I Just Can't Call This A Good Shoot

[Subdeacon Joe]

https://www.nbc-2.com/story/39649177/florida-jewelry-store-owner-shoots-teenage-thief-in-the-head?fbclid=IwAR2KHZmVmc1DufpuWlUcdzCKvNcPKyg1c39FIlYQeZJ_3FjJtuHS6S2PvKM

 

 

 

Emotionally I like this. But logically and rationally I'm of the opinion that the owner should not have taken the shot. 

Fleeing felon, likely unarmed, looks like about 20 yards way, maybe more, traffic beyond the target, no immediate threat to the owner. 

I just can't call it a good shoot. 

That said, I hope he is not charged, and that any suits by the parents of the thug get thrown out of court. The owners action was an understandable emotional response to a death threat and the robbery.

[J. Mark Flint #31954 LIFE]

I respectfully disagree, He should be charged and he should be convicted and he should do time.  If gun owners don't condemn illegal behavior we have no credibility.

[Badlands Bob #61228]

If I was lucky enough to get put on the civil jury, I would be awarding legal fees and restitution to the jewelry store.

[Henry T Harrison]

Bad shoot from the start. This guy needs to see the inside of a jail cell for a long time. The penalty for theft isn’t death 

[Utah Bob #35998]

30 minutes ago, Henry T Harrison said:

Bad shoot from the start. This guy needs to see the inside of a jail cell for a long time. The penalty for theft isn’t death 

Yup. A police officer would be crucified for that.

[Sixgun Sheridan]

2 hours ago, Henry T Harrison said:

Bad shoot from the start. This guy needs to see the inside of a jail cell for a long time. The penalty for theft isn’t death 

 

I frequently read comments on forums where people defiantly say they'd gladly kill anybody who tries to steal their truck or tools out of their shed. Having been a theft victim myself I can appreciate the anger directed towards these scumbags, but I agree a gun owner has to use his head and not take another man's life just over property, even if they're in a state like Texas where it's often legal.

[Yul Lose]

That guy belongs under the jail. That kid was absolutely no threat to the guy.

[Sedalia Dave]

6 hours ago, Sixgun Sheridan said:

 

I frequently read comments on forums where people defiantly say they'd gladly kill anybody who tries to steal their truck or tools out of their shed. Having been a theft victim myself I can appreciate the anger directed towards these scumbags, but I agree a gun owner has to use his head and not take another man's life just over property, even if they're in a state like Texas where it's often legal.

 

In Texas it is only legal to use deadly force under certain circumstances.  If the incident above had occurred in Texas it would be a prosecutable offence and the shooter would likely get jail time.

[Charlie Harley, #14153]

I understand the visceral desire to extract vengeance, but there’s nothing here but a lot of lessons about how to not be a responsible gun owner. 

[Capt. R. Hugh Kidnme]

That is totally irresponsible. My vote is for jail time.

[Rye Miles #13621]

I think that's a very bad scenario, I would suspend jail time if the guy has a good clean record. He should be required to take a firearm class until he can carry again.

[J. Mark Flint #31954 LIFE]

That is being easy on "one of your own"  I am not saying his circumstances should not be considered in the sentencing, but if the robber who was shot dies, this is a murder scenario.  The shooter should never legally own a gun again and he should do jail time.  I'm okay with a minimum sentence if that is what were to happen, but we should not be here supporting what was done or condoning it in any sense.

[Smoken D]

How I remember when it was legal to shoot a fleeing felon. Crime was a lot less, jails less crowded, and weeded out the bad. Always the feeling their next victim would be killed since they can get away with it. They started out stealing candy, then murder. But, times have changed for the better they say. What did they do with criminals like this back in 1800's. I think something like a posse then hung them when caught. Today they get reformed or Jesus and let them go to do it again.

[evil dogooder]

All you are seeing is one instance. The criminals history isn't known.   Does this same owner get robbed or threatened every week by this group?  

  Does anyone know what the owner went through before what is seen on the video?

 

Can anyone say that the owner knew for sure he was not armed?  

 

  A lot of armchair quarterbacks here.  

 

 As for the criminal,  I feel no sorrow.  He chose to do something that could result in someone's death. He knew the risks going in.    

 

 I can't understand the switch in people now days.   The criminal never deserves to get shot.  Or he's really a good guy but just made a bad choice.   That's all bs. If your robbing people your not a good guy.   He made a a deadly mistake.  He paid for it.  No loss 

 

  The only guy I feel sorry for is the owner.  His life is now ruined. Even if he isn't charged he has to live with the fact he took a life.  Even as worthless a life as a criminals it will still haunt hmm the rest of his days

[Subdeacon Joe]

17 minutes ago, evil dogooder said:

I can't understand the switch in people now days.   The criminal never deserves to get shot.  Or he's really a good guy but just made a bad choice.   That's all bs. If your robbing people your not a good guy.   He made a a deadly mistake.  He paid for it.  No loss 

I think you are missing my point - the owner, in rushing out and shooting at a moving car, with traffic crossing his field of fire beyond the target, was endangering others.   Given what his emotional state must have been after having his wife threatened with death, as well as the robbery, I can condemn his actions without wanting him in prison, and without condoning the thief.

