Fires 5 rounds at fleeing thief, no charges. What do you think?

[T2K]

http://www.postandcourier.com/news/2011/mar/02/shooter-wont-be-charged/

From my hometown paper. The situation was that a guy saw someone breaking into his truck, went to get a pistol (.40) and when he came back to the door fired 5 rounds into a fleeing vehicle.

No charges to the shooter, the thief was arrested. Now, of course that's all fine and happy ending in this case.

But what do you think of popping off 5 rounds in your neighborhood into a fleeing vehicle?

My opinion is the first comment. I think guns should be used to eliminate a threat. This guy driving away wasn't a threat. Firing at him didn't stop him, he still drove away. He still got arrested.

[L1A1Rocker]

Depends on the state laws. In Texas, at night time, if you reasonably believe that using deadly force is emediatly necessary to retrieve the stolen property it is legal.

[FunkyPertwee]

If the victim was positive that the fleeing vehicle was in fact the the criminal, and if he was sure that he wouldn't shoot any by standards, then I am fine with it. If he accidentally shoots up the neighbors house or shoots the wrong car, then I'm not fine with it.

Guns are not just for eliminating threats. The thief didn't threaten the police, yet they justly used the threat of deadly force to apprehend him.

Criminals need to know that once my rights are violated, I don't have to play nice anymore.

By the way, I was born and raised on James Island (although I live an hour out into the country now), and the type of people who will brazenly come onto occupied property to steal are the type that'll rape your family and murder you. I'd be happy to shoot the fuck myself. Everyone I love lives on that island, and I'd be happy to be part of a large posse to go clean out every one of those little ghetto pockets around town.

Remember:
The shooting occurred in a small neighborhood that has been on edge for months because of burglaries and auto break-ins.

He scored a hit and no bystanders were injured. I give him a round of applause.

Our little Island is not going to be taken over by thugs.

[FunkyPertwee]

"We are not going to charge him based on Section 17-13-20 in the South Carolina code of laws," Cannon said. "We feel like his actions were within that section."

The law he is referring to is an 1866 law that grants residents arrest powers in certain situations. It gives them the power to arrest felons and thieves at night "by efficient means as the darkness and the probability of escape render necessary, even if the life of the person should be taken."

This is my favorite part. Its a nice little fuck you to the local scum.

[T2K]

Like I said, in this case, happy ending. And, no doubt it's considered legal since he's not being charged.

My concern is .40 rounds flying into the neighborhood that were not fired to end an immediate threat. Firing a weapon in a situation like this should, in my opinion, only happen to end a threat. I dont' see the threat in a fleeing car, and I don't think the risk of hitting a neighbor is worth it. This was a neighborhood, not a remote farm.

[FunkyPertwee]

The threat is that chances are this guy lives right around the block and I'm not comfortable living on the same island as that kind of scum. The same old thieves do come back to the same neighborhoods and even the same businesses.

There are so many people I care about in such a small area, mixed in with the criminal garbage, the threat is always there. The bullshit criminals need to be reminded that the native men around here are hard and not to be fucked with.

If he had hit someone, then charge him. Otherwise, potential victims running off criminals should be encouraged.

When Hurricane Hugo hit in 89, there was a reason that the criminal parts of town didn't go apeshit like in New Orleans. They knew the rest of town wouldn't put up with it. Lets keep up that attitude.

[T2K]

I hear you, I was at my house on the other side of town on the morning of Sep 22nd, 1989 (after a scary night and 3' of the Atlantic ocean inside) thinking "WTF?!" at all the damage and I kept an armed watch at night for two weeks until the roads were cleared and the electricity was back on. No looting in my neighborhood that I know of either.

I guess we just need to agree to disagree on the risks vs benefits to shooting rounds in a suburban neighborhood at fleeing criminals. I don't think the small chance of killing or wounding a neighbor is worth the intimidation factor when a criminal is already fleeing.

[FunkyPertwee]

I hear you, I was at my house on the other side of town on the morning of Sep 22nd, 1989 (after a scary night and 3' of the Atlantic ocean inside) thinking "WTF?!" at all the damage and I kept an armed watch at night for two weeks until the roads were cleared and the electricity was back on. No looting in my neighborhood that I know of either.

