This really, REALLY has me pissed off! (Kershaw Co.)

[nca_mm]

I mean, can a man no longer protect what's his?!

Link Removed

 

[Doobie]

He had everything protected of his at the point they ran away. I agree with the sheriff that he did everything right up to the point of pulling the trigger. There was no threat of bodily harm or death as the article does not state the criminals were carrying weapons and it does not state whether or not the homeowner thought they did either. If they had weapons, then maybe there would be a case for shooting in case they turned as they ran to shoot at him, but that does not appear to be the case. Maybe will a jury will see it different.

 

[nca_mm]

OK. All points you made are understood.

However, I see this as waving the green flag to criminals & saying, "Hey, if you're caught, just run away. The person catching you can do nothing to you. Keep what you stole. Sell as quickly as possible to make a profit."

What can a citizen do to stop these people in their tracks?!

 

[NavyLCDR]

What can a citizen do to stop these people in their tracks?!

Well - this is the law in Washington state:
RCW 9A.16.020: Use of force


RCW 9A.16.020
Use of force—When lawful.
The use, attempt, or offer to use force upon or toward the person of another is not unlawful in the following cases:
(1) Whenever necessarily used by a public officer in the performance of a legal duty, or a person assisting the officer and acting under the officer's direction;
(2) Whenever necessarily used by a person arresting one who has committed a felony and delivering him or her to a public officer competent to receive him or her into custody;
(3) Whenever used by a party about to be injured, or by another lawfully aiding him or her, in preventing or attempting to prevent an offense against his or her person, or a malicious trespass, or other malicious interference with real or personal property lawfully in his or her possession, in case the force is not more than is necessary;
(4) Whenever reasonably used by a person to detain someone who enters or remains unlawfully in a building or on real property lawfully in the possession of such person, so long as such detention is reasonable in duration and manner to investigate the reason for the detained person's presence on the premises, and so long as the premises in question did not reasonably appear to be intended to be open to members of the public;
(5) Whenever used by a carrier of passengers or the carrier's authorized agent or servant, or other person assisting them at their request in expelling from a carriage, railway car, vessel, or other vehicle, a passenger who refuses to obey a lawful and reasonable regulation prescribed for the conduct of passengers, if such vehicle has first been stopped and the force used is not more than is necessary to expel the offender with reasonable regard to the offender's personal safety;
(6) Whenever used by any person to prevent a mentally ill, mentally incompetent, or mentally disabled person from committing an act dangerous to any person, or in enforcing necessary restraint for the protection or restoration to health of the person, during such period only as is necessary to obtain legal authority for the restraint or custody of the person.

 

[nca_mm]

So an incredibly liberal state like Washington has legal provisions in place to protect citizens when having to deal with scum in a forceful way.

 

[NavyLCDR]

So an incredibly liberal state like Washington has legal provisions in place to protect citizens when having to deal with scum in a forceful way.

But it still does not allow the legal use of force to stop them from fleeing empty handed - unless you are absolutely sure that their crime was a felony and you were going to citizen's arrest them. Even then, deadly force would not be allowed, except in self-defense.

Anyway, I just noticed this was posted specifically in the South Carolina forum, so I apologize for posting about WA law...

 

[hgk1979]

You have the right to defend your life, family or property under SC law however you cannot use deadly force if the perpetrator is fleeing. You also have to consider if the criminal offense is a misdemeanor or felony. As a cwp holder, you cannot present for a misdemeanor. You'll go to jail. And as the law implies, the burden of proof really falls to you. Obviously, if the perp is shot in the back of the head, you'd have one heck of a time proving you were in danger and feared for your life. Some things cops are good for but, Sheriff Chuck Wright said it best, " Remember when SECONDS count, the cops are just MOMENTS away." He was referring to life and death or great bodily injury situations. Stealing a vehicle or property where you're not in it, on it, or have physical possession of it(the item's in your hand)... You can't shoot. And firing warning shots is illegal in most counties and municipalities in this state.

 

[nca_mm]

You have the right to defend your life, family or property under SC law however you cannot use deadly force if the perpetrator is fleeing. You also have to consider if the criminal offense is a misdemeanor or felony. As a cwp holder, you cannot present for a misdemeanor. You'll go to jail. And as the law implies, the burden of proof really falls to you. Obviously, if the perp is shot in the back of the head, you'd have one heck of a time proving you were in danger and feared for your life. Some things cops are good for but, Sheriff Chuck Wright said it best, " Remember when SECONDS count, the cops are just MOMENTS away." He was referring to life and death or great bodily injury situations. Stealing a vehicle or property where you're not in it, on it, or have physical possession of it(the item's in your hand)... You can't shoot. And firing warning shots is illegal in most counties and municipalities in this state.

So, basically, you catch someone stealing from you, you're **** out of luck. Great. Just great.

 

[BluesStringer]

So, basically, you catch someone stealing from you, you're **** out of luck. Great. Just great.

How badly do you want to shoot someone that you would make a thread about someone else lamenting the fact that he didn't get away with shooting a petty thief in the back? It's a pretty safe bet in every jurisdiction across this country that back-shooting is going to bring on scrutiny from law enforcement. That's not to say that back-shooting is illegal in every jurisdiction or every set of circumstances, but it's going to raise questions that aren't raised when a criminal is found dead in a position consistent with charging you and with two rounds front-center mass and one to the forehead.

There is nothing consistent with The Constitution that promotes the idea that petty criminals should die for their petty crimes. Don't be so anxious to be judge, jury and executioner, and pray that you never get the "opportunity" to fulfill that anxiousness. You may end up facing the same kind of ruination that Mr. Methe is facing, which, even if a jury exonerates him, he will most likely end up owing his lawyers for the rest of his life, and maybe the family of the kid if they can win in civil court. There's a fine line between justified and unjustified, and if you're going to carry a gun, you damn well ought to know it and toe it.

Blues

 

[nca_mm]

How badly do you want to shoot someone that you would make a thread about someone else lamenting the fact that he didn't get away with shooting a petty thief in the back? It's a pretty safe bet in every jurisdiction across this country that back-shooting is going to bring on scrutiny from law enforcement. That's not to say that back-shooting is illegal in every jurisdiction or every set of circumstances, but it's going to raise questions that aren't raised when a criminal is found dead in a position consistent with charging you and with two rounds front-center mass and one to the forehead.

There is nothing consistent with The Constitution that promotes the idea that petty criminals should die for their petty crimes. Don't be so anxious to be judge, jury and executioner, and pray that you never get the "opportunity" to fulfill that anxiousness. You may end up facing the same kind of ruination that Mr. Methe is facing, which, even if a jury exonerates him, he will most likely end up owing his lawyers for the rest of his life, and maybe the family of the kid if they can win in civil court. There's a fine line between justified and unjustified, and if you're going to carry a gun, you damn well ought to know it and toe it.

Blues

Agree with everything you just said. I just have no tolerance for folks trying to take what is another man's. These thieves know that if they just run, nothing will happen b/c of the "in the back" stuff you said. This is why I'd just like to know what a man can do to stop these types in the act. Certainly can rely on police to catch 'em.

 

[BluesStringer]

Agree with everything you just said. I just have no tolerance for folks trying to take what is another man's. These thieves know that if they just run, nothing will happen b/c of the "in the back" stuff you said. This is why I'd just like to know what a man can do to stop these types in the act. Certainly can rely on police to catch 'em.

Get in shape and chase 'em down if'n it's that important to you. "Chasing" them down with bullets to their backs is going to be a much less tolerable net loss to you than just getting over it if'n you're not up to the task of going hands on with 'em, at least in the vast majority of jurisdictions that I've ever heard of or read anything about.

A general rule that should never get you in trouble that you can't get out of relatively easily is, rely on your guns when a "reasonable person" would agree that you faced a genuine threat when you drew (and/or fired) your weapon, and rely on your physical, mental and verbal skills to resolve all other conflicts with other human beings.

