Washington Samaritan with gun shoots tires out of suspected shoplifter’s vehicle

[bsa1917hunter]

Perhaps. Perhaps also that most folks, like ourselves, do not EVER want to shoot anyone.

There was a time that stealing a mans horse was a hanging offense.

Nowadays folks will steal a car just because they want to. Most times, if cought, the punishment is laughable.

Think of it again. If the bar for use of lethal force was LEGALLY lowered, would crime in general similarly get lower.

Crime probably wouldn't get lower because you'd have people shooting each other over stupid chit...

 

[ma96782]

Maybe they didn't get the memo?

"Shooting at fleeing FELONS is now prohibited."

Aloha, Mark

 

[wp4]

Crime probably wouldn't get lower because you'd have people shooting each other over stupid chit...

Possibly true with today's culture. However, again I'll say we as a people used to take care of things ourselves. I'm not so sure everyone can handle the level of freedom we used to have.

But I think we should try!

 

[No_Regerts]

Possibly true with today's culture. However, again I'll say we as a people used to take care of things ourselves. I'm not so sure everyone can handle the level of freedom we used to have.

But I think we should try!

This is why stupid kids bully each other on Facebook. We took away the ability for people to stomp people out for being an azzhole. You think some 12 year old little b!tch would talk smack on Facebook if she knew she'd get drug through a gravel parking lot by her hair? Doubt it. David Hogg would have eaten a curb.

 

[RVTECH]

Not to put words in his mouth, but I believe he was talking about innocent bystanders. You never know where a stray bullet is going to go, and once you send it, you can't take it back...

There is this but what I WAS referring to by 'innocent' was in the last part of my statement:

injured or killed due to impulsive shootings where it was not justified.

I am referencing the possibility of impulsive shootings where someone 'thought' he or she (or someone else) was being robbed and it turned out to be a mistake. I can think of many situations which could be misconstrued as crimes taking place but clearly would not be and could very easily result in unjustified shootings.

 

[Provincial]

Implausable scenario, but imagine if the "good samaritans" were actually a rival gang that had been planning a similar heist, but decided to just hijack the stolen goods? It would explain their reluctance to contact law enforcement.

 

[MannyGlocks]

Vigilante justice can be misinformed...

That's why we have Law Enforcement, Judges and Juries.

I fully understand the disgust and despair over property crimes, but I carry for me and mine and yeah, on a case by case situation a child in trouble. Domestic fights, your on your own...

 

[The Heretic]

In all honesty, there are some people that have earned a certain level of indifference from LE. They've been arrested over and over again. They go to court over and over. Judges have to listen to their stupid explanations and can't justify sentencing out of the standard range or even jail time in the standard range because of cost, so they get next to nothing for time.

Then one turns up dead. Everyone lets out a collective "awwwww" and then goes about their business. Just saying.

80% of the crime is committed by 20% of the criminals - repeat offenders.

Sometimes LEOs have special squads to serve outstanding warrants on them and crime goes down, but then some CEO's wife is offended by a panhandler and the squad is disbanded/reassigned to do more car/foot patrols to have a "greater police presence in the neighborhood".

 

[No_Regerts]

80% of the crime is committed by 20% of the criminals - repeat offenders.

Sometimes LEOs have special squads to serve outstanding warrants on them and crime goes down, but then some CEO's wife is offended by a panhandler and the squad is disbanded/reassigned to do more car/foot patrols to have a "greater police presence in the neighborhood".

Yep, or the offended is a somebody and its their kid who is the career criminal. Forget they were a schitty parent who was more absorbed in their political career than their child. Nope, its our fault for harassing their baby and taking them to jail.

 

[ma96782]

Well, this started out as just another simple "property crime"* too.

Mind you that I'm not saying that it's even close to what is being described here. Only that.....there is/could be a point where just calling for law enforcement don't account for much. Then, note who fired the first shot. Also, there are those that will argue that every member of the "gang" should not be held accountable for the action(s) of some of the other gang members. Hummm.....felony murder rule.** But OK.....YES, those were different times.