I guess we just need to agree to disagree on the risks vs benefits to shooting rounds in a suburban neighborhood at fleeing criminals. I don't think the small chance of killing or wounding a neighbor is worth the intimidation factor when a criminal is already fleeing.

I gotcha. I just don't want a blanket law against the shooting of retreating criminals. If I know I can hit my target while it is facing away from me while retreating, I should be able to take the shot based on my fear of them returning. Of course this would require the shooter to determine the risk of harm to others and to positively ID the criminal.

There are just a LOT of people around town nowadays that are fooled by the natural and architectural beauty of city and surrounding islands that they don't understand the danger. A few years ago, I did the plumbing in a renovation job on a real old (100+ years) house in downtown Charleston. It was a rich guy doing it to give his daughter and all her cute college girlfriends a place to stay while going to college of Charleston. Once when coming to do repair work we noticed that they kept the door unlocked and also had a visible key on the patio. Well what a shocker, a month later a black dude from right around the corner sneaks in and rapes her at knife point. Somehow people don't realize that living a street down from the ghetto doesn't make you safe. And unfortunately, there isn't one ghetto, there a lot of small ones scattered all over the place, so that there almost are no neighborhoods that aren't next door to a bad street or neighborhood.

Sorry to go on a rant. Its late and I love my Island home.

[Krupski]

http://www.postandcourier.com/news/2011/mar/02/shooter-wont-be-charged/

From my hometown paper. The situation was that a guy saw someone breaking into his truck, went to get a pistol (.40) and when he came back to the door fired 5 rounds into a fleeing vehicle.

No charges to the shooter, the thief was arrested. Now, of course that's all fine and happy ending in this case.



Well, I'm happy to, for once, see a "gun guy" not get into trouble for exercising his Second Amendment rights.

On the other hand, REGARDLESS of any law, it's my opinion that firing a weapon at a person should be only done in DEFENSE of one's self or someone else who's life is in danger from the criminal.

Shooting at someone who is stealing something may be "legal" in certain states, but it's not MORALLY RIGHT anywhere in the universe.

I don't care what "the law" says. If I'm allowed to shoot someone stealing my truck, I won't do it. Also, if I'm prohibited by law from protecting my life or my family's life from imminent danger, I will do it anyway.

Anybody who can shoot at someone over a TV set or a truck isn't morally straight enough to HAVE a gun.

[FunkyPertwee]

Well, I'm happy to, for once, see a "gun guy" not get into trouble for exercising his Second Amendment rights.

On the other hand, REGARDLESS of any law, it's my opinion that firing a weapon at a person should be only done in DEFENSE of one's self or someone else who's life is in danger from the criminal.

Shooting at someone who is stealing something may be "legal" in certain states, but it's not MORALLY RIGHT anywhere in the universe.

I don't care what "the law" says. If I'm allowed to shoot someone stealing my truck, I won't do it. Also, if I'm prohibited by law from protecting my life or my family's life from imminent danger, I will do it anyway.

Anybody who can shoot at someone over a TV set or a truck isn't morally straight enough to HAVE a gun.

Krupski, I agree that some property is not worth a human life. However, this is an enclosed island. The thieves mas as well be neighbors. To not show that your willing to stand up and protect yourself, his freinds will be back next weekend to do it again. You do not want to be the guy who lets people walk on him when everyone is as familiar as they are here. Its not about the property, its that the wrong people will get the idea that your a good victim. Seriously, word gets around here.

[Sidartha]

It is possible that the circumstances are not quite the 'thirty yards away and opening'
situation we might be envisioning.
The bad guy was hit in the head, a grazing shot to be sure, but it could be that he was still stationary at the end of the driveway when the home owner took his shots then the thug decided discretion is the better part of valor and then peeled out.

Basically, the home owner could have had complete faith in the shots and since none of the bullets went into anything but the target, you may be judging him unfairly.
Your argument can be expanded to say that firing a gun in a residential neighborhood is inherently dangerous so for the safety of the children it must be prohibited even in cases of self defense.

However, that being said, I agree that one should never take a shot when you are unsure of your ability to hit your target. Remember rule no 3 "be sure of your target and what is beyond"

[swampdragon]

Well, I'm all for the victim. Fuck the criminal.

