Car burglary victim found guilty of 2nd degree manslaughter in Seattle

[4Freedom]

The thief wasn't reaching for a gun, he was pulling up his pants. These things happen but when accidents happen and as a result somebody dies there are always consequences.

So, if you were chasing a thief with a gun and you told him to freeze and he starts reaching for his pants, you would bet your life on the fact he is just pulling up his pants? For one thing, if you were chasing a thief, who has a high chance of being armed, you are already fearing for your life and full of adrenaline. Even a police officer would have shot this man had he told him to freeze and he started to reach for his pants, it happens all the time. A police officer wouldn't go to jail for this, why should a civilian who is more or less making a citizen's arrest? Although the poor thief had no bad intention, being shot is a price to pay for being a thief, he should go back to college and take Thieving 101 and learn what to do when an armed citizen/officer gives an order to freeze with a gun.

 

[Trlsmn]

If the shooter felt he was in grave danger he should defend himself and it may very well have been an unfortunate accident but that certainly doesn't automatically make it a good shoot. The man with the gun misjudged the situation. The thief wasn't reaching for a gun, he was pulling up his pants. These things happen but when accidents happen and as a result somebody dies there are always consequences.

But given that was 100% true how would this fault the shooter? What should the shooter have done different in your scenario?

 

[Trlsmn]

he should go back to college and take Thieving 101

No then he would become a politician.

 

[NK777]

You guys are responding emotionally not rationally.

The thief was in the wrong
The shooter made a mistake for which he has to answer for

If you want me to speculate what I would have done in that situation I'd have to guess. First I doubt I would have chased the thief and it's not clear that the shooter did but if he did he wasn't acting out of fear, he was in fact pursuing the thief out of outrage. This is in no way acting in self defense. The thief was running away. The shooter told him to freeze? Okay so the thief stops and turns around (your right I'm speculating that at that same time he was reaching to pull up his baggy pants and do not know that to be fact but I do know that the thief wasn't armed.) Anyways for what ever reason when the thief began to turn he put his hand on or near his belt right. I to might very well have panic'ed and shot him but hopefully I would have waited to see if he was actually presenting a weapon. I can not tell you for sure whether or not I would have shot him as well because I wasn't in the shooters place, time, or body. However it would have been a mistake to have shot him and just because the guy is a scumbag thief doesn't give me the right to shoot him dead for stealing my stuff no matter how badly I think I'd want to. A bullet to head is just not something you can brush off and tell the thief you are sorry I thought you were reaching for a gun, now lets go get a beer. The thief is now dead and you are responsible for it. You are in no way a murdered but you do have to face the consequences of your actions now that it happened. That's just life and in this case everybody loses unfortunately. this is why the law was soft on him. They know he's not a murderer and was just pissed off and scared when the thief appeared to be reaching.

 

[JumpWing]

When you commit a crime like that you must accept the fact that you're opening up the possibility of getting killed, no matter how unlikely that may be. The possibility exists because you (the thief) created it and you chose to gamble. It's ironic, I suppose, when a gambler hits a "long shot" it's usually considered a good thing.

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

I have a solid policy of not using deadly force unless I or a loved one is in imminent threat of bodily injury. I have very little sympathy for anyone that does not have the same rule.

 

[beararms5000]

A couple people have said that a police officer would have gotten away with this but I'm really not so sure. The standards for use of deadly force by a police officer ( http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9A.16.040 ) generally indicate that use of deadly force to prevent an escaping criminal is justified only if the criminal represents a threat of serious physical harm to others.

The lower burden for "use of force" ( http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9A.16.020 ) appears to be justified for an officer: "(1)Whenever necessarily used by a public officer in the performance of a legal duty, or a person assisting the officer and acting under the officer's direction;"

The next line of the same RCW might authorize use of force (not deadly force) by a private citizen in this case if the speaker theft was sufficient to be considered a felony:

"(2) Whenever necessarily used by a person arresting one who has committed a felony and delivering him or her to a public officer competent to receive him or her into custody;"

I think the really damning piece of evidence here is that the guy was shot in the back of the head and turned out to be unarmed. It really seems like some people here would love to just have open season on car prowlers with no standards whatsoever but where does it end? What about purse snatchers and pickpockets? Gun them down on the street as they run away? How about shoplifters (lots of consumer gadgets cost as much as a car stero after all)?

Trying to recover a few hundred dollars of property by killing someone is just not supported by my understanding of the law or my personal standards of morality.

 

[Trlsmn]

Why do all you guys with a counter point purposely ignore the "reaching" aspect that preceded the shot and concentrate on the monetary aspect as the cause?

I'm not clear on whether your point is that he should not have even gone out to confront the criminal because it was just property or your truly saying he shot the guy to recover his property or what..............? Does anyone with a counter point want to tell me how they would handle this situation if they were there and the guy reached for x regardless of what x turned out to be?

 

[rsmccsman]

Buy insurance and let him go. You can always file an insurance claim. Even with no insurance what is the speaker possibly worth a day or two of your salary vs. 9 months in prison and lifetime felony record. In the final cost benefit analysis, no dirt bag is worth going to prison over and losing your rights. Let the offender's bad Karma take care of him. No matter whether you feel the bad guy had it coming or brought it on himself, unless your life or the life of someone else is in immediate danger you have so much to lose and nothing to gain by shooting the guy. Regardless of your opinion of the morality, just from a practical stand point we do not live in a country that has made it open season on bad guys. Think first, don't shoot first, a year from now which will you regret more shooting him or not. Classic case of good guy making bad decision.

 

[rsmccsman]

A couple people have said that a police officer would have gotten away with this but I'm really not so sure. The standards for use of deadly force by a police officer ( http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9A.16.040 ) generally indicate that use of deadly force to prevent an escaping criminal is justified only if the criminal represents a threat of serious physical harm to others.

The lower burden for "use of force" ( http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9A.16.020 ) appears to be justified for an officer: "(1)Whenever necessarily used by a public officer in the performance of a legal duty, or a person assisting the officer and acting under the officer's direction;"

The next line of the same RCW might authorize use of force (not deadly force) by a private citizen in this case if the speaker theft was sufficient to be considered a felony:

"(2) Whenever necessarily used by a person arresting one who has committed a felony and delivering him or her to a public officer competent to receive him or her into custody;"

I think the really damning piece of evidence here is that the guy was shot in the back of the head and turned out to be unarmed. It really seems like some people here would love to just have open season on car prowlers with no standards whatsoever but where does it end? What about purse snatchers and pickpockets? Gun them down on the street as they run away? How about shoplifters (lots of consumer gadgets cost as much as a car stero after all)?

Trying to recover a few hundred dollars of property by killing someone is just not supported by my understanding of the law or my personal standards of morality.

The police in my home town of Las Vegas got away with shooting an unarmed man and it was ruled as a justifiable homicide. Granted it was 25 years ago. The unarmed car thief was definitely a bad guy who got caught in a car chase which ended on a dead end in an alley. With no where left to go he jumped out of the car to run away, was told to freeze, his accomplice who ran away afterward later said he put his hands up and was immediately shot in the face with a shotgun at close range blowing most of his face off. The officer claimed he thought he was reaching for something and he feared for his life. I think the only thing he had on his person was a comb in his back pocket. I went to the funeral as my family knew his family. The lesson for bad guys is playing with matches can get you burned. This kind of stupid behavior really can get you killed, regardless of whether the guy who shoots you goes to prison or is called a hero.

 

[Badshot]

One more question... Was the "victim" in the USA legally? If not he has already committed several Federal crimes just being here. Maybe a case of "three strikes your out".

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

One more question... Was the "victim" in the USA legally? If not he has already committed several Federal crimes just being here. Maybe a case of "three strikes your out".

Even if someone is here illegally or involved in the act of committing a crime the punishment still needs to fit the crime. We can't be giving out the death penalty each time someone gets their third jay-walking ticket.

 

[EUGENE the REALTOR]

I'm guessing the shooter is the only one that saw the thief reaching for what he thought was a gun. I guess I would be saying the same thing too if I shot someone in the BACK OF THE HEAD. Anyone that thinks a human life is not worth more than a subwoofer shouldn't own firearms.

 

[Badshot]

OK.. But now the others involved in the theft can be charged (if caught) for Manslaughter as well. I hope the Seattle PD is looking for them. Jay walking no but theft? When someone is surprised during a crime, they will usually do what ever they have to to get away.

 

[NK777]

Why do all you guys with a counter point purposely ignore the "reaching" aspect that preceded the shot and concentrate on the monetary aspect as the cause?

You must have skipped over my posts then Trlsmn. No where did I bring up anything about money.

I'm not clear on whether your point is that he should not have even gone out to confront the criminal because it was just property or your truly saying he shot the guy to recover his property or what..............? Does anyone with a counter point want to tell me how they would handle this situation if they were there and the guy reached for x regardless of what x turned out to be?

Again you didn't read my post then huh? I excepted your challenge and speculated for you. As I stated previously just because the theif had it coming doesn't change the fact that the shooter made a mistake.

 

[Trlsmn]

Even if someone is here illegally or involved in the act of committing a crime the punishment still needs to fit the crime. We can't be giving out the death penalty each time someone gets their third jay-walking ticket.

I hear what you're saying and I agree that the criminals immigration status isn't relevant here, but I must point out that there is a huge difference between a self defense related death and death as a punishment for a crime.