This ain't rocket surgery. There are jurisdictions where the general rule above may also apply to fleeing felons, but unless you know both the letter and intent of such exceptions to the general rule, you're playing with fire if you open fire at someone running away from you, especially if that person is unarmed, and even more especially if you succeeded in scaring them off before they even stole anything and you shot someone in the back who didn't even have any of your property in their possession. Another general rule is that if you're legitimately threatened, don't hesitate to use your gun, but if you're just pissed off because some 17 year old might get away with petty larceny, don't even allow yourself the temptation of reaching for your gun. They might indeed get away with the larceny, but you'll get away without having to answer to cops, a judge or a jury if you just control your anger over them getting away with larceny.

Blues

 

[Reba]

There is no property that I own that is worth taking someone's life to protect.

If your property is valuable, set up the best security that you can, always use it, and make sure you have adequate insurance.

 

[nca_mm]

I digress. Hope it never happens to me. Just have less than zero respect for thieves. If I ever catch one in the act, I don't plan to use lethal force unless one has a gun or knife, but I will make sure they have an ER trip.

 

[XD40scinNC]

"He [Methe] did everything right until he pulled the trigger on that boy who was running away from him,"

The use of deadly force is NOT permitted in most states to protect property. It's a pretty simple concept. We own and carry guns to protect ourselves, and others, not to protect "stuff", that's what insurance is for.

 

[XD40scinNC]

What can a citizen do to stop these people in their tracks?!

You can't kill them!

 

[hgk1979]

In the old west, horse theft and cattle rustling were hanging offenses. Men gave up horses when the automobile came along. With the change in locomotion the laws changed and car thieves couldn't be hung. Now I will say that I can relate to wanting to shoot the perp but can I legally? NO! Even certain felonies do not rise to the level where lethal force can be used. I agree with you that to let a POS steal what you've worked hard for pisses you off! It does me also. I'd like to shoot a drug-addled member of my family that has stolen things from me for ten plus long years. But I haven't yet because I don't want to go to jail!

 

[Waffles]

For y'alls information, the grand Jury has refused to indict the person charged with the shooting. He's free to walk.

Link Removed

 

[bofh]

For y'alls information, the grand Jury has refused to indict the person charged with the shooting. He's free to walk.

Link Removed

That's rather odd. I wonder if certain evidence wasn't presented to the public that was presented to the grand jury that would justify this decision. Based on the information in the news, I can see no reason not to indict the homeowner.

 

[BluesStringer]

For y'alls information, the grand Jury has refused to indict the person charged with the shooting. He's free to walk.

Link Removed

That's rather odd. I wonder if certain evidence wasn't presented to the public that was presented to the grand jury that would justify this decision. Based on the information in the news, I can see no reason not to indict the homeowner.

It's interesting the rationale the Sheriff (Matthews) used to express his disappointment in the refusal to indict. He said:

A trial would have served to air all the evidence in the case, pro and con, so the public would have learned what went on and whether a shooting in which a life was taken was in fact justified, Matthews said.

I agree wholeheartedly with him, but that's because I try as hard as I can to remain consistent in my arguments. I made the exact same argument advocating for the indictment of Darren Wilson, and I seriously doubt Matthews would've considered my identical argument(s) as being valid in the Michael Brown killing. Neither will the vast majority of folks who support the Grand Jury's refusal to indict in this case.

Blues

 

[bofh]

It's interesting the rationale the Sheriff (Matthews) used to express his disappointment in the refusal to indict. He said:

A trial would have served to air all the evidence in the case, pro and con, so the public would have learned what went on and whether a shooting in which a life was taken was in fact justified, Matthews said.

I agree wholeheartedly with him, but that's because I try as hard as I can to remain consistent in my arguments. I made the exact same argument advocating for the indictment of Darren Wilson, and I seriously doubt Matthews would've considered my identical argument(s) as being valid in the Michael Brown killing. Neither will the vast majority of folks who support the Grand Jury's refusal to indict in this case.

Blues

I understand your sentiment, however, all evidence in the Michael Brown killing was released to the public. This case is, however, different from the Michael Brown killing as the evidence has not been properly released to the public.