Poll: CHARGED: Spokane car theft suspect shot dead: Was it legal?

[Riot]

Please don't represent me in court.

Exactly...lots of armchair lawyers in the room. What people fail to realize is that the man who had his SUV stolen left it unlocked, unattended and running- then killed the man that was taking off with it. Nobody here sees anything wrong with this picture? I don't think the guy should get the murder wrap, but he is clearly not someone I think should should continue to carry a gun anymore.

 

[ZigZagZeke]

...is my life or someone else s in immediate danger ?

If the thief is going to be driving recklessly he will be endangering others. How many times have innocent people been killed by a fleeing felon in a car wreck?

Seems to me the Portland police shot a suspect trying to drive off with a police car a few years ago. That was justified, so why not a civilian shooter?

 

[Burt Gummer]

I hate car thieves about as much as child rapists, but NO you can't or shouldn't shoot someone stealing your car stereo or car, etc. I would if it was legal just because I've suffered at the hands of car vandals and thieves many times. Try living on a houseboat where the parking lot is two blocks away. Easy pickings.

I know our corporate for-profit prisons need to be filled and I am not going to play along and earn stripes just to feel good about capping a lowlife trying to steal my car.

 

[dmancornell]

If the thief is going to be driving recklessly he will be endangering others. How many times have innocent people been killed by a fleeing felon in a car wreck?

Pre-crime is real?

Seems to me the Portland police shot a suspect trying to drive off with a police car a few years ago. That was justified, so why not a civilian shooter?

Cops have flat out murdered people and had them rubber-stamped as justified. Civilians shouldn't lower themselves to the same level of barbarity as government funded thugs.

 

[fallingblock]

Exactly...lots of armchair lawyers in the room. What people fail to realize is that the man who had his SUV stolen left it unlocked, unattended and running- then killed the man that was taking off with it. Nobody here sees anything wrong with this picture? I don't think the guy should get the murder wrap, but he is clearly not someone I think should should continue to carry a gun anymore.

I'll agree with you that it was not the brightest idea to leave a running vehicle unattended.. But... It's his property, on his property, so he can leave it anyway he likes.. Yes, it was an invitation and one that was capitalized on. The news report was lacking on details.. He could have been sitting in that car while warming it up and decided to top his coffee cup off before he left and just ran inside for a second.


I'd like to offer up this; The victim in this case may have made his living using that vehicle, we don't know. He may have had all his tools of his trade in that vehicle (even if it was just a brief case), again, we will not know until the all the facts come out.

A stolen vehicle is nothing more than a report to the police. The victim is out until it's found and I honestly do not know how long it takes for insurance companies (if he had full coverage) to give him the depreciated value of said vehicle. Regardless, we all know that the money the insurance companies give to replace a used vehicle is far less than what we lost.

I only know one person who had their car stolen and it was found a couple days later. This car had been driven hard and dumped (joy ride). His insurance company (full coverage) did the bare minimum fixing that car. He had issues with it for months after the insurance company "fixed" it.

My point being this. The victims life has been altered by the criminal and it will be until this is cleared up. Had he allowed the criminal to drive away, his life would have been altered because of this criminal.

I am also not going to judge his actions based on the news report, because it's lacking in details. I do not know this victims situation, which to me is where the justice or injustice of his action should be based. Let the facts be heard and the jury decide.

Now... Would I shoot someone stealing my running vehicle sitting in my driveway? Nope.... I would not trade a life for material possesions unless those material possesions were on my persons.

 

[Slowpoke]

Although I'll be the 1st Person to agree that our justice system isn't perfect (the fact alone that just a few months ago this guy assaulted a sheriffs deputy with a knife and was free enough to steal this car in the 1st place) but we can't just dish out our own brand of justice, shooting people in our driveways and claiming that they were attempting to steal something in the process to justify it is a list for disaster.

So, can you shoot someone for stealing your car?

This isn't a yes or no, cut and dry answer. Motor homes with everything you own? Child in the carseat? He's driving towards you? You're in the car when they try? What if you just saw them get into a wreck, possibly injuring another person, then try to steal your car and flee the scene?

Otherwise- a guy stealing your car is not justification for killing them any more than a kid stealing the bike on your front lawn is. Period. You can argue all you want about it being your "livelihood" but I'll argue to take a bus, carpool or hit up Craigslist for a junker.

Lastly...I'm not saying you can't beat this guy into submission before the police get there, I'm saying you can't ventilate someone because you're pissed that this oxygen thief is making a living off of your hard work. We all know that this world wouldn't miss another meathead. Regardless, we live in a society that allows every suspect to have their day in court. We are all not judge, jury & executioner just because we own firearms and decide to adopt a sheepdog mentality. With all force we must use restraint and good judgement. Think before you act, especially before you reach for the gun when you hear a crash in the middle of the night.