 

[Trlsmn]

You must have skipped over my posts then Trlsmn. No where did I bring up anything about money.

No I didn't miss your post but I should have addressed your post directly for clarity it's easy to get side tracked on who we are addressing in subsequent posts with many participants. I will endeavor to be clearer in the future.

Yes I should have used the words physical property instead of Monetary

Again you didn't read my post then huh? I excepted your challenge and speculated for you. As I stated previously just because the theif had it coming doesn't change the fact that the shooter made a mistake.

And I agree you did answer the challenge. I was directing my post to the people that seems to be ignoring the reaching aspect something your post did address.

It's like saying there was a terrible accident on a sunny day and everyone wants to argue about whether the day was sunny.

 

[4Freedom]

I agree a human life is worth more than a subwoofer. But what happened here was a citizen's arrest gone wrong. This is a matter of standing up for yourself and your community. Do you think this dirtbag is going to stop with just your subwoofer? You say just file an insurance claim? Do you realize our insurance rates become more and more bloated everyday from bogus claims, not to mention real ones? What makes people think a person who breaks into cars and steals is not capable of causing worse havoc?

Seattle has an out of control burgalry rate and car theft rate. I had my car stolen 10 years ago in Portland by some scumbags like this and the police didn't do jack squat.

I suppose the opinion of most is just to hide in our house, call the police, file an insurance claim and let our overworked police department becomed more overworked and more overburdened thanks to a mindset of self-defeat and submission to liberal indoctrined government. We have told ourselves we are weak and that we have no place to stand up to injustice. Let us be at the mercy of our failed judicial, law enforcement and political system.

People live in fear of their lost of their hard earned possessions and sometimes what is stolen is far more than a stereo system. The guy who was robbed obviously was not very wealthy, look at what gun he had to use to stop the robbery, an old bolt action Nagant? He probably couldn't even afford a handgun. What person in their right mind will chase a thief with a bolt action rifle? Who knows how many hard nights he had to slave to get what he owned. Not to mention the amount of damage the thieves caused to his vehicle by breaking into it. And of course, the uncaught thieves woudl result in him paying money out of pocket to compensate for the deductible he may not be able to reach.

I myself would not shoot a thief over a subwoofer. But if I had the guts and the knowledge, I would certainly try to arrest him in the name of justice, not in the name of my subwoofer. Criminals don't fear the police, their only deterrant is a vigilant community who stands up against crimes. Lets not forget Joe Horn who did a great service to his community and was sick and tired of being at the mercy of scumbags.

When a felon commiting a crime is told to freeze by an armed person:
A. Don't keep moving
B. Don't reach for your waistband
C. Extend both hands into air in plain sight.
D. If English doesn't make sense to you, then commit crimes in a country where you can speak the language, so you can understand the word "FREEZE".

 

[Blackfeather7]

Let's see, the thief was running away and turned around and got shot in THE BACK OF THE HEAD. That was some Mosin trick shot to get him in the back of the head while he was facing the shooter. Must of been sorta like the "magic bullet" that got Kennedy.

The shooter is getting off easy. Shoot someone in the back and you become the perp.

 

[4Freedom]

Right... better to let him turn around so he can shoot you. If a felon who is avoiding prison starts reachign for his waistband when you tell him to freeze, I guess you should drop your gun and start running, because you might murder a poor, innocent criminal.

He isn't getting off easy.. Personally, I am NOT against hanging thieves who have a bloated criminal record and/or do not immediately surrender when they are told to stop. Less thieves in prison = Less tax money wasted to feed, cloth and help promote their criminal lifestyle. We treat criminals like such heroes and are forced to pay tons of money to law enforcment, prisons and rehabilitation programs. Not to mention the money we fork out to insurance agencies who have to repay all the stolen goods. Lot less people will steal if they know they will die for it. The Romans use to crucify thieves; today we crucify victims for defending themselves.

I know I am mean and disgruntled.. But I am sick and tired of being at the mercy of criminals. I say stand up for your rights and let the thieves know that we can fight back and we won't be pushed around. The man`did what is morally right by pursuing the thief.. He made what may be considered a bad call by shooting the felon. IMO, there is not enough evidence, based on his testimony and the situation, to convict him of any crime. Unless some prosecutor can convice a jury that he was commiting perjury by lying about the fact he was reaching for his waistband, the case should be totally dismissed. If we are to blame anyone, we should blame the Seattle PD for not having enough law enforcment patrolling the area to have stopped the criminals in the first place. IN a way this man performed the duty that the police themselves should have done.

The top people at the Seattle PD are always talking about banning guns from law abiding citizens, helping protect criminals from abuse by law enforcment or enraged citizens. But, what they have not done a good job of is talking about ways to decrease the soaring violent crime and theft rates plaguing the city.