Utah Guns Forum banner

Don't Shoot at Fleeing Malefactors!

9K views 9 replies 5 participants last post by  bagpiper 
#1 ·
You'd think that a CCW carrier would know better, but not always:

A Michigan woman who fired at a fleeing Home Depot shoplifter has been charged with recklessly using her concealed handgun.

The misdemeanor charge against the gun-toting, self-appointed law enforcer is the latest twist in a case that, coming just a few days after a deadly mass shooting in Oregon, helped stir a fierce and ongoing national debate over the utility, and capacity, of ordinary people wielding concealed weapons to stop and prevent crime.
http://washingtonpost.com/news/morning- ... a-handgun/

If your own life or physical safety is threatened or if the life or physical safety of another for whom you are responsible is clearly and unmistakably threatened, then yes. Otherwise, no. It's not hard to understand. Trying to arrest a fleeing malefactor is already legally fraught with peril, and doing so by opening fire after any immediate danger has passed is just asking for huge trouble. In this case, no immediate danger even existed to anything but petty property from an unrelated commercial concern. As we see with this well-meaning idiot civic activist, intervening in such a situation with potentially lethal force is a recipe for disaster. :nilly:
 
#2 ·
Linked article above is a bit vague in the area of threat by those in fleeing vehicle. IF vehicle was proceeding rapidly towards the CCW user argument could be made that a threat did exist and use of force was justified---- LEO's have used this many times sometimes jumping into the vehicles path to "justify" the use of force!
 
#3 ·
Ah -- I hadn't thought of that possibility. I neglected to account for how "unreliable" the mass media is about reporting on firearms incidents. At many publications, vital details may be as a matter of routine carefully omitted or even distorted to paint private firearms ownership in the worst possible light. :raisedbrow:

Oh, well. Perhaps the developing defense attorney story will reveal more details. I hope for the lady's sake that she can persuade the "justice" system to leave off its gimlet-eyed treatment of what might in many ways seem a laudable act of civic awareness.

(BTW, yes -- I have indeed been sadly influenced by the ornate language of Jack Vance's "Tales of the Dying Earth" and by the more recent homage found in "Songs of the Dying Earth.") :lol2:

JoeSparky said:
Linked article above is a bit vague in the area of threat by those in fleeing vehicle. IF vehicle was proceeding rapidly towards the CCW user argument could be made that a threat did exist and use of force was justified---- LEO's have used this many times sometimes jumping into the vehicles path to "justify" the use of force!
 
#4 ·
I was curious about the outcome of this case and found an updated news report from 11 December 2015:

On Wednesday, a Michigan judge sentenced Duva-Rodriguez to 18 months of probation and stripped the 46-year-old of her concealed gun permit.

[....]

Whether or not she's a sharpshooter, Duva-Rodriguez will now have to wait until at least 2023 to carry a concealed weapon again, Nicholson ordered.
https://washingtonpost.com/news/morning ... ody-again/
 
#5 ·
Ayup, here's another case that highlights the legal shakiness of shooting at fleeing malefactors:

A Colorado homeowner who was tied up and robbed at gunpoint Sunday may face charges for shooting and killing the suspect who was fleeing in a stolen car, Fox 31 reported.

The unidentified homeowner, who managed somehow to untie himself after the robbery, reportedly went outside his home in Littleton and fired shots into the car at the fleeing suspect. The man in the car was reportedly identified as David Martinez, 38, who has a long criminal history of burglary, theft and drugs. Martinez crashed the car about a block later and died.

The Denver Channel reported that under the state's Make My Day law, a homeowner is able to shoot an intruder who enters the home, but, according to one legal analyst, the law does not protect a homeowner if the shooting occurs from the porch, yard or driveway.

[....]
http://foxnews.com/us/2016/01/26/colora ... spect.html

My sympathies lie with the homeowner, but one does wonder what might have happened had a shot gone wild. Opening fire on a fleeing automobile in a densely populated neighborhood strikes me as highly iffy.
 
#7 ·
James said:
Ouch!

I don't get it, if the suspect is fleeing he is no threat, put the gun away. Why would you shoot someone running away? :huh:

I don't believe it is our duty as carriers to stop crime or chase bad guys. Call the cops. We carry for self defense.

I probably live in a pretty good area but I have carried for about 60 years now. Never have I had reason to pull a gun.

Duck, run or hide are better options. Yet I am glad to have the gun at hand if it ever was needed.
Even if you could in some way justify it, like entering the path of the vehicle, why would you put your own life in jeopardy over a minor property crime?

And another point. Don't we all owe it to each other to keep our names, and questionable use of our guns out of the media? We know, have in fact repeatedly seen how the media treats such stories. I've only been carrying for a few years. And I don't carry religiously. But in all the time I have been carrying, there has been one incident when I cleared my shirt in case I needed my gun. I did not touch the gun, the situation defused, and no one even knew I was carrying. Just the way I like it.

Mel
 
#8 ·
James said:
Ouch!

I don't get it, if the suspect is fleeing he is no threat, put the gun away. Why would you shoot someone running away? :huh:

I don't believe it is our duty as carriers to stop crime or chase bad guys. Call the cops. We carry for self defense.

I probably live in a pretty good area but I have carried for about 60 years now. Never have I had reason to pull a gun.

Duck, run or hide are better options. Yet I am glad to have the gun at hand if it ever was needed.
We need to remind ourselves of these points often, because in the heat of the moment it might be too easy to forget.

