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

[wp4]

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

Good points. I think he meant it more for the average citizen.
I would absolutely shoot an active shooter in the back (of his fvcking HEAD if possible!), but if he was "fleeing" and no longer obviously armed? I don't know.. I would probably still, because I don't know if he's still carrying concealed weapons. And I would tell law enforcement (through my lawyer) that it looked like he was still armed and I was still in fear of my life. And/ or it looked like he was going for more weapons.

I can't think of any other scenario where I would shoot someone leaving the crime scene.

 

[wp4]

@Tony617, I guess i posted right after you. Didn't see your reply.

 

[ma96782]

Yes wp4.......I do think that he probably meant the statement was for most (if not all) civilian encounters as a GENERAL RULE.

Aloha, Mark

 

[Nick Burkhardt]

 

[ma96782]

Nick.....I liked your video and the video's comments. Definitely things to think about.

Yup.....there are always two sides to a story. And justifications can sway one's thinking. Then.....LOL, having a jury of reasonable and prudent people isn't always that easy to find (nor convene, even at a later date). You can expect that the Lawyers will try to stack the jury box.


+++++


Anyway......nothing to do with the video but.....

Remember those shootings at the Clackamas Mall, San Bernadino or that nightclub shooting in Orlando (or say, any of the other scenes of mass shootings).....

So say that you're a citizen with a CCW and you were a person there. You have witnessed the shootings. Maybe, you might be able to ID the shooter (maybe not). Anyway.....you've taken cover and now the shooter is momentarily distracted.....

In your own mind.....
If you shoot him now, this will end. Rrrrright......Rules? Maybe, you've just saved your own life. Or many more lives? Or maybe, you'll be seen as an executioner?

Then again.....
You could just stay in your safe place......because you're a citizen without the duty to confront anyone.

Anyway.....
Don't answer here on the forum.

Why?

Because your answer may be used at your trial if it ever does happen to you. Not to mention, that there could be and/or usually are....many twists and turns to an entire story or actual event. Each of which could lead you (or the Jury) down a different path. So....just think about it.

And for the record.....I'm NOT trying to say that anyone who may have/could have acted (or not).....was/would be either wrong or right.

Aloha, Mark

 

[justcuz]

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 (sic).

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

No problem wp4, but in the < 55 posts prior to my cite of applicable WA RCWs regarding use of citizen's use of deadly force, you had august forum members, 'speculating about this or that or when I...innuendo' as well as you had ma98762 posting generalized wiki BS.

Now wp4, since this occurred in the Evergreen state, coupled with undisputed fact someone(s) discharged their firearm possibly numerous time(s) in what LEs have confirmed is strictly a property theft situation occurring on private property.

Further, remember wp4, the local LEs are seeking the shooter(s) ostensibly to 'check their story' now would you voluntarily go say "HI you'al want to chat about pulling a firearm and only shooting the vehicle wheels out?"

Even if the overall situation presents itself as a SD issue, wp4, I sure wouldn't tell the LE i 'feared for my life' and only managed to shoot out the tires - really?

Remember this could/might be considered by LEs, from their official perspective, as a drive by shooting per RCW 9.41.010.

RCW 9A.36.045
Drive-by shooting.
(1) A person is guilty of drive-by shooting when he or she recklessly discharges a firearm as defined in RCW 9.41.010 in a manner which creates a substantial risk of death or serious physical injury to another person and the discharge is either from a motor vehicle or from the immediate area of a motor vehicle that was used to transport the shooter or the firearm, or both, to the scene of the discharge.

Finally, some member presumes they have a concealed permit/license privilege card if they don't?

 

[wp4]

No problem wp4, but in the < 55 posts prior to my cite of applicable WA RCWs regarding use of citizen's use of deadly force, you had august forum members, 'speculating about this or that or when I...innuendo' as well as you had ma98762 posting generalized wiki BS.

Now wp4, since this occurred in the Evergreen state, coupled with undisputed fact someone(s) discharged their firearm possibly numerous time(s) in what LEs have confirmed is strictly a property theft situation occurring on private property.

Further, remember wp4, the local LEs are seeking the shooter(s) ostensibly to 'check their story' now would you voluntarily go say "HI you'al want to chat about pulling a firearm and only shooting the vehicle wheels out?"

Even if the overall situation presents itself as a SD issue, wp4, I sure wouldn't tell the LE i 'feared for my life' and only managed to shoot out the tires - really?

Remember this could/might be considered by LEs, from their official perspective, as a drive by shooting per RCW 9.41.010.

RCW 9A.36.045
Drive-by shooting.
(1) A person is guilty of drive-by shooting when he or she recklessly discharges a firearm as defined in RCW 9.41.010 in a manner which creates a substantial risk of death or serious physical injury to another person and the discharge is either from a motor vehicle or from the immediate area of a motor vehicle that was used to transport the shooter or the firearm, or both, to the scene of the discharge.

Finally, some member presumes they have a concealed permit/license privilege card if they don't?

Pretry sure no one spouted BS but OK bud. Have a merry Christmas.

 

[ma96782]

No problem wp4, but in the < 55 posts prior to my cite of applicable WA RCWs regarding use of citizen's use of deadly force, you had august forum members, 'speculating about this or that or when I...innuendo' as well as you had ma98762 posting generalized wiki BS.

"Generalized Wiki BS"

Hummmm...... (post #50)
Wiki = BS, whatever.

Q: So, what was the point of quoting from Wiki in the first place?

A: Well, I thought that I was helping some readers with some terms that they might not be all too familiar with.

BTW....If I were a cop or prosecutor, I would NOT be using that Drive-By Shooting statute. It sounds more like it was made for the situation(s) where the shooter is shooting from the vehicle or if people from the vehicle exit the said vehicle and start immediately (more or less) shooting.

But....I find it interesting that the WA Govt would make a specific statute to deal with the particular situation of Drive-By Shooting. Like as if.....charging someone with murder, attempted murder, assault, or whatever else wasn't/isn't enough of a deterrent.

But, Rrrright....we also needed to have more anti-gun laws to thwart gun ownership. Because having laws against MURDER, etc... isn't enough of a deterrent. And, guns are the problem. NOT people's actions (misusage of guns).

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

I'm not responding to justcuz at this point. Note the double lines above.

Anyway.....
The Northfield Raid (my, post #50) was NOT about something that even occurred in WA and not to mention, it was long ago. Was I suppose to use ONLY examples from modern day WA and quotes of WA State Law?

So then, why mention Northfield?

Well maybe someone might have read the story and questioned the idea(s) of.........

"Never shoot at a fleeing suspect."
And/or.....
"It's never OK to use force (including deadly force) to thwart a property crime."

I further wondered if anyone reading even asked themselves......

"BTW, where was the Police and/or the Sheriff?"

Or.....

"Robbery = Property Crime. Really?"

Yup. And back then, some property crimes* came with serious consequences (in some cases, including hanging). So, the people of Northfield acted. Today, of course, property crimes are treated much differently. And, I doubt that most people today would react in the same way.

However.....
Northfield, MN. Marrysville, WA. Remember post #42....LOL?

So then.....
I'm not saying and never did say, that the Northfield example was supposed to be applicable to TODAY or for CCW individuals. And, I haven't even taken a position about the "Marrysville case". Good shoot vs bad shoot.

*When someone is killed or injured in the course of a property crime....well, things change.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

STORYTIME
A security guard tried to apprehend a shoplifter* as the suspect was leaving the store. But being that security guards are frequently given no respect. Well, the security guard ended up out in the parking lot, continuing his efforts of the citizens' arrest without the use of force. Things sort of escalated when the suspect got into his car and tried to flee the area. As some might have guessed.....the security guard reached into the car. And, the suspect rewarded the security guard with a ride in/on his getaway car. Yup, with the security guard hanging out of the open window of the suspect's vehicle still trying to make the arrest. Then.....as things sometimes happen, the security guard fell out/fell off/was forced off/whatever and got injured (w/ serious injuries).

Robbery or an example of Theft (shoplifting - with an overzealous security guard)? Do you want to blame the security guard for the injuries he has suffered? If the security guard had stood in front of the vehicle and the suspect hit him/ran him over would/could that be justified by the suspect? Shades of post #64.

*Can't remember the actual value stolen. But say that it was a $300 item. Humm..... what about those "habitual shoplifters". Rrrright.......they make it a business to steal from stores and resell on eBay? Surely that escalates the crime/punishment. Maybe/whatever moving on.

+++++

§708-841 Robbery in the second degree. (1) A person commits the offense of robbery in the second degree if, in the course of committing theft or non‑consensual taking of a motor vehicle:

(a) The person uses force against the person of anyone present with the intent to overcome that person's physical resistance or physical power of resistance;

(b) The person threatens the imminent use of force against the person of anyone who is present with intent to compel acquiescence to the taking of or escaping with the property; or

(c) The person recklessly inflicts serious bodily injury upon another.

