Shooting at fleeing thief results in arrest

[jbombelli]

Son, we live in a world that has cars, and the stuff in those cars has to be guarded by men with guns in apartment complex parking lots. Who’s gonna do it? You? You, Officer Blue? He has a greater responsibility than you could possibly fathom. You weep for the thief, and you curse the apartment dweller. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what he knows. That the thief’s stained underwear, while tragic, probably saved stuff in cars. And his existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves stuff in cars. You don’t want the truth because deep down in places you don’t talk about at parties, you want him in that parking lot, you need him in that parking lot. He uses words like "hispanic", "Jetta", "dark colored". He uses these words as the backbone of a life spent defending stuff in cars. You use them as a punchline. He has neither the time nor the inclination to explain himself to a man who rises and sleeps near the blanket of the protection of stuff in cars that he provides, and then questions the manner in which he provides it. He would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way. Otherwise, he suggests you pick up a weapon and stand a post protecting stuff in cars. Either way, he doesn’t give a damn what you think you are entitled to.

He stands guard over your stuff like a god!

 

[OutdoorDad]

I read both perp and shooter were wearing Buckeye gear

Why you gotta make this dirty?

 

[Fargo]

Yeah, I'm figuring the fact he shot an occupied apartment instead of the thief will temper the excitement a bit.

I'm thinking that figured largely into his arrest since crim reck requires actual endangerment and I don't see BartCo charging it with a car hopper as the victim...

 

[GNRPowdeR]

Columbus man arrested after allegedly shooting at thief | Fox 59

I heard something about this the night it happened... Not the best of neighborhoods, but one of the better trailer parks (equivalent of) in town.

 

[SSGSAD]

Columbus man arrested after allegedly shooting at thief | Fox 59

So, I have an HONEST question here ..... will the shooter, do MORE time, than the thief ?????

 

[BehindBlueI's]

So, I have an HONEST question here ..... will the shooter, do MORE time, than the thief ?????

Probably. Felony v misdemeanor.

 

[SchwansManDan]

That the thief’s stained underwear, while tragic, probably saved stuff in cars. And his existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves stuff in cars.

LMAO

 

[Fargo]

So, I have an HONEST question here ..... will the shooter, do MORE time, than the thief ?????

We should probably wait for him to even be charged before jumping to sentencing...

 

[chipbennett]

Yeah, I'm figuring the fact he shot an occupied apartment instead of the thief will temper the excitement a bit.

...and likely, added to the certainty of his arrest. Shooting at a fleeing smash-and-grab thief is bad enough; actively endangering others while doing so is so much worse.

 

[JTScribe]

I heard something about this the night it happened... Not the best of neighborhoods, but one of the better trailer parks (equivalent of) in town.

:S

I used to live there . . . it's right on Rocky Ford. Not a bad area at all. Are you thinking of the other "wood" apartments down closer to the east side Wal-Mart?

It was popular with a lot of hospital staff when I lived there, IIRC I had nurses living on either side of me.

 

[chipbennett]

So, here's a much stickier, though similar, situation:

Boy, 13, killed while stealing from car in St. Louis may test state's 'Castle Doctrine' : News

St. Louis. Three teens/tweens sneak out of the house after midnight, jump a homeowner's fence, and break into his car. The 60-year-old homeowner shoots at the burglars, killing one.

Castle doctrine? Yes. But it would seem that the homeowner would need to assert reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm. Are the circumstances alone (age, time of day, disparity of force, etc.) sufficient?

 

[T.Lex]

Dear Penthouse,

... I had nurses living on either side of me.

[Man, this thread is like my own little self-referential inside joke paradise.]

 

[Fargo]

So, here's a much stickier, though similar, situation:

Boy, 13, killed while stealing from car in St. Louis may test state's 'Castle Doctrine' : News

St. Louis. Three teens/tweens sneak out of the house after midnight, jump a homeowner's fence, and break into his car. The 60-year-old homeowner shoots at the burglars, killing one.

Castle doctrine? Yes. But it would seem that the homeowner would need to assert reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm. Are the circumstances alone (age, time of day, disparity of force, etc.) sufficient?

I thought the prosecutor had already declined to file? Generally, the castle doctrine removes the fear of harm/death requirement in uses of deadly force against certain crimes involving the invasion of a home/cartilage/occupied vehicle. These crimes are considered of such a dangerous nature that the reasonableness of using deadly force to stop them is presumed as a matter of law.

 

[Kutnupe14]

So, here's a much stickier, though similar, situation:

Boy, 13, killed while stealing from car in St. Louis may test state's 'Castle Doctrine' : News

St. Louis. Three teens/tweens sneak out of the house after midnight, jump a homeowner's fence, and break into his car. The 60-year-old homeowner shoots at the burglars, killing one.

Castle doctrine? Yes. But it would seem that the homeowner would need to assert reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm. Are the circumstances alone (age, time of day, disparity of force, etc.) sufficient?

Tragic, but I don't see how one can go after the homeowner. The law seems to be clear, and that kid's stupidity cost him his life. I sympathize with the parents and the shooter.

 

[augdog]

All our thoughts differ. If you shoot and kill somebody its going to change your life forever and alot of other peoples life also.If the thug stealing my vehicle, tv,tools,etc let it be. These thinks can be replaced.On the other hand if they are A threat to myself or my family lights out they will meet their maker.

 

[hoosierdoc]

So this guy is stupid but the couple who held a guy at gunpoint for theft are Heros?

 

[Kutnupe14]

So this guy is stupid but the couple who held a guy at gunpoint for theft are Heros?

Who called him stupid?

 

[TTravis]

If I lived in a thin walled apartment complex, I think I might buy a bunch of plywood to add to the exterior walls for protection. There could be a market for free standing panels. Unfortunately, the anti-gun people will be all over this shooter to show as a bad example.

 

[chipbennett]

I thought the prosecutor had already declined to file? Generally, the castle doctrine removes the fear of harm/death requirement in uses of deadly force against certain crimes involving the invasion of a home/cartilage/occupied vehicle. These crimes are considered of such a dangerous nature that the reasonableness of using deadly force to stop them is presumed as a matter of law.

The issue in this case is that the vehicle was unoccupied. As I recall from Missouri law (from my CCW course when I lived there), if it's unoccupied, it's merely property - and Missouri Castle Doctrine does not extend to defense of property.

Tragic, but I don't see how one can go after the homeowner. The law seems to be clear, and that kid's stupidity cost him his life. I sympathize with the parents and the shooter.

In the end: I agree. While tragic, choices and actions have consequences. I tend to ascribe to the reasoning of the 5DCA in such circumstances (and in response to those who say that the criminal didn't "deserve to die"): That the attacker sustained a mortal wound is a matter that should have been considered by the deceased before he committed himself to the task he undertook.​

 

[Fargo]

The issue in this case is that the vehicle was unoccupied. As I recall from Missouri law (from my CCW course when I lived there), if it's unoccupied, it's merely property - and Missouri Castle Doctrine does not extend to defense of property.



In the end: I agree. While tragic, choices and actions have consequences. I tend to ascribe to the reasoning of the 5DCA in such circumstances (and in response to those who say that the criminal didn't "deserve to die"): That the attacker sustained a mortal wound is a matter that should have been considered by the deceased before he committed himself to the task he undertook.​

If the kid jumped the fence, this is probably a curtilage case, not an occupied vehicle case.