Anyway, enjoy your history.

http://www.angelfire.com/mi2/jamesyoungergang/northfield.html

*Property crime
From Wikipedia.

Property crime is a category of crime that includes, among other crimes, burglary, larceny, theft, motor vehicle theft, arson, shoplifting, and vandalism. Property crime is a crime to obtain money, property, or some other benefit. This may involve force, or the threat of force, in cases like robbery or extortion. Since these crimes are committed in order to enrich the perpetrator they are considered property crimes. Crimes against property are divided into two groups: destroyed property and stolen property. When property is destroyed, it could be called arson or vandalism. Examples of the act of stealing property is robbery or embezzlement.

**Felony murder rule
From Wikipedia.

The rule of felony murder is a legal doctrine in some common law jurisdictions that broadens the crime of murder: when an offender kills (regardless of intent to kill) in the commission of a dangerous or enumerated crime (called a felony in some jurisdictions), the offender, and also the offender's accomplices or co-conspirators, may be found guilty of murder.

Aloha, Mark

PS.....
Felony murder rule (Hawaii) - Wikipedia

In the state of Hawaii, the common law felony murder rule has been completely abolished. Hawaii Revised Statutes §707-701

 

[bsa1917hunter]

There is this but what I WAS referring to by 'innocent' was in the last part of my statement:

I am referencing the possibility of impulsive shootings where someone 'thought' he or she (or someone else) was being robbed and it turned out to be a mistake. I can think of many situations which could be misconstrued as crimes taking place but clearly would not be and could very easily result in unjustified shootings.

Yes, I totally agree. Like recently when a home owner was shot by a leo because he had a gun on the bad guy.

 

[bsa1917hunter]

This is why stupid kids bully each other on Facebook. We took away the ability for people to stomp people out for being an azzhole. You think some 12 year old little b!tch would talk smack on Facebook if she knew she'd get drug through a gravel parking lot by her hair? Doubt it. David Hogg would have eaten a curb.

I tried to like your post twice, but the moderators wouldn't let me... Two thumbs up..

 

[CountryGent]

Conclusion: Not enough 'accurate information'...

Other than the Facebook page of the law enforcement agency, I haven't been able to find a news story online. Anyone locate one?

This was at Coastal?!? No wonder there were so many CCW people! Stupid criminal to pull a gun there (if he actually did)!

Agreed. We shop at our local Coastal all the time. Based upon the patrons there, I'd be surprised if many weren't packing.

 

[justcuz]

Sorry but the LEs want to possibly prosecute said shooters...it is of course a property crime not a threat against anybody

RCW 9A.16.020
Use of force—When lawful.
The use, attempt, or offer to use force upon or toward the person of another is not unlawful in the following cases:
(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;
(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;
(3) Whenever used by a party about to be injured, or by another lawfully aiding him or her, in preventing or attempting to prevent an offense against his or her person, or a malicious trespass, or other malicious interference with real or personal property lawfully in his or her possession, in case the force is not more than is necessary;
(4) Whenever reasonably used by a person to detain someone who enters or remains unlawfully in a building or on real property lawfully in the possession of such person, so long as such detention is reasonable in duration and manner to investigate the reason for the detained person's presence on the premises, and so long as the premises in question did not reasonably appear to be intended to be open to members of the public;
(5) Whenever used by a carrier of passengers or the carrier's authorized agent or servant, or other person assisting them at their request in expelling from a carriage, railway car, vessel, or other vehicle, a passenger who refuses to obey a lawful and reasonable regulation prescribed for the conduct of passengers, if such vehicle has first been stopped and the force used is not more than is necessary to expel the offender with reasonable regard to the offender's personal safety;
(6) Whenever used by any person to prevent a mentally ill, mentally incompetent, or mentally disabled person from committing an act dangerous to any person, or in enforcing necessary restraint for the protection or restoration to health of the person, during such period only as is necessary to obtain legal authority for the restraint or custody of the person.

 

[wp4]

Sorry but the LEs want to possibly prosecute said shooters...it is of course a property crime not a threat against anybody

RCW 9A.16.020
Use of force—When lawful.
The use, attempt, or offer to use force upon or toward the person of another is not unlawful in the following cases:
(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;
(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;
(3) Whenever used by a party about to be injured, or by another lawfully aiding him or her, in preventing or attempting to prevent an offense against his or her person, or a malicious trespass, or other malicious interference with real or personal property lawfully in his or her possession, in case the force is not more than is necessary;
(4) Whenever reasonably used by a person to detain someone who enters or remains unlawfully in a building or on real property lawfully in the possession of such person, so long as such detention is reasonable in duration and manner to investigate the reason for the detained person's presence on the premises, and so long as the premises in question did not reasonably appear to be intended to be open to members of the public;
(5) Whenever used by a carrier of passengers or the carrier's authorized agent or servant, or other person assisting them at their request in expelling from a carriage, railway car, vessel, or other vehicle, a passenger who refuses to obey a lawful and reasonable regulation prescribed for the conduct of passengers, if such vehicle has first been stopped and the force used is not more than is necessary to expel the offender with reasonable regard to the offender's personal safety;
(6) Whenever used by any person to prevent a mentally ill, mentally incompetent, or mentally disabled person from committing an act dangerous to any person, or in enforcing necessary restraint for the protection or restoration to health of the person, during such period only as is necessary to obtain legal authority for the restraint or custody of the person.

Not to be a d!ck, but I think we've already established early in this thread that it most likely is a bad shoot, if all that happened was somebody taking pot shots at the vehicle as the perp(s) left.

What's been discussed since is what some would like to see as legal in soceity.

We don't have all the info yet, it may have been a legit self defense shooting.

 

[No_Regerts]

Not to be a d!ck, but I think we've already established early in this thread that it most likely is a bad shoot, if all that happened was somebody taking pot shots at the vehicle as the perp(s) left.

What's been discussed since is what some would like to see as legal in soceity.

We don't have all the info yet, it may have been a legit self defense shooting.

Don't mind him. Its like keyboard tourettes.

 

[Tony617]

Bad shoot IMHO. Never shoot at a fleeing suspect.

 

[wp4]

Bad shoot IMHO. Never shoot at a fleeing suspect.

Absolutely. Under current law that's a quick way to end up in jail.

However IMHO what will piss me off is if the shooter ends up with a stiffer penalty than the REAL criminal. Which is a high possibility, especially if this is in an area with an anti gun justice system.

While I wouldn't do it, and agree it's illegal, I don't morally have a problem with the idea of someone trying to disable the vehicle with their gun. Obviously as long as all the boxes were checked like being sure of the target and what's beyond.

Just my opinion, that's all.

I would like to live in a society that looks out for each other, and pulls out something other than just a phone to film the show for fakebook. You know, like we USED to?

 

[ma96782]

Bad shoot IMHO. Never shoot at a fleeing suspect.

NEVER? Really? Making such simple rules is what leads people's thinking down the wrong rabbit hole.

What?

In some cases an LEO shooting a person in the back is justifiable. BUT, because of statements (like yours) where the word NEVER is spouted....well, the general population thinks that it's ALWAYS a bad shoot if the suspect is shot in the back.

§703-307 Use of force in law enforcement.
(1) Subject to the provisions of this section and of section 703-310, the use of force upon or toward the person of another is justifiable when the actor is making or assisting in making an arrest and the actor believes that such force is immediately necessary to effect a lawful arrest.

(2) The use of force is not justifiable under this section unless:

(a) The actor makes known the purpose of the arrest or believes that it is otherwise known by or cannot reasonably be made known to the person to be arrested; and

(b) When the arrest is made under a warrant, the warrant is valid or believed by the actor to be valid.

