The Liberal Gun Club Forum

Cliff's Notes: retired police officer shoots guy in the head trying to steal a dog box from his backyard when guy dives into truck after being told to lie down on the ground. Guy starts to drive away, retired police officer tries to shoot out his tires.

No charges pending against retired police officer.

Questions:
1. Did retired police officer have the right to open fire when thief dove into truck? Excuse given was that the homeowner didn't know if he was going for a gun so he fired. Did he have to wait to see a gun before acting?

2. Did he have the right to discharge a gun in a residential area in an attempt to prevent the thief from leaving? The guy was trying to get away....the threat was no longer imminent....assuming there was an imminent threat to begin with.

Most in this area call this a homeowner doing what he needed to do to protect his property. I'm wondering if it's more an AG that doesn't want to press any charges against a former police officer. I have a sneaking suspicion that had it been anyone else, the homeowner would be in jail.

Curious beyond all belief at the group's thoughts on this. The full article is at http://hamptonroads.com/2011/02/retired ... be-charged. I apologize in advance for the time you'll waste reading the comments from the people around here.

I'm an idiot....totally should've posted this in Firearms in the News. Can a mod move it for me? Sorry about that.

In Texas you can fire away to prevent your property being taken. You still can be charged with recklessness if you are reckless.

Last year a jeweler let off some rounds in a mall after a snatch and grab. He was charged with reckless behavior. Missed the guy and hit some displays in another store. I don't know how it turned out.

In Maine, both issues would be large issues that last for a long time.

photomonkey wrote:Cliff's Notes: retired police officer shoots guy in the head trying to steal a dog box from his backyard when guy dives into truck after being told to lie down on the ground. Guy starts to drive away, retired police officer tries to shoot out his tires.

No charges pending against retired police officer.

Questions:
1. Did retired police officer have the right to open fire when thief dove into truck? Excuse given was that the homeowner didn't know if he was going for a gun so he fired. Did he have to wait to see a gun before acting?

2. Did he have the right to discharge a gun in a residential area in an attempt to prevent the thief from leaving? The guy was trying to get away....the threat was no longer imminent....assuming there was an imminent threat to begin with.

Most in this area call this a homeowner doing what he needed to do to protect his property. I'm wondering if it's more an AG that doesn't want to press any charges against a former police officer. I have a sneaking suspicion that had it been anyone else, the homeowner would be in jail.

Curious beyond all belief at the group's thoughts on this. The full article is at http://hamptonroads.com/2011/02/retired ... be-charged. I apologize in advance for the time you'll waste reading the comments from the people around here.

One gets into the discussion of "rights" -vs- "duty", and frankly I haven't a clue what the word 'retired' means when it comes to cops...

I think your suspicions are probably more accurate than not.

Where I come from a cop can pretty much do whatever he or she pleases with impunity; including deadly force...in fact they do with regularity...shoot people, unarmed people, unarmed people who have surrendered with their hands in the air...but then they can only use an AR and have to shoot the victim in the back and then prohibit medical aid from approaching the victim for 40 minutes or until all the blood has drained out, whichever occurs first.

But I digress...

Yeah, I suspect that the star of the article got a pass because of the cop thing.

First, its a stressful situation but the guy should have simply called the cops. NO way do I open my window if someone is outside stealing my stuff. I lock my family away, arm myself in case of attempted home entry, and call the cops.


But lets say the guy lives at some remote place and he is indeed fearful that this guy may come in next. I mean, he is yelling at the guy and is being ignored. So, now he has stupidly exposed himself and his wife - and if this guy does have a gun they really are easy targets - immobile older folks in windows. So, while I don't think they should have tried to handle it themselves, I can understand that he felt if he shot a couple of holes in the window that it would freak the guy out and make him compliant.

Now as the guy starts to leave he decides to shoot the tires out. Because he wants the guy caught. Its another stupid decision - the guy is leaving, let him go.

The interesting part of the story is ... if he only fired into the windows when the guy was hiding in the truck, how did the bullet get in his head? I bet the cop just shot at him.

I think the guy made some bad decisions, but I don't think he should be charged with attempted homicide or anything like that. But I could absolutely see him getting fined for something - although I can't think of a law that makes it a crime to not call the police and take matters into your own hands. In SC you can shoot to protect your property - but, as said above, just because you have the right, doesn't mean you should do it.

So, to answer your questions:

1. Bad decisions have been made and you are now in a shouting match with a guy who is on your property trying to steal your crap. You have a gun pointed at him. He moves and dives into the truck he came in. Yeah, he has the right to be fearful and to shoot. If the guy pops up with a gun, its all over for the old dude before he can get a shot off.

2. Should he have shot at the tires? Probably not. Did he commit a crime in doing so? Obviously it depends on the jurisdiction. Here.... no.

The south tends to be *very* lenient when it comes to homeowners defending their stuff and their property. I guess I am a product of that environment.