The way I see it, it really makes no difference if the guy was fleeing or not.
Even if a criminal is coming straight at you...you can still shoot at him, possibly miss, and still hit somebody else.

Whether or not stealing "property" is a threat or not is subjective also.
That's why a lot of states still have these types of laws on the books.
For instance...if I was dirt poor and was raising a few cattle on my land to feed my family with...and somebody showed up to steal them, then I'd consider that a "threat" to the survival of my family.

What if I was a diabetic and you were stealing my medication? I could easily die if I happened to need it right at the time.

etc....

[Kadmos]

Your argument can be expanded to say that firing a gun in a residential neighborhood is inherently dangerous so for the safety of the children it must be prohibited even in cases of self defense.

I think that becomes a risk v reward issue. The risk is worthwhile IF someone's life is in danger. I think most reasonable people would agree on that.

But is the risk worth the reward of keeping some personal property when a persons life is not in danger? Personally I don't think so. That seems to me a case of write down the plate number and try to get a good description rather than pull a gun.

A misunderstanding like thinking a guy is trying to steal your truck and it turns out he was simply bent down next to it to tie his shoe ends up being a real problem if he has a bullet in him.

That small island issue works both ways, if the island is that contained than it should be fairly easy to (or at least easier) to track down the criminal


However, that being said, I agree that one should never take a shot when you are unsure of your ability to hit your target. Remember rule no 3 "be sure of your target and what is beyond"

To a degree that tends to go out the window in a self defense shooting, the attacker is responsible for all actions stemming from the attack, if you shoot a 3rd party by accident trying to stop an attack then it is the attackers fault.

Granted this is the same for pretty much any felony (in most states), the felon is responsible for actions stemming from the felony, but this ,may not completely mitigate negligence, and of course should it turn out the crime is ten bucks short of a felony you may be up shit creek altogether.

I'm thinking if the thief got away completely, and a bystander was shot...I sure wouldn't want to be the only person answering questions when the DA gets pressured to make a case.

[mriddick]

I think it's a fine outcome.

[TEN-32]

Were any children caused to cry?

[btcave]

Yes, the children!:roflmao:

In my world, theft would always be met with deadly force and the town would give you a parade.

I don't get to be king though.

[stevelyn]

http://www.postandcourier.com/news/2011/mar/02/shooter-wont-be-charged/

From my hometown paper. The situation was that a guy saw someone breaking into his truck, went to get a pistol (.40) and when he came back to the door fired 5 rounds into a fleeing vehicle.

No charges to the shooter, the thief was arrested. Now, of course that's all fine and happy ending in this case.

But what do you think of popping off 5 rounds in your neighborhood into a fleeing vehicle?

My opinion is the first comment. I think guns should be used to eliminate a threat. This guy driving away wasn't a threat. Firing at him didn't stop him, he still drove away. He still got arrested.

What's the problem? The one thing I cannot tolerate is a thief. I have more patience sitting across the table with baby rapers than I do thieves. And the fact that people give them a pass because "it's just property" or "it's not worth a life" is a big part of the problem. Believe me, some "life" out there is highly over-valued and the world would be a lot better off without it.


Depends on the state laws. In Texas, at night time, if you reasonably believe that using deadly force is emediatly necessary to retrieve the stolen property it is legal.

Should be legal in every state.


Anybody who can shoot at someone over a TV set or a truck isn't morally straight enough to HAVE a gun.

Fine, I have no fuckin' morals. Never claimed to anyway.

[matshock]

No harm no foul- we'd save ourselves a whole bunch of trouble if we'd just follow that simple maxim.

[Sidartha]

I think that becomes a risk v reward issue. The risk is worthwhile IF someone's life is in danger. I think most reasonable people would agree on that.

But is the risk worth the reward of keeping some personal property when a persons life is not in danger? Personally I don't think so. That seems to me a case of write down the plate number and try to get a good description rather than pull a gun.


On the risk v reward issue it seems that the risks taken were justified.
The homeowner didn't spray the area, he didn't do a mag dump(unless there's a .40 S&W with a 5rnd clip I don't know about) and all of his shots found their target.
The reward was not having to replace thousands of dollars in equipment and wait on his insurance to recoup that loss.

As Swampy said there are times when your livelihood depends on property. That could have been company equipment he was financially responsible for, it could have been a rental that he was going to use to record his bands first album, There may have been a gun in the truck that he absolutely did not want to fall into the wrong hands.