(2) Robbery in the second degree is a class B felony. [L 1972, c 9, pt of §1; am L 1983, c 68, §2; am L 1986, c 314, §69; gen ch 1993; am L 2006, c 230, §42]

+++++

§708-832 Theft in the third degree. (1) A person commits the offense of theft in the third degree if the person commits theft:

(a) Of property or services the value of which exceeds $250; or

(b) Of gasoline, diesel fuel, or other related petroleum products used as propellants of any value not exceeding $750.

(2) Theft in the third degree is a misdemeanor. [L 1972, c 9, pt of §1; am L 1974, c 201, §2 and c 242, §2; am L 1979, c 106, §7; am L 1986, c 314, §65; am L 2006, c 230, §38; am L 2016, c 231, §38]

+++++

Anyway, Merry Christmas to all.

Aloha, Mark

 

[SUPER X]

Just saw this on the news tonight but can't find an online link yet. Evidently several witnesses saw a shoplifter trying to leave the scene at the Coastal Farm and Ranch in Marrysville WA. One or more of the bystanders that we're trying to stop the perp from leaving in their vehicle, fired and shot out tire or tires of the vehicle and didn't stick around to make a statement. Police are now seeking them out to get a statement. Bad shoot that reflects badly on legal gun owners of WA is my opinion. Seems excessive and reckless for just shoplifting. What does everybody think?

The theif's arn't to bright . Making a haul of 6 drills from what was probably a small business . No doubt that they can't absorb the loss easily and will take it more personal. They need to go do that crap at Wal-Mart like all the other trash does.

 

[Ironbar]

Not just dumb, insanely stupid I'd say. I'm not drawing and/or firing my weapon unless I am in imminent danger of death or serious injury from an attacker. PERIOD.

 

[GUNARCHER]

in the late '80's or so, there was either a fight or attempted robbery at a bar in Mesa AZ close to Apache Junction. The guy fled, as he was leaving one of the bar patrons tried to shoot out the tires------a shot went across the lot, hit a lady that was sunbathing at a motel swimming pool and killed her. I believe her death was almost instant. Made the papers for a week and was used by anti's for awhile.

 

[User 1234]

Here is another reason not to play police and try to apprehend or fire at a fleeing criminal: most CCW insurance only covers you for "acts of self defense." If the facts show that you were not defending yourself but instead were trying to stop a criminal escape, then you are not only more likely to be charged but more likely to be defending yourself on your own dime.

 

[bbbass]

The theif's arn't to bright . Making a haul of 6 drills from what was probably a small business . No doubt that they can't absorb the loss easily and will take it more personal. They need to go do that crap at Wal-Mart like all the other trash does.

Thieves caring about the effect on those they victimize... oh what a world!

 

[revjen45]

I shop at that store. IMHO if a situation required shooting the staff would already be doing so.

 

[assuredofthis]

when i worked at GI JOES 12 years ago, we were trained to 'take down' shoplifters by the loss prevention team.

i told my boss as much as id love to tackle some shoplifter im not gonna do it; fire me if you must but im not dealing with the legal reprocussions.

Not required to either; legally security guards don't have a 'duty to act' the way police do. Same thing goes for chicken feed lynch mobs.

 

[OldBroad44]

Re stealing a horse-- in many contexts that would have been penalized far beyond most theft because a horse often represented most of a man's total worth, and because they were so easy to steal. In addition, you might have been unable to make it across that water-less stretch in back to water and civilization without your horse.

If, one day when I was hiking and camping off trail in the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness--one of those days I holed up and built an emergency shelter to wait out an unpredicted storm of freezing rain (in August!)-- If somebody found me and tried to take my gear, he wouldn't have been coming back. Cause I would not have been able to survive long enough to make it back without the gear. Sometimes theft is a lethal attack.

However, as for civilians shooting at the car of fleeing shoplifters, I think that was seriously ill-advised, both for reasons of public safety and legal repercussions.

 

[1Granat45]

I'll never second guess another person's decision to shoot or not shoot. However, I have no desire to kill anyone over a property crime. It's the current situation and circumstances that I use as my determination to shoot/don't shoot. These are uniformly difficult cases to investigate and figure out from beginning to end.

 

[User 1234]

Liveleak.com - A Man Must Know His Limitations

Here's another example of someone trying to apprehend someone instead of strictly defending himself and calling 911.

 

[Tony617]

Liveleak.com - A Man Must Know His Limitations

Here's another example of someone trying to apprehend someone instead of strictly defending himself and calling 911.

Wow. I was thinking Dirty Harry scene until I watched the video. I was thinking of this:

 

[No_Regerts]

Someone, possibly a fake, is commenting on an online news source from that area saying that the shooting started as someone was actually hit by the car. Not sure if its true.