JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
I can't speak for others but I ignored the "reaching for his waistband" bit because the news reports have always stated that that part was according to the shooter. That's the same shooter who turned out to be incorect about the thief having a gun and shot the thief in the BACK of the head. Whether he's lying or just made a bad judgement call is for no one to know but him but if we allow any shooter to kill a thief and claim "he reached for his waistband" then we've just re-written the deadly force statutes. I would personally feel differently if the reports talked about witnesses who thought they saw a gun draw or if the thief actually had a weapon on whatever side he supposedly reached to. Without that cooberation, it just seems like a desperate attempt to justify excessive force.

And he is getting off easy for someone who just killed an unarmed person, however bad that person might have been. The iffy situation and a sympathetic DA has resulted in 9 months for manslaughter instead of 20 to life for murder (which they could have pushed for if they wanted to grandstand). They really wouldn't have been doing their duty of enforcing the law if they didn't attempt to press those minimal charges, given the excessive use of force according to the RCWs. Those are, of course, the same RCWs that spell out the laws against stealing someone's car stereo to begin with...
 
Wow, lots of good thoughts here.

I would never go outside to "enforce" the laws of theft myself. I couldn't shoot the perp anyway, so what's the point? If he did have a gun so that I could shoot him, I'm now in a gunfight with my own life at risk too, over what - a few hundred dollars worth of personal property?

I'll stick to defending the inside of my home, myself and my car if I'm in it, and my person or someone else against deadly force if needed. In all of those cases the need for deadly force has to come to me, unprovoked, and be unavoidable.

I'm sure not going to go outside and shoot some punk in the back of the head for breaking into my car and/or stealing my personal property. Maybe the perp reached for his waistband or maybe he didn't, but I wouldn't have been in that situation. No gunfights for me over just personal property.

It ain't worth the hassle.

$.02
 
It's usually bad for the shooter unless there is an imminet threat of harm. I think they should give him a marksmanship metal and thank him for his service to the community. If more of these situations ended like this, there would be a lot less of it.
 
This thread reminded me of the Good Riddance Factor <broken link removed> ... nce+factor

This will be reported as a killing with a gun as though the prep was an innocent citizen killed by a ruthless criminal, and used as a statistic against our rights.....

I do believe that crime should be a dangerous job, but killing someone over a speaker? (BTW I hate it when those punk kids play their bass so loud I can't carry on a conversation in my car).

If this guy Sheets was such a good shot, he should have shot the guy in the arm, that 7.62x54 would have removed one of the perps tools, making his criminal activities a little tougher.....
 
I think with out the imminent threat thing, even if you wounded the guy, you would get charged with use of deadly force? Personally I would not have shot @ the guy over a car prowl thats what insurance is for. He would have to threaten me or someone elses life.
 
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.

Yep. +1
 
Nothing I own is worth taking someones life over. I may be mad, I may be sad, I may be so pissed off I can't see straight, but unless it's me and mine that are threatened, the simple thief gets a pass from me. Notwithstanding the legal ramifications of shooting someone for stealing a sub-woofer, are we really that ready to kill someone over property? If we are, we are no better than the person who would kill us for that same property.

Unless I am threatened, or my housemates are threatened, THINGS can be replaced, PEOPLE cannot.
 
Oh wait - the article in the OP said the perp was stealing a 27 pound sub woofer.

I'd PAY people to steal those noisy suckers. :s0114:
 
Some of you folks are looking at this the wrong way. You might think that your possessions aren't worth killing for, but the thief--by virtue of his actions--clearly believes that your stuff is worth dying for.

Why disappoint him?
 
I had a thought this morning (yes... it did hurt) while driving to work this morning about this issue...

First let me say that I have NEVER said that this was a "good shoot"... I just don't feel sorry for the theiving schmuck is all. So anyway, here's the question to challenge your ethos...


(Assuming you would use deadly force to defend someone OTHER than yourself or your family/friends in a spontaneous situation... like I would.)

If you had been a bystander in this situation, who was legally armed AND with a CPL/CHL and KNEW WHAT YOU KNOW NOW... would you have shot at the man with the rifle in DEFENSE of the unarmed car breaker/theif?
 
I had a thought this morning (yes... it did hurt) while driving to work this morning about this issue...

First let me say that I have NEVER said that this was a "good shoot"... I just don't feel sorry for the theiving schmuck is all. So anyway, here's the question to challenge your ethos...


(Assuming you would use deadly force to defend someone OTHER than yourself or your family/friends in a spontaneous situation... like I would.)

If you had been a bystander in this situation, who was legally armed AND with a CPL/CHL and KNEW WHAT YOU KNOW NOW... would you have shot at the man with the rifle in DEFENSE of the unarmed car breaker/theif?

No.
 
When the punishment "fits" the crime, then it's a fair trade and that's ONLY IF the criminal gets caught. That's not much of a deterrent.

I don't think anybody is suggesting the death penalty is an appropriate sentence for stealing a car stereo. But I just can't get that worked up if a thief gets killed during the crime. Death shouldn't be a sentence, but criminals should accept it as a possibility. I'm not interested in providing criminals with OSHA benefits.
 
There was a case similar to this in Oregon a long time ago where a guy said his lever action Winchester accidentally fired as he was thumb cocking the hammer to fire a warning shot at a car prowler. The accidental shot hit the running man in the back at a distance of over 50 yards at night, I seem to recall. He was given bench probation for negligent homicide is what I seem to remember.

Also in Oregon, its only a "burglary" if it is in a building. 1st degree burglary is a residence if the laws have not changed and it used to be that deadly force was authorized for home burglars because it was reasonable to assume that a burglar who enters a residence was intending to harm the occupant. I haven't been a cop for over 15 years so the laws may have changed but I thought I'd mention these things.
 
1st degree burglary is a residence if the laws have not changed and it used to be that deadly force was authorized for home burglars because it was reasonable to assume that a burglar who enters a residence was intending to harm the occupant. I haven't been a cop for over 15 years so the laws may have changed but I thought I'd mention these things.

I was unaware the law had changed. I hope that's not true because I could see myself shooting somebody that breaks into my house when I am home. I seriously doubt they are breaking in to ask if they can borrow a cup of sugar. And at night in the dark I'm probably not going to turn a flash light on and check for a weapon. IF they are in my house and approaching me, wife, or kids they are likely to get a few 45 slugs or buck shot depending on which I grab. I believe it to be completely justified to assume somebody breaking into your house to be armed. Burglars generally come to your house when your not there, Psycho's and Sicko's break in when you are there and that's a fact.
 
(Assuming you would use deadly force to defend someone OTHER than yourself or your family/friends in a spontaneous situation... like I would.)

If you had been a bystander in this situation, who was legally armed AND with a CPL/CHL and KNEW WHAT YOU KNOW NOW... would you have shot at the man with the rifle in DEFENSE of the unarmed car breaker/theif?

I would not shoot the guy with the rifle. Here's why: You see a guy running with a speaker towards a car full of other guys, and someone is yelling at him and holding a rifle. I would stay back and call the cops and describe everything I see. In my CHL class they told us to never involve your gun in a situation that you don't know all the facts about.
 
There was a case similar to this in Oregon a long time ago where a guy said his lever action Winchester accidentally fired as he was thumb cocking the hammer to fire a warning shot at a car prowler. The accidental shot hit the running man in the back at a distance of over 50 yards at night, I seem to recall. He was given bench probation for negligent homicide is what I seem to remember.

Also in Oregon, its only a "burglary" if it is in a building. 1st degree burglary is a residence if the laws have not changed and it used to be that deadly force was authorized for home burglars because it was reasonable to assume that a burglar who enters a residence was intending to harm the occupant. I haven't been a cop for over 15 years so the laws may have changed but I thought I'd mention these things.

I remember that case. From what I remember of it the shooter was clearly in the wrong.
 
I have to go to work so i havent read everyones post so might be repeating alot that was already said. I just had my concealed class were we talked about these situations for 4 hours. I purchased a gun to protect my family and myself i feel that man had a right to shoot if the CRIMINAL was reaching in his waistband however i also feel the VICTIM brought the situation to a higher level then needed and faster then needed because there was no threat to his family.If the CRIMINALS started coming inside i suggest they DONT because i will be armed and ready to kill. The VICTIM must have had the thought of hault and i will make him stay while the police come but the fact of the matter is he is not an officer and if he wants to do stuff like that become one. non threating protection of the OUTSIDE of your house should be left to the police at sometime the dumb CRIMINAL will pay the price. But at the end of the day for that man at that second it came down to kill or be killed and i would have made the same choice.
 

Upcoming Events

Tillamook Gun & Knife Show
Tillamook, OR
"The Original" Kalispell Gun Show
Kalispell, MT
Teen Rifle 1 Class
Springfield, OR
Kids Firearm Safety 2 Class
Springfield, OR

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top