Family calls shooting of car thief ‘senseless’

[seven-deuce]

This shooting was indisputably 'senseless'. Homeowner should get 25 with an L.

[spoonitnow]

This shooting was indisputably 'senseless'. Homeowner should get 25 with an L.

Not if he thought he was threatened by the guy in the car raising a weapon, which is not unlikely.

[Lukie]

Not if he thought he was threatened by the guy in the car raising a weapon, which is not unlikely.

I'm just the messenger on that one. I don't know anything about the case except for reading a few articles on it.

Too many people start with their conclusion and then search for the evidence. Just saying that as a general political comment.

[spoonitnow]

I'm just the messenger on that one. I don't know anything about the case except for reading a few articles on it.

My understanding is that the crux of the case would rest on whether the physical evidence exposed his claim that he thought the man had a weapon wasn't possible.

See to me that is manslaughter or murder (of course, I am assuming that a 2 paragraph entry on a website is accurate, and they often aren't) and falls well outside the scope of any reasonable self-defense or even castle doctrine law.

I don't disagree at all. However, the law they are citing there has to do with an interpretation of a law on citizen's arrest that seems tricky.

Objection.

The guy was in the car and driving away. It seems unlikely to me that the thief would turn around and start shooting out the back window of the car while making his escape.

Also the homeowner already called the cops so why not let them do their job?

The owner chased after the man on foot, so the bold isn't necessarily true. As an aside, the "let the cops do their job" argument doesn't apply whenever you believe you're about to be shot at.

To prosecute under Washington State law, they have to be able to prove that the man didn't believe the guy was lifting a gun.

Article says the guy did not have a weapon, so why in the world would he raise his arm in a mock shooting gesture while driving away? To have a better chance of getting shot?

I don't think the man who was shot would have been thinking about this at the time. Someone who wants to claim that the owner is a bloodthirsty, irresponsible fucker might suggest that he would have shot regardless.

He might not have, it's a plausible theory to suggest that the homeowner made this up to justify his actions and satisfy his own bloodlust. This whole incident clearly shows he isn't responsible enough to own a gun.

I agree with the first sentence and disagree with the second. If the thief did actually appear to be pointing a weapon in the guy's direction as he chased after the car, then there is nothing proven about his lack of responsibility, and there is currently no conclusive proof to the contrary.

[seven-deuce]

As an aside, the "let the cops do their job" argument doesn't apply whenever you believe you're about to be shot at.


I agree with the first sentence and disagree with the second. If the thief did actually appear to be pointing a weapon in the guy's direction as he chased after the car, then there is nothing proven about his lack of responsibility, and there is currently no conclusive proof to the contrary.

He wouldn't have been in what appeared to be a kill or be killed situation if he had let the cops handle it.

Why ring the cops to report the crime in the first place if you intend on arming yourself and chasing the guy down on your own? Surely that's putting yourself, the thief, and innocent civilians in unnecessary danger, which is definitely irresponsible.

[spoonitnow]

He wouldn't have been in what appeared to be a kill or be killed situation if he had let the cops handle it.

Why ring the cops to report the crime in the first place if you intend on arming yourself and chasing the guy down on your own? Surely that's putting yourself, the thief, and innocent civilians in unnecessary danger, which is definitely irresponsible.

There is nothing irresponsible (or illegal) about this man being armed. There is nothing irresponsible (or illegal) about chasing after someone who has stolen your property. There is nothing irresponsible (or illegal) about shooting someone who you believe is about to shoot you. To disagree with either of these statements is absurd, and to imply that the owner was asking for it by chasing after the guy is on the same level as implying that women ask to get raped by going to parties.

[seven-deuce]

There is nothing irresponsible (or illegal) about chasing after someone who has stolen your property. To disagree with either of these statements is absurd, and to imply that the owner was asking for it by chasing after the guy is on the same level as implying that women ask to get raped by going to parties.

At bold, no it isn't the same as implying women asked to get raped by going to parties. Women go to parties to socialise and enjoy themselves, he wasn't chasing after the guy to have a chat and a joke.

The atmosphere is totally different in these two scenarios, at a party it is calm, relaxed and everyone's there to have a good time, while pursuing a thief who you believe to be armed is, i'd imagine, a very tense and hostile affair. You can't draw a parallel between these two choices the choice on whether to attend a party or whether to chase down an armed thief. One is obviously a lot riskier than the other.

Also the objectives are different, one is to reclaim stolen property and the other is to socialise. Apples and oranges.

Chasing a guy down who you believe to be armed, when you are armed yourself is asking for trouble, especially when he's fleeing the scene of a crime. While it may not be illegal, it is most definitely irresponsible in my opinion. I'm aware that what people believe to be responsible or irresponsible is subjective, but i'd still expect the overwhelming majority to agree with me that chasing they guy down was irresponsible.

[Lukie]

My understanding is that the crux of the case would rest on whether the physical evidence exposed his claim that he thought the man had a weapon wasn't possible.



I don't disagree at all. However, the law they are citing there has to do with an interpretation of a law on citizen's arrest that seems tricky.

just to be clear to everyone I am discussing the opinion expressed in this link: http://www.spokesman.com/stories/201...re-of-the-law/

My opinion of citizen's arrest is that it is generally a horrible idea. It's one thing to hold up a murderer, quite another to set up a trap then use a loophole in the law to justify effectively a revenge killing. One could easily argue that lethal force was not necessary in that case to the extent that necessary really isn't defined. Necessary for what? to make the arrest or to do something that is overwhelmingly in the best interest of society? It doesn't say, at least in the section that was posted.

My first posts in this thread involved using a gun for legitimate home defense needs. That is someone smashes into your house and you are unsure of their intentions or something to that effect. I am uncomfortable with the way the thread is going and arguing over cases involving highly questionable traps, motivations, and ethics. It's not so much discussing them makes me uncomfortable, I just don't want people to come away thinking that I am some anarchist vigilante gunman. That isn't the case and I don't want to be lumped into that group.

[seven-deuce]

Not if he thought he was threatened by the guy in the car raising a weapon, which is not unlikely.

Objection.

The guy was in the car and driving away. It seems unlikely to me that the thief would turn around and start shooting out the back window of the car while making his escape.

Also the homeowner already called the cops so why not let them do their job?