly decisive "action plan" in our minds, set it firmly such that if a crisis does occur, we won't act irrationally and out actions will be based on solid, careful prior evaluation. Not always possible, but planning for a crisis is best, regardless.

JasonMPD

Gene L wrote: »

No, you can't. If a guy is "assaulting you" he's committing the crime of assault. You may or may not be justified in using deadly force depending on the extent of the threat. If he's assaulting you with a pool noodle, you'd be hard pressed to justify blowing him away.

I'm not sure what laws pander to criminal actions. That such a broad statement as to be meaningless. Also, as I said above, cops and citizens in GA have equal powers of arrest except for two noted exceptions. That's pretty much boilerplate. I don't know about the laws in your state. Citizens aren't sworn to enforce the law where I live, an event that pretty much requires certain enforcement actions.

I think in your admirable zeal for law and order you're forgetting the Bill of Rights.

My example was assaulting you with a firearm that he MIGHT or MIGHT NOT use. So you shoot to defend against what he MIGHT do in the presence of IMMEDIATE threat. I was calling to attention the broad assertion that you can't use deadly force in a "might" situation was too broad.

Laws that pander to criminals:

Early release legislation....
Broad parole legislation....
No jail for some misdemeanor convictions....
No jail for some felony convictions....
Etc....

I think in your admirable zeal for condescension you forget some posts could be rhetorical and not literal.

samzhere wrote: »

Correct. Sorry, Jason, but the homeowner has no legal authority to act to prevent future crimes by the fleeing thug. And it's also debatable whether he has the moral authority anyway.

Texas has fairly wide acceptance of allowing the homeowner to shoot a thief, even if the thug isn't posing a direct personal threat. In other words, you are likely not to be charged if you shoot a thief, even if that thief is fleeing. We've discussed this before. Some of us here say we'd shoot anyway, some of us say likely not.

But in other states, the law about such is generally more strict, and you're only allowed to shoot a thug if you're facing a direct threat to you or a loved one.

I think the homeowner may have crossed the line here, and is likely to be in deep trouble. I sympathize with him and understand the immediate feeling he may have had, causing him to fire on a fleeing thief who was no longer posing a threat. But he may be in for it, regardless.

The lesson we need to take from this is to have a strongly decisive "action plan" in our minds, set it firmly such that if a crisis does occur, we won't act irrationally and out actions will be based on solid, careful prior evaluation. Not always possible, but planning for a crisis is best, regardless.

What can be done and what should be done sometimes differ.

Such laws exist to protect folks from being indiscriminately shot/harmed while trying to remove themselves from nonviolent altercations and other such types of things. It's also in place to protect a criminal's right to a fair trial, etc etc.

But if you arm yourself and come into a strangers home, exiting should not be an option. But, in the interest of not being punished for ridding the world of a waste of oxygen breathing scumbag, I'd abstain from shooting the fleeing too. Even if the back is where cowards deserve to be shot.

Gene L

Assaulting you with a firearm is aggravated assault and is certainly grounds for defending yourself with a firearm. Almost anyone would agree with that. Jeez. No one is asking you to eat a round before defending yourself.

The examples you stated:

Laws that pander to criminals:

Early release legislation....
Broad parole legislation....
No jail for some misdemeanor convictions....
No jail for some felony convictions....
Etc....

Are not laws, they're policies. I think the ISIS view you have on imprisoning people is out of touch with reality. Put everyone in the joint and who will pay for this. Anyway, I don't think public drunkeness merits a jail term. Thank God for a little discretion.

JasonMPD

Gene L wrote: »

Assaulting you with a firearm is aggravated assault and is certainly grounds for defending yourself with a firearm. Almost anyone would agree with that. Jeez. No one is asking you to eat a round before defending yourself.

The examples you stated:

Laws that pander to criminals:

Early release legislation....
Broad parole legislation....
No jail for some misdemeanor convictions....
No jail for some felony convictions....
Etc....

Are not laws, they're policies. I think the ISIS view you have on imprisoning people is out of touch with reality. Put everyone in the joint and who will pay for this. Anyway, I don't think public drunkeness merits a jail term. Thank God for a little discretion.

Public intoxication = jail? No, probably not.
Public intoxication + fighting = jail. Absolutely.

See, I have some discretion.

And how do you know those things are policy and not law?

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?mode=View%20Statutes&SubMenu=1&App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=947.13&URL=0900-0999/0947/Sections/0947.13.html

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0900-0999/0947/0947ContentsIndex.html

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/STATUTES/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0900-0999/0921/Sections/0921.0024.html

Those look a lot like laws to me.

JasonMPD

Gene L wrote: »

I think the ISIS view you have on imprisoning people is out of touch with reality.

Comments like this are so slanderous it makes my blood boil.

Gene L

JasonMPD wrote: »

Public intoxication = jail? No, probably not.
Public intoxication + fighting = jail. Absolutely.

See, I have some discretion.

And how do you know those things are policy and not law?