I can't help shake the feeling that the retired cop was given a free pass because he's a retired cop and not because the facts of the case call for him not being charged.

If it had been someone not linked in any way to law enforcement, this person would now be fighting to avoid jail time. The prosecution would argue that even if the homeowner feared for their life, the robber did not invade the dwelling and did not make any gesture of attack, etc. I don't know whether the prosecution would win but the guy would definitely have to defend himself in court.

Ex cop? Nothing to see here... move along.

lemur wrote:I can't help shake the feeling that the retired cop was given a free pass because he's a retired cop and not because the facts of the case call for him not being charged.

If it had been someone not linked in any way to law enforcement, this person would now be fighting to avoid jail time. The prosecution would argue that even if the homeowner feared for their life, the robber did not invade the dwelling and did not make any gesture of attack, etc. I don't know whether the prosecution would win but the guy would definitely have to defend himself in court.

Ex cop? Nothing to see here... move along.

maybe...its a very localized thing. Not that long ago someone here shot at someone breaking into their car outside of the house. They killed the would be robber and no charges were filled.

mark wrote: maybe...its a very localized thing. Not that long ago someone here shot at someone breaking into their car outside of the house. They killed the would be robber and no charges were filled.

Right. The one major issues for us trying to understand the case here is that the law varies by state. I'm not in VA and IANAL. My take on the case is that what the home owner did was legally murky, by VA standards (which I have researched before posting in this thread but I admit I may not understand fully). My view of the judicial system, which may be biased in some way, is that prosecutors like to send legally murky cases to the court and let a jury decide. So the fact that this case did not go to court appears suspect to me.

Texas law has some quirky aspects to it when it comes to the use of deadly force - especially in the case of stolen property (or goods). Texas allows the use of deadly force to prevent the imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime. That "during the nighttime" stipulation has always seems a bit archaic to me and confusing to many. You have to check your watch before pulling the trigger. But the stipulation that puts the damper on all this is article 9:42, para 3 (A) which says the deadly force can be used only when the "land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means.." Today with insurance on practically everything - including our cars - the courts take a dim view of a property owner choosing to pull the trigger rather than file an insurance claim - especially when the theft in question didn't involved any threat to your personal safety.

Simmer down wrote:In Texas you can fire away to prevent your property being taken. You still can be charged with recklessness if you are reckless.

Last year a jeweler let off some rounds in a mall after a snatch and grab. He was charged with reckless behavior. Missed the guy and hit some displays in another store. I don't know how it turned out.

Plus the dead guy's family could drag you into court to fight an expensive and time consuming wrongful death lawsuit. Just the thought of drawn out litigation is enough to make me say screw it, not worth it, and hold my fire in that situation.

I noticed a while back that Tiffany's at NorthPark Mall has a plainclothes security guard posted inside, to the left of the entry. I can see his protective vest imprinting through his suit jacket. There's a lump under his left arm which I assume is a handgun in a shoulder holster. He's given me the hairy eye a few times when I've gone there dressed very casually.

It starts with Virginia law on defending personal property and any statutes relating to powers of retired public safety officers. He reacted like an active duty cop, not like private citizen with a legal gun. I strongly doubt the retired cop would get a pass in any county in California even the bright red ones. The perp's family could sue in civil court or try to convince a Federal prosecutor that the perps civil rights were violated but I doubt a US Attorney would get into that one. The British judicial system allows "private prosecutions" when the public prosecutor declines to pursue a case, but they are not allowed in the US.

The case points out the inconsistencies in the American justice system - 50 states with variations in statutes and case law on the same topic plus the Federal level. And then there is prosecutorial discretion - AGs and DAs are just politicians with a law license.

I relinquish the soap box.

TxChinaman wrote:

Simmer down wrote:In Texas you can fire away to prevent your property being taken. You still can be charged with recklessness if you are reckless.

Last year a jeweler let off some rounds in a mall after a snatch and grab. He was charged with reckless behavior. Missed the guy and hit some displays in another store. I don't know how it turned out.

Plus the dead guy's family could drag you into court to fight an expensive and time consuming wrongful death lawsuit. Just the thought of drawn out litigation is enough to make me say screw it, not worth it, and hold my fire in that situation.

I noticed a while back that Tiffany's at NorthPark Mall has a plainclothes security guard posted inside, to the left of the entry. I can see his protective vest imprinting through his suit jacket. There's a lump under his left arm which I assume is a handgun in a shoulder holster. He's given me the hairy eye a few times when I've gone there dressed very casually.

The dead guy's family can't pull a civil suit under the castle doctrine, assuming a person acted within the doctrine's intent. Still, I understand your view of the cost of any representation afterwards.

I've noticed several non-cops standing guard at North Park recently.