I am also loathe to criticize too quickly or too harshly the gun owner/carrier who reacts less than perfectly in the heat of the moment. An auto or home break in while your property is unattended is a huge violation with a certain emotional toll imposed. I can't imagine the adrenaline or emotions of being a victim of a hot home invasion.

I think we also need to be careful not to eat our own too quickly. We need to distinguish ourselves from criminals. But there is a difference between someone with criminal intent and someone who takes a shot 10 seconds after his legal justification for shooting ended, or who forgets his gun is in his carry on as he gets to TSA checkpoints.

The liberals have a great aphorism: "No enemies to the left." Watch carefully, liberals almost never criticize a fellow left-winger for being too far left. They do not eat their own.

Conservatives and gun owners could learn from this.

We don't have to endorse or actively support others' mistakes. But neither do we have to publicly condemn to nearly the extent we do.

"I don't know the details and wouldn't want to jump to unfair judgments," is a fine answer. "I'm not interested in hypotheticals," is another when a specific case is before you and someone is trying to get comments about it once you've expressed an unwillingness to make those comments. "Heat of the moment immediately after being horribly victimized," is a nice way to provide incites without necessarily agreeing that someone should have followed a burglar outside. And so on and so forth.

Charles
 
#9 ·
bagpiper said:
We need to remind ourselves of these points often, because in the heat of the moment it might be too easy to forget.

I am also loathe to criticize too quickly or too harshly the gun owner/carrier who reacts less than perfectly in the heat of the moment. An auto or home break in while your property is unattended is a huge violation with a certain emotional toll imposed. I can't imagine the adrenaline or emotions of being a victim of a hot home invasion.

I think we also need to be careful not to eat our own too quickly. We need to distinguish ourselves from criminals. But there is a difference between someone with criminal intent and someone who takes a shot 10 seconds after his legal justification for shooting ended, or who forgets his gun is in his carry on as he gets to TSA checkpoints.

The liberals have a great aphorism: "No enemies to the left." Watch carefully, liberals almost never criticize a fellow left-winger for being too far left. They do not eat their own.

Conservatives and gun owners could learn from this.

We don't have to endorse or actively support others' mistakes. But neither do we have to publicly condemn to nearly the extent we do.

"I don't know the details and wouldn't want to jump to unfair judgments," is a fine answer. "I'm not interested in hypotheticals," is another when a specific case is before you and someone is trying to get comments about it once you've expressed an unwillingness to make those comments. "Heat of the moment immediately after being horribly victimized," is a nice way to provide incites without necessarily agreeing that someone should have followed a burglar outside. And so on and so forth.

Charles
As usual, on most subjects, I don't disagree with you Charles, and would take this message to heart in a public statement, even to friends.

On here, I think the debate is fair game, as we talk among ourselves about incidents that have an impact on all of us, whether we're in the news or not. I stand by my statement that I do think we owe it to each other to be as circumspect at possible in our actions regarding guns. And I'll gladly add, in our public comments. Everything we say or do is under scrutiny by the non gun loving community, and particularly by the gun grabbers. Better we should stay out of the news in any kind of negative light.

Mel
 
#10 ·
quychang said:
As usual, on most subjects, I don't disagree with you Charles, and would take this message to heart in a public statement, even to friends.

On here, I think the debate is fair game, as we talk among ourselves about incidents that have an impact on all of us, whether we're in the news or not. I stand by my statement that I do think we owe it to each other to be as circumspect at possible in our actions regarding guns. And I'll gladly add, in our public comments. Everything we say or do is under scrutiny by the non gun loving community, and particularly by the gun grabbers. Better we should stay out of the news in any kind of negative light.
I certainly agree that some debate amongst ourselves is very beneficial.

The only thing I'd suggest is that just like with discussions about church gun bans, we should conduct our debates keeping in mind that nothing on the internet is truly private, and this website is fully open to the public to view without even needing to bother registering. As such, we do well to consider on how we phrase things. "I would do things differently..." reads lot better if it were to show up on the front page of the SLTrib (and is less likely to show up) than "This guy is a moron who should lose his RKBA for life and suffer perpetual social scorn..." :) for what amounts to a minor foible, or even a non-malicious, one-time mistake, even if that mistake leads to some tragic personal or family consequences.

A bit off topic, but whether it is guns, or parenting style (see especially articles on so-called "free range" parenting which is what we used to just call, parenting), or honest medical mistakes, there is a growing trend to want to criminalize everything that ever results in anyone being harmed in any way. Due caution is warranted. But what is "due"? If kids climb trees, sooner or later one will break and arm. Eventually, one will break a neck. But if we don't let kids climb the proverbial trees what are the costs there? Too much time in front of the TV or video games increased violence and aggression perhaps, obesity with its health problems, maybe a lack of adventure or self-confidence that limits personal growth throughout life? A neighborhood with a swimming pool probably has a higher risk of a kid drowning in a pool than does a neighborhood without. But it also has a higher chance that kids learn how to swim, get wholesome exercise, and have some fun. So 5 foot fences and gates that latch shut so 5 year olds can't let themselves in are good ideas. But when a 15 year old let's himself in or even hops a locked gate, drinks too much or hits his head diving into a non-diving pool? Or even when a 7 year old let's himself in thinking he is ok and drowns?

I don't think criminal charges are generally warranted in these cases barring something truly negligent. And the same thing applies to a lot of accidents and imperfect conduct involving firearms. We should hold ourselves to the highest standards. We should not feed our own to the gun-grabbing lions when our own fall a tad short of perfection.

Charles
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top