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?mode=View%20Statutes&SubMenu=1&App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=947.13&URL=0900-0999/0947/Sections/0947.13.html

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0900-0999/0947/0947ContentsIndex.html

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/STATUTES/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0900-0999/0921/Sections/0921.0024.html

Those look a lot like laws to me.

And you are qualified to make these judgements more so than a real judge and a jury how?

JasonMPD

Gene L wrote: »

And you are qualified to make these judgements more so than a real judge and a jury how?

This is a nonsensical question considering you just opined that not everything requires jail. I opined some things should. It wasn't a judgement.

Stay on point or drop it altogether.

Gene L

You're ranting nonsense. Calm down.

JasonMPD

Gene L wrote: »

You're ranting nonsense. Calm down.

So I call you out on a nonsensical and rhetorical question meant to imply I am casting unilateral judgement and you only respond by calling my opinions nonsense?

I've been calm the entire time.

tennmike

Gene L wrote: »

A "Forcible Fleeing Felon" to be exact. Practically, the fleeing felon has to be armed and presenting an immediate danger to others. An armed felon fleeing from an armed robbery toward a group of people is an example for which I have knowledge.

The "Fleeing felon" without force rule was changed in 1977 or so, 1978 maybe.

Edited to add: In GA, a citizen has the same powers of arrest as a LEO, except a citizen can't arrest for an ordinance and a citizen can't arrest on a warrant. A citizen arrest is usually a very bad idea, however, since there is no constitutional protection for a citizen making an arrest.

Which seems to be the case in the OP.

So the dirtbag lost control of his weapon. Sucks to be him.
He fled in a vehicle; vehicles can be used as a deadly weapon. Cops step in front of vehicles and shoot drivers for assault with deadly force on a semi regular basis. What's the diff?

Gene L

Assault by Vehicle has been done before and used as a justification for deadly force before. Not all the time, however. I wouldn't advise stepping in front of a vehicle and depending on stopping the vehicle from running over you with a handgun, though. Any cop who steps in front of a vehicle coming toward him is seriously deranged.

Teach

The participants "knew each other" according to the news story- - - - -looks like one scumbag tried to shake down another one. Jail 'em both!
Jerry

horselips

I find fault with the notion that a criminal should enjoy the initiative during the commission of a crime. Because of that handy little advantage, the criminal gets to decide what his victim can or can't do. If the criminal decides to cut and run, then that act instantly constrains his victim. The inmates are running the asylum. That's bull poop. A criminal should be at risk of being killed at any time during any aspect of the commission of any felony. Goes with the territory. No advantage, in action or in law, should ever devolve from the victim to the criminal during the commission of his crime. And the crime should be considered "in progress" until the criminal is either arrested, killed, or the statute of limitations expires. No rest for the wicked.

Big Chief

Better start its own thread ............

JasonMPD

Big Chief wrote: »

Better start its own thread ............

It will get released. The investigation is ongoing, and no one can expect them to release evidence prior to a grand jury hearing if that is necessary.

HvyMax

That's BS. You hold my family at gunpoint you are a threat as long as you breathe. Definitely a situation for SSS. Too bad it wasn't Texas.

DoctorWho

I might have an "ISIS" type mind too then, why should career criminals not be charged with violations of Federal firearms laws ? or they get early release because jails are overcrowded, laws are applied differently to career criminals.

horselips

If I am on the homeowner's jury, I vote NOT GUILTY. If I am the only one, I will be happy to hang that jury. There is something very wrong with the law when a predator gets to arbitrarily determine the level of his prey's resistance, at his own discretion, and when it serves, exclusively, his purpose. The initiative should never, ever rest with the criminal. That advantage should always be with the victim, and with society.

When a person elects to become an outlaw, he should be literally and truly volunteering to be outside the law, and its protections, and his crime should be considered "in progress," forever, until he either turns himself in, is apprehended, or killed. If he is fortunate enough to be taken into custody, then and only then should his constitutional rights apply.

Under no circumstances should a victim ever be at peril of the law for resisting a criminal before, during or after the attempted crime with every means at his disposal, entirely at his discretion. Don't like it? Then behave yourself, and we're all good to go.

tubabucknut

Gene L wrote:

You're ranting nonsense. Calm down.

JasonMPD wrote: »

So I call you out on a nonsensical and rhetorical question meant to imply I am casting unilateral judgement and you only respond by calling my opinions nonsense?

I've been calm the entire time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5VT-ofxdh4
Too funny

shootbrownelk

tennmike wrote: »

So the dirtbag lost control of his weapon. Sucks to be him.
He fled in a vehicle; vehicles can be used as a deadly weapon. Cops step in front of vehicles and shoot drivers for assault with deadly force on a semi regular basis. What's the diff?

Forward and reverse gears in the transmission. He was going away, had he been backing up he'd perhaps be considered a threat, and could then be used for target practice.

coolgunguy

I can't work up too much indignation over this. I feel the homeowner was wrong, but not sure I'd be in a rush to charge him. At most, a slap on the wrist and a stern 'don't do it again'...