One of the best posts ever, IMHO.

 

[Rotty]

Exactly...lots of armchair lawyers in the room. What people fail to realize is that the man who had his SUV stolen left it unlocked, unattended and running- then killed the man that was taking off with it. Nobody here sees anything wrong with this picture? I don't think the guy should get the murder wrap, but he is clearly not someone I think should should continue to carry a gun anymore.

The one piece that no one has even brought up yet. It's easy to say "Yep if that happened to me I would shoot the the dirt bag".

BUT when you are faced with that split second decision and make that choice, justified shooting or not you have to live with it for the rest of your life and potentially have to deal with PTSD for the rest of your life. Those memories are strong, vivid and done right brutal. That's not even addressing the nightmares, martial strain, depression etc.

 

[Phillyfan]

This part:



And in this instance, has the felony already been committed? And if it has, is it justifiable to use deadly force once the vehicle has been stolen and the suspect is driving away? Can the police legaly shoot anyone driving a stolen car whenever one is located using licence plate reading technology?

Good point, I was thinking the same thing.

 

[nwbobber]

I would not shoot someone for stealing anything I own, but I can't help thinking that car theives deserve to live in peril more than the average firefighter. Property crimes are property crimes, to a point. The result of the financial hardship on the victims can sometimes be stress related illness, loss of employment, all the way to suicide in the case of some of the dirtbag bankers and accountants who wiped out 401k's and pensions (think Enron). Should we give these folks a couple years in the joint and turn em loose once again? That is the law now, and I would follow it, and in the case of car theft, even if the law allowed it I would not take a life to protect myself from the inconvenience of having to contact insurance,etc. to get my car replaced. I do think more kids would turn their life around before committing car theft if this happened more. That might be a good thing, all in all.

 

[Redcap]

The one piece that no one has even brought up yet. It's easy to say "Yep if that happened to me I would shoot the the dirt bag".

BUT when you are faced with that split second decision and make that choice, justified shooting or not you have to live with it for the rest of your life and potentially have to deal with PTSD for the rest of your life. Those memories are strong, vivid and done right brutal. That's not even addressing the nightmares, martial strain, depression etc.

Believe me, it really isn't that difficult.

 

[Phillyfan]

For some.

 

[kumabear17]

I guess the point several people made is one I can acknowledge and that's we don't exactly know the circumstance of what happed.

What really bugs me though is the number of people here who appear to sympathize with the car thief being shot. I hope these same people spend some time - and I'm sure some do - working with the legislature to punish all theft, including car theft, to reduce the number of repeated acts committed by the same people over and over as appears to have happened here. The law may eventually say the shooter was wrong if they don't feel his life was threated. Still I would hate to see this State move toward a philosophy that as long as a thief was polite they could take wahtever they want from me because gosh or gee it's all insured and not worth some one's life.

 

[netcarrier]

Hi All,
Just something to think about.

RCW 9A.56.065
Theft of motor vehicle.

(1) A person is guilty of theft of a motor vehicle if he or she commits theft of a motor vehicle.

(2) Theft of a motor vehicle is a class B felony.


[2007 c 199 § 2.]

RCW 9A.16.050
Homicide — By other person — When justifiable.

Homicide is also justifiable when committed either:

(1) In the lawful defense of the slayer, or his or her husband, wife, parent, child, brother, or sister, or of any other person in his or her presence or company, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design on the part of the person slain to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury to the slayer or to any such person, and there is imminent danger of such design being accomplished; or

(2) In the actual resistance of an attempt to commit a felony upon the slayer, in his or her presence, or upon or in a dwelling, or other place of abode, in which he or she is.


[2011 c 336 § 354; 1975 1st ex.s. c 260 § 9A.16.050.]

Tony Portland, Oregon Area

 

[Misterbill]

Hi All,
Just something to think about.

RCW 9A.56.065
Theft of motor vehicle.

(1) A person is guilty of theft of a motor vehicle if he or she commits theft of a motor vehicle.

(2) Theft of a motor vehicle is a class B felony.


[2007 c 199 § 2.]

RCW 9A.16.050
Homicide — By other person — When justifiable.

Homicide is also justifiable when committed either:

(1) In the lawful defense of the slayer, or his or her husband, wife, parent, child, brother, or sister, or of any other person in his or her presence or company, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design on the part of the person slain to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury to the slayer or to any such person, and there is imminent danger of such design being accomplished; or

(2) In the actual resistance of an attempt to commit a felony upon the slayer, in his or her presence, or upon or in a dwelling, or other place of abode, in which he or she is.