(3) The use of deadly force is not justifiable under this section unless:

(a) The arrest is for a felony;

(b) The person effecting the arrest is authorized to act as a law enforcement officer or is assisting a person whom he believes to be authorized to act as a law enforcement officer;

(c) The actor believes that the force employed creates no substantial risk of injury to innocent persons; and

(d) The actor believes that:

(i) The crimes for which the arrest is made involved conduct including the use or threatened use of deadly force; or

(ii) There is a substantial risk that the person to be arrested will cause death or serious bodily injury if his apprehension is delayed.

(4) The use of force to prevent the escape of an arrested person from custody is justifiable when the force could justifiably have been employed to effect the arrest under which the person is in custody, except that a guard or other person authorized to act as a law enforcement officer is justified in using force which he believes to be immediately necessary to prevent the escape from a detention facility.

(5) A private person who is summoned by a law enforcement officer to assist in effecting an unlawful arrest is justified in using any force which he would be justified in using if the arrest were lawful, provided that he does not believe the arrest is unlawful. A private person who assists another private person in effecting an unlawful arrest, or who, not being summoned, assists a law enforcement officer in effecting an unlawful arrest, is justified in using any force which he would be justified in using if the arrest were lawful, provided that he believes the arrest is lawful, and the arrest would be lawful if the facts were as he believes them to be. [L 1972, c 9, pt of §1; am L 2001, c 91, §4]

And I'd bet that are other States where it's also applicable. But YES.....I was nitpicking your NEVER statement. Maybe you just forgot to mention the use of deadly force in Law Enforcement.

Aloha, Mark

 

[Tony617]

NEVER? Really? Making such simple rules is what leads people's thinking down the wrong rabbit hole.

What?

In some cases an LEO shooting a person in the back is justifiable. BUT, because of statements (like yours) where the word NEVER is spouted....well, the general population thinks that it's ALWAYS a bad shoot if the suspect is shot in the back.

§703-307 Use of force in law enforcement.
(1) Subject to the provisions of this section and of section 703-310, the use of force upon or toward the person of another is justifiable when the actor is making or assisting in making an arrest and the actor believes that such force is immediately necessary to effect a lawful arrest.

(2) The use of force is not justifiable under this section unless:

(a) The actor makes known the purpose of the arrest or believes that it is otherwise known by or cannot reasonably be made known to the person to be arrested; and


(b) When the arrest is made under a warrant, the warrant is valid or believed by the actor to be valid.

(3) The use of deadly force is not justifiable under this section unless:

(a) The arrest is for a felony;

(b) The person effecting the arrest is authorized to act as a law enforcement officer or is assisting a person whom he believes to be authorized to act as a law enforcement officer;

(c) The actor believes that the force employed creates no substantial risk of injury to innocent persons; and

(d) The actor believes that:

(i) The crimes for which the arrest is made involved conduct including the use or threatened use of deadly force; or

(ii) There is a substantial risk that the person to be arrested will cause death or serious bodily injury if his apprehension is delayed.

(4) The use of force to prevent the escape of an arrested person from custody is justifiable when the force could justifiably have been employed to effect the arrest under which the person is in custody, except that a guard or other person authorized to act as a law enforcement officer is justified in using force which he believes to be immediately necessary to prevent the escape from a detention facility.

(5) A private person who is summoned by a law enforcement officer to assist in effecting an unlawful arrest is justified in using any force which he would be justified in using if the arrest were lawful, provided that he does not believe the arrest is unlawful. A private person who assists another private person in effecting an unlawful arrest, or who, not being summoned, assists a law enforcement officer in effecting an unlawful arrest, is justified in using any force which he would be justified in using if the arrest were lawful, provided that he believes the arrest is lawful, and the arrest would be lawful if the facts were as he believes them to be. [L 1972, c 9, pt of §1; am L 2001, c 91, §4]

And I'd bet that are other States where it's also applicable. But YES.....I was nitpicking your NEVER statement. Maybe you just forgot to mention the use of deadly force in Law Enforcement.

Aloha, Mark

As a private citizen with a CPL only. You are not a LEO and unless the shoplifter pulls a weapon or something let him flee.