Simmer down wrote:

TxChinaman wrote:

Simmer down wrote:In Texas you can fire away to prevent your property being taken. You still can be charged with recklessness if you are reckless.

Last year a jeweler let off some rounds in a mall after a snatch and grab. He was charged with reckless behavior. Missed the guy and hit some displays in another store. I don't know how it turned out.

Plus the dead guy's family could drag you into court to fight an expensive and time consuming wrongful death lawsuit. Just the thought of drawn out litigation is enough to make me say screw it, not worth it, and hold my fire in that situation.

I noticed a while back that Tiffany's at NorthPark Mall has a plainclothes security guard posted inside, to the left of the entry. I can see his protective vest imprinting through his suit jacket. There's a lump under his left arm which I assume is a handgun in a shoulder holster. He's given me the hairy eye a few times when I've gone there dressed very casually.

The dead guy's family can't pull a civil suit under the castle doctrine, assuming a person acted within the doctrine's intent. Still, I understand your view of the cost of any representation afterwards.

I've noticed several non-cops standing guard at North Park recently.

Aha, I was not aware castle doctrine in our fair state also offered immunity from civil suits. Good to know!

I think after that woman got shot in in the face while waiting to pick up her daughter from a movie, mall management decided to beef up security.

TxChinaman wrote: I noticed a while back that Tiffany's at NorthPark Mall has a plainclothes security guard posted inside, to the left of the entry. I can see his protective vest imprinting through his suit jacket. There's a lump under his left arm which I assume is a handgun in a shoulder holster. He's given me the hairy eye a few times when I've gone there dressed very casually.

Ah, North Park Mall - I worked security there back in 1969. Free coffee and snacks at Swiss Colony was really great. Loved that mall.

photomonkey wrote:1. Did retired police officer have the right to open fire when thief dove into truck? Excuse given was that the homeowner didn't know if he was going for a gun so he fired. Did he have to wait to see a gun before acting?

Depends on the state. What is allowed in one state is not always allowed in another state. I can speak some of Arkansas, but not of other states, and I am not a lawyer. In Arkansas, I believe that the vehicle would have to be on (If the claim was that he feared the vehicle would be used as a weapon), and you would have to reasonably fear for your life to legally fire. Also, when you are outside your home (and even to some degree while you are in your home), you are supposed to first attempt to flee before firing. You should only shoot in self defense. The homeowner saying that he feared that the criminal was going for a gun to continue engagement, he could have had some cause, but he (the homeowner) has the responsibility of attempting to flee first.

In my home town, a jeweler shot a criminal a few years ago. Not sure how things finally turned out, but I suspect that it was not good for him. The Jeweler shot the criminal through the side of the head, and the orientation of the body indicated that the criminal was in the proccess of moving from engagement to fleeing. Additionally, the Jeweler said something to the effect that he was fed up from all the roberies before and was going to put an end to them.

We had another incident where a farmer had a problem with people breaking into his barn to steal things. He decided the sleep in the barn one night with a weapon. He engaged the criminals in his barn. Not sure what happened here either, but it was not looking good last I heard. The County took the view that the farmer attempted to force a confrontation (the opposite of trying to flee) by sleeping in the barn, and fired at the criminals without being in fear of his life.

photomonkey wrote:2. Did he have the right to discharge a gun in a residential area in an attempt to prevent the thief from leaving? The guy was trying to get away....the threat was no longer imminent....assuming there was an imminent threat to begin with.

Again, speaking for Arkansas, no. That would be forcing a confrontation. He was also firing his weapon not to preserve his life, or the life of others, but attempting to prevent a criminal from escaping, not the job of a private citizen.

My personal opinion is that I have a handgun to protect life and limb, and I have insurance to protect my property.


Charlie

Lots of great input here all....thanks.

This story disturbed me a bit I guess as I see it as a huge gray area. Granted, the circumstances surrounding, and laws regarding, taking someone's life should not be uncomplicated. But with the variances among the states and even from judge to judge to judge an act that gets you sent home with a pat on the back in one place gets you thrown in prison elsewhere.

In the end, a person is going to do what they need to do to ensure their survival and security and perhaps there should be mechanisms in place that let the bad guy get away in certain circumstances. I mean, taking some of these things out to the Nth degree, you eventually wind up with people getting shot on sidewalks because "he looked like he was going to come into my yard and I didn't know what he was up to."

Personally though, I don't know how a jurisdiction can't have a Castle Doctrine. Virginia doesn't and the next place I'm moving doesn't yet either. The bottom line is that if you're in my house and you're not supposed to be then I should have every right to assume the worst. Outside these walls.....ok, there can be some benefit of the doubt. But if it's 2 in the morning and you're in my living room.....

But in this case the perpetrator was outside and, for all intents and purposes, was trying to get away. I'm fairly certain that if the shooter had been anyone else they'd be sitting in a jail cell. Happy to see I'm not the only one who sees it that way.