[Mud Marine,SASS#54686 Life]

First, he should not be living in a place where what he did was possibly not legal. Second, he should not have shot while moving. Third, he needed to shoot two handed.

 

Any place where he can be prosecuted for shooting at the criminal when his wife can be forcibly ejected on to the street and his vehicle stolen is no place to be domiciled!!!

 

GOOD HEAVENS!!! I cannot believe the comments.  

 

I  LOVE IDAHO!!!  

[Knarley Bob]

There would be no need for gunfire at the point where there was. I have carried for many years, and there is no excuse for shooting at a moving vehicle in such a manner.

But one must admit, hitting the bad guy in the head, in a moving vehicle, IS either a good shot, or lucky.

[Utah Bob #35998]

59 minutes ago, evil dogooder said:

All you are seeing is one instance. The criminals history isn't known.   Does this same owner get robbed or threatened every week by this group?  

  Does anyone know what the owner went through before what is seen on the video?

 

Can anyone say that the owner knew for sure he was not armed?  

 

  A lot of armchair quarterbacks here.  

 

 As for the criminal,  I feel no sorrow.  He chose to do something that could result in someone's death. He knew the risks going in.    

 

 I can't understand the switch in people now days.   The criminal never deserves to get shot.  Or he's really a good guy but just made a bad choice.   That's all bs. If your robbing people your not a good guy.   He made a a deadly mistake.  He paid for it.  No loss 

 

  The only guy I feel sorry for is the owner.  His life is now ruined. Even if he isn't charged he has to live with the fact he took a life.  Even as worthless a life as a criminals it will still haunt hmm the rest of his days

Well, I might be armchair quarterbacking but 33 years wearing a badge, firearms tactics, burglary and robbery instructor, and officer involved shooting investigator gives me some justification. This is a bad shoot. 

What happened before the video is irrelevant. Whether or not the perp was armed or not doesn’t matter either. The actions of the shooter were irresponsible and negligent.

I am talking simple legality here not sympathy for the bad guy.

[The Original Lumpy Gritz]

Really need to see what happened inside the store.

Was the BG armed? Was a customer injured by said BG?

Was the store full of customers?

Need way more info here.

This is a 'iffy' shoot at best.

OLG

[Colorado Coffinmaker]

PLUS ONE TO Utah Bob.

 

A.  You can't stop a moving vehicle with a gun.

 

B.  You cannot predict the bullet path thru Automotive Glass.

 

C.  The Perp was in full flight.

 

D.  The Perp no longer represented a danger to the shooter.

 

E.  All of the above denies the Store Owner the use of Deadly Force.

 

F.  Considering the background beyond the Getaway Vehicle, Firing at it was STUPID.

[evil dogooder]

1 hour ago, Utah Bob #35998 said:

Well, I might be armchair quarterbacking but 33 years wearing a badge, firearms tactics, burglary and robbery instructor, and officer involved shooting investigator gives me some justification. This is a bad shoot. 

What happened before the video is irrelevant. Whether or not the perp was armed or not doesn’t matter either. The actions of the shooter were irresponsible and negligent.

I am talking simple legality here not sympathy for the bad guy.

Ok so in that ten second clip you were able to see all pertaining facts?   Could there have been a hostage in the car?   You don't know.  Could he have been aiming a gun at the owner or someone else?  Again You don't know.

  My whole point is too many are making assumptions without knowing the facts. 

[Subdeacon Joe]

1 hour ago, Utah Bob #35998 said:

The actions of the shooter were irresponsible and negligent.

 

28 minutes ago, Colorado Coffinmaker said:

F.  Considering the background beyond the Getaway Vehicle, Firing at it was STUPID.

 

 

Bingo!

 

6 minutes ago, evil dogooder said:

Could there have been a hostage in the car?  

 

If so, that makes the points quoted above even stronger.

Again, no one is condoning what the little punk did, they are condemning the guy for 1.) shooting when the punk was fleeing and presented no threat, and, 2.) endangering the people in the cars downrange.

[Smokin Gator SASS #29736]

Who was the person that ran up to the car but was left there as the car drove away? Was it the 2nd robber who got shot? I'm still not sure after watching the video.

[Utah Bob #35998]

5 minutes ago, evil dogooder said:

Ok so in that ten second clip you were able to see all pertaining facts?   Could there have been a hostage in the car?   You don't know.  Could he have been aiming a gun at the owner or someone else?  Again You don't know.

  My whole point is too many are making assumptions without knowing the facts. 

A hostage in the car would have made the shoot even worse. Based on what I see there is absolutely no justification. Ant police officer would be fired and probably prosecuted for negligence at best and manslaughter or murder at worst.

This is not a case of a partial video where what happened before the video makes a difference. It doesn’t matter if he is the worst criminal in history. We know the crime was robbery not a homicide. The thief was fleeing. Thats a no shoot scenario.

The getaway car crashed into another vehicle. Suppose a family was killed as a result?

Nope. This is a bad shoot.

[evil dogooder]

12 minutes ago, Utah Bob #35998 said:

A hostage in the car would have made the shoot even worse. Based on what I see there is absolutely no justification. Ant police officