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

[ohsocountry1]

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.

could not agree more guns are to protect people

 

[Trlsmn]

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.

I agree with everything you said except that it is the responsibility of the police to protect my property outside my home. It's my responsibility first and the police responsibility second. My only thoughts on going out to confront a criminal that is doing me wrong, is to go into the situation from a safe defensive position, after that I will take the responsibility for protecting what is mine, which of course would involve calling the police first.

As I stated earlier I would not kill someone for stealing my Car let alone a Subwoofer. That said I would not stand by and allow it to happen unchecked either.

 

[ohsocountry1]

i just feel anything outside is just a possesion life will goes on but if the threats attention is moving to the home like i said hes done in my mind.

 

[ohsocountry1]

The fact of the matter is firearm owners and police fbi whatever are trained or have the frame of mind to assume that the other person you view as a threat has the means to kill you which is the safest way to go into something. So that man or you and i would know to assume he has a weapon in his pants to were others non gun/weapon owners just think hes touching his pants. so a man reaching in his pants would be probable cause for shooting and others would say oh my god you shot and man in the head for pulling up his pant.

 

[ohsocountry1]

you said its your first police second to protect the outside of your house. Problemis no court would ever view it that way. I will say that the police only have about 2 seconds to get to my house because as the threat gets closer i arm myself more

 

[Trlsmn]

you said its your first police second to protect the outside of your house. Problemis no court would ever view it that way. I will say that the police only have about 2 seconds to get to my house because as the threat gets closer i arm myself more

Actually the law does view it that way.

"You, and anyone who assists you, are justified in using reasonable force in order to prevent someone taking an item of your property, or in order to retake it. You are justified even if the person attempting to take the item thought he or she had the right to do so."

 

[smithmax]

Actually the law does view it that way.

"You, and anyone who assists you, are justified in using reasonable force in order to prevent someone taking an item of your property, or in order to retake it. You are justified even if the person attempting to take the item thought he or she had the right to do so."

Do you have the ORS to back that up? You also say "reasonable force", shooting someone over a speaker is not reasonable force.

 

[ohsocountry1]

apparently i need to check myself lol i did not know that at all so sry for speaking out of term thats awesome.

 

[ohsocountry1]

i think these posts r never gonna end in his defense he said reasonable force (i think he ment in general) u saw he agreed to the other stuff i said so he didnt necessarily mean in terms of that situation

 

[PhysicsGuy]

Actually the law does view it that way.

"You, and anyone who assists you, are justified in using reasonable force in order to prevent someone taking an item of your property, or in order to retake it. You are justified even if the person attempting to take the item thought he or she had the right to do so."

The law about using force to protect property does not include deadly force;

161.229 Use of physical force in defense of property. A person is justified in using physical force, other than deadly physical force, upon another person when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes it to be necessary to prevent or terminate the commission or attempted commission by the other person of theft or criminal mischief of property. [1971 c.743 §26]

https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors161.html

 

[Trlsmn]

The law about using force to protect property does not include deadly force;



https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors161.html

Do you have the ORS to back that up? You also say "reasonable force", shooting someone over a speaker is not reasonable force.

161.205 Use of physical force generally.

(5) A person may use physical force upon another person in self-defense or in defending a third person, in defending property, in making an arrest or in preventing an escape, as hereafter prescribed in chapter 743, Oregon Laws 1971.

Agreed to both of you, but my counter is that deadly force would not be used until it was warranted as self defense and at that point it is legal.

161.219 Limitations on use of deadly physical force in defense of a person. Notwithstanding the provisions of ORS 161.209, a person is not justified in using deadly physical force upon another person unless the person reasonably believes that the other person is:

(1) Committing or attempting to commit a felony involving the use or threatened imminent use of physical force against a person; or

(2) Committing or attempting to commit a burglary in a dwelling; or

(3) Using or about to use unlawful deadly physical force against a person

 

[PhysicsGuy]

Agreed to both of you, but my counter is that deadly force would not be used until it was warranted as self defense and at that point it is legal.

Or if they are burglarizing your home

 

[New Oregonian]

So does this poor guy lose his gun now...


I always wanted one of those "Hammer of God" guns...now I know they work.

So do we know if its going to civil court yet. I saw someone else ask, but didn't see a response.

 

[Trlsmn]

So does this poor guy lose his gun now...


I always wanted one of those "Hammer of God" guns...now I know they work.

So do we know if its going to civil court yet. I saw someone else ask, but didn't see a response.

Yes and his right to own guns, which to me is worse than the likely 6 months in prison.

 

[Stomper]

161.219 Limitations on use of deadly physical force in defense of a person. Notwithstanding the provisions of ORS 161.209, a person is not justified in using deadly physical force upon another person unless the person reasonably believes that the other person is:

(1) Committing or attempting to commit a felony involving the use or threatened imminent use of physical force against a person; or

(2) Committing or attempting to commit a burglary in a dwelling; or

(3) Using or about to use unlawful deadly physical force against a person

Well in light of condition #2... Should this situation arrise for me, I will tell the police I live in my car...


Oh yeah... things CAN BE replaced, people can't... but some folks just aren't worth replacin'... I'm just sayin'.

 

[bshnt2015]

Update:


<broken link removed>


Man sentenced to 9 months in prison for shooting car prowler
Friday, October 30, 2009
Last updated 4:15 p.m. PT

SeattlePI.com staff

A Seattle man who shot a car prowler in the back of the head and killed him was sentenced to 9 months in jail on Friday.

The sentence and an earlier guilty plea were part of a deal reached with prosecutors.

Filing a second-degree manslaughter charge in September, King County prosecutors alleged that Douglas Cameron Sheets acted with criminal negligence when he shot Jhovany Hernandez outside his Northgate home. According to court filings, police came to believe that Sheets shot Hernandez as the 21-year-old fled.

Sheets was arraigned Oct. 2y, then pleaded guilty to second-degree manslaughter. Since he had no other criminal record, he could have faced a sentence of 21 to 27 months.

But prosecutors recommended just nine months, pointing to a mitigating factor listed in sentencing laws. That factor is invoked when the victim instigated the incident as Hernandez did during the car prowl.

Sheets is eligible to serve work release instead of jail time, Prosecutor's Office spokesman Dan Donohoe said.

Describing the Sept. 24, 2008, shooting, Seattle police Detective James Cooper said in statements to the court that incident began when Sheets heard several men breaking into his car.

From the balcony of his apartment in the 9700 block of Fifth Avenue Northeast, Sheets saw an unfamiliar car idling near the parking stall underneath the balcony where his Toyota Camry was parked. Three other men, Cooper said, were breaking into the vehicle.

Sheets returned to the balcony with a Mosin-Nagant bolt-action rifle, Cooper said, prompting the men in the car to flee as two of the apparent car prowlers, including Hernandez, remained near the apartment. Trying to get to the prowlers' car, Hernandez ran carrying a 27-pound subwoofer taken from Sheets' car.

Cooper said that Sheets told officers Hernandez turned and reached for the waistband of his pants before the shooting. Sheets took aim and fired, striking Hernandez in the back of the head.

Sheets then rushed out of his apartment, Cooper said, checking Hernandez for a pulse and found the man dead. Police later determined that Hernandez was unarmed at the time of the shooting.

Speaking to officers after being taken into custody, Sheets allegedly told investigators he had not intended to kill Hernandez.

"When the defendant told them to freeze, the defendant claimed the last guy turned around holding the subwoofer up by his head with one hand," Cooper said in court documents. "The defendant said (Hernandez), with his free hand, then started reaching for his waistband."

Sheets, the detective added, "said he wasn't going to take any chances, he 'freaked the (expletive) out,' and he fired."

During an autopsy, staff with the King County Medical Examiner's Office found Hernandez had been killed by the single gunshot to the back of his head.

© 1998-2009 Seattle Post-Intelligencer

 

[Trlsmn]

Sheets is eligible to serve work release instead of jail time, Prosecutor's Office spokesman Dan Donohoe said.

This is good news!

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

This is good news!

Let's just hope the ordeal taught him a lesson and anyone that followed the story. Defending property is not usually worth sacrificing your freedom over. If you pull the trigger you should feel that you are in physical danger.

 

[Trlsmn]

Let's just hope the ordeal taught him a lesson and anyone that followed the story. Defending property is not usually worth sacrificing your freedom over. If you pull the trigger you should feel that you are in physical danger.

"When the defendant told them to freeze, the defendant claimed the last guy turned around holding the subwoofer up by his head with one hand," Cooper said in court documents. "The defendant said (Hernandez), with his free hand, then started reaching for his waistband."

Sheets, the detective added, "said he wasn't going to take any chances, he 'freaked the (expletive) out,' and he fired."


I know it wasn't an ice maker but hey it still "freaked him the (expletive) out!"

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

"When the defendant told them to freeze, the defendant claimed the last guy turned around holding the subwoofer up by his head with one hand," Cooper said in court documents. "The defendant said (Hernandez), with his free hand, then started reaching for his waistband."

Sheets, the detective added, "said he wasn't going to take any chances, he 'freaked the (expletive) out,' and he fired."


I know it wasn't an ice maker but hey it still "freaked him the (expletive) out!"

Hey, that ice maker made the first move. It was clearly self defense on my part.