[2011 c 336 § 354; 1975 1st ex.s. c 260 § 9A.16.050.]

Tony Portland, Oregon Area

There is NOTHING to think about.

The law refers to a felony committed UPON A PERSON. Not just any felony, but a violent one. And there are some further clarifications if you look up the case law.

You cannot EVER use deadly force to protect property in Washington state.

 

[pchewn]

There is NOTHING to think about.

The law refers to a felony committed UPON A PERSON. Not just any felony, but a violent one. And there are some further clarifications if you look up the case law.

You cannot EVER use deadly force to protect property in Washington state.

WHERE in the law is the word "violent" ? You are wrong. The law does not say "Not just any felony, but a violent one." I just don't see that when reading the text of the law.

You may be right that the cases tried in the courts interpret the law this way, but that is certainly NOT what the law says.

 

[pchewn]

Remove double post

 

[Dave Workman]

T
You cannot EVER use deadly force to protect property in Washington state.

Sure you can. To prevent an arson, especially of an occupied building.

And there is no specificity about a "violent" felony in 050...just "a felony." Rape, Robbery, armed robbery, arson, kidnapping.



But 'netecarrier,' I included the text of 9A.16.050 in the original column. You didn't read it?

 

[slimmer13]

RCW's are like the bible, you can make them say anything you want, but in this state you better have a valid fear for your or anothers personal safety or you will have a real crappy few years ahead of you.

9A.32.050
Murder in the second degree.

(1) A person is guilty of murder in the second degree when:

(a) With intent to cause the death of another person but without premeditation, he or she causes the death of such person or of a third person; or

(b) He or she commits or attempts to commit any felony, including assault, other than those enumerated in RCW

9A.32.030(1)(c), and, in the course of and in furtherance of such crime or in immediate flight therefrom, he or she, or another participant, causes the death of a person other than one of the participants; except that in any prosecution under this subdivision (1)(b) in which the defendant was not the only participant in the underlying crime, if established by the defendant by a preponderance of the evidence, it is a defense that the defendant:

(i) Did not commit the homicidal act or in any way solicit, request, command, importune, cause, or aid the commission thereof; and

(ii) Was not armed with a deadly weapon, or any instrument, article, or substance readily capable of causing death or serious physical injury; and

(iii) Had no reasonable grounds to believe that any other participant was armed with such a weapon, instrument, article, or substance; and

(iv) Had no reasonable grounds to believe that any other participant intended to engage in conduct likely to result in death or serious physical injury.

(2) Murder in the second degree is a class A felony.



[2003 c 3 § 2; 1975-'76 2nd ex.s. c 38 § 4; 1975 1st ex.s. c 260

 

[kumabear17]

A lot depends on the Attorney General in power at the time. I seem to remember several years ago up past Kirkland, a homeowner shot three guys going over his back fence. He had confronted them in his basement. They fled across his backyard and made it to the fence, before he shot them. His defense was along the lines he thought they might head back and was scared for his safety. Then there was the guy down in On-Alaska who actually shot a guy stealing his truck. It was a rural environment and he came upon the guy at his vehicle which had his tools. I don't remember the whole case, but he wasn't charged. Sheriff: Shooter Acted in Self Defense - The Chronicle: News

Again, it may be fun to speculate, but no one yet has seen the details of the case. Then of course the lawyers, media the public, and after all that, possibly a jury will have to decide. I live rural and have at times heard noise late at night. I don't think anyone I know calls 911. You grabs a flashlight and a firearm and step outside. The last 911 call a neighbor lady made about a burglary in progress they told her to lock herself in a room as it would be 30 minutes. She told them not to worry, she had made it to her husband Glock 23. They made it in 15 minutes and the guy had left. Neighbors were upset, not with the Sherriff, but because she hadn't called us.

 

[Blaylocke]

I haven't read the whole topic, so maybe this point has been made. I'm 22 years old. I cannot afford full auto insurance. Many people can't. So for a lot of people it's not "just a car, insurance will cover it" If some jerkoff steals my car, it's gone. I pinched pennies from my 12th birthday on to be able to afford nice (by my standards) things. The legality of it, would of course temper my view on this, but from a very basic perspective: Is it worth shooting someone over a stolen property? The answer, as someone who had to scrape to legitimately purchase his decent vehicle, is yes. I was younger once, I had things I wanted. But I didn't prowl for them. And I don't feel too bad for some moron kid or some repeat offender who didn't get the memo and gets blown away for it.