Without knowing exactly where he was when he fired, where the thief was, what the light was like, how much practice the homeowner had ect, it's hard to make a judgment based on anything except the fact that no one else was hurt and the article didn't mention any other damage to property.
With those facts in mind, I call it a good shoot.

[Krupski]

For instance...if I was dirt poor and was raising a few cattle on my land to feed my family with...and somebody showed up to steal them, then I'd consider that a "threat" to the survival of my family.

What if I was a diabetic and you were stealing my medication? I could easily die if I happened to need it right at the time.

etc....

Agreed completely. If you and your family's LIFE depended on a few head of cattle that you own and you would starve without them, then yes deadly force would be morally justified. Same thing with medication that you NEED to live.

A threat to your life doesn't necessarily have to be a knife or a gun...

[Richard Simmons]

One consideration when shooting into/at a fleeing vehicle is, do you know who's in the car? I've seen more than a few dirtbags on COPS that had their child or children in the car while they were buying dope or committing one crime or another. To shoot at that car and hit a child who was there through no fault of it's own would be pretty hard to stomach, at least for me even more so if it was over a piece of stolen property.

[coppertales]

that did the shooting needs to go to the range and practice........chris3

[aliceinchains]

Shooter won't be charged: Man who was wounded driving away faces 2 counts, including grand larceny


Yep, i would say blast away if all clear.

[samiam]

too many variables for a yes or no answer, differences in state laws, does the local prosecutor fantasize about being the next govenor, media turning it into a race issue, etc.

[HDR]

If the victim was positive that the fleeing vehicle was in fact the the criminal, and if he was sure that he wouldn't shoot any by standards, then I am fine with it. If he accidentally shoots up the neighbors house or shoots the wrong car, then I'm not fine with it.

Ditto, being responsible for killing a dirt bag is a good thing and taking a few neighbors with him isn't. OTOH were there neighbors? :D

I'm not adverse to neutralizing a threat; but, not at the cost of a good person.


and I'd be happy to be part of a large posse to go clean out every one of those little ghetto pockets around town.

Considering Death Wish type night walks?


IRemember:

He scored a hit and no bystanders were injured. I give him a round of applause.

Our little Island is not going to be taken over by thugs.

Scored a clean hit.

"The shooting occurred in a small neighborhood that has been on edge for months because of burglaries and auto break-ins."

For months the animals put people on edge by robbing their homes and vehicles.

When people have been on edge for a long time some of them will shoot a thief. Coming home from work every day wondering if your home was robbed, trashed and pets killed would weigh heavy on a person's mind. The thieves created the environment.. As ye sow, so shall ye reap.

[FunkyPertwee]

Ditto, being responsible for killing a dirt bag is a good thing and taking a few neighbors with him isn't. OTOH were there neighbors? :D

I'm not adverse to neutralizing a threat; but, not at the cost of a good person.

There really aren't houses on James Island with no neighbors.


Considering Death Wish type night walks?

No, I was thinking that 100 or so men could practice their natural right to open carry while enjoying a nice stroll through the bad parts of town. If the rights of the walkers are violated, let them defend themselves, as long as they are only peaceably walking along the road without disturbing anyone's property or the flow of traffic.

Of course, there in no open carry in SC, so the law would have to change first.


Scored a clean hit.

"The shooting occurred in a small neighborhood that has been on edge for months because of burglaries and auto break-ins."

For months the animals put people on edge by robbing their homes and vehicles.

When people have been on edge for a long time some of them will shoot a thief. Coming home from work every day wondering if your home was robbed, trashed and pets killed would weigh heavy on a person's mind. The thieves created the environment.. As ye sow, so shall ye reap.

You might think this was Mayberry if you visited, but bad shit goes down. Last year some gang bangers had a shoot out with 7.62 AKs right in the middle of the island, like 1/2 mile from the high school. Hell, my mom was doing concessions at the football game and and like 6 dudes started having a shoot out with .22 handguns rights behind the stadium.

I'm tired of this shit going down next door to my loved ones.


I'm glad you get it HDR.

[FunkyPertwee]

Things are tight nit enough around here, if someone gets enough bad notoriety, they'll either get busted or they'll wash up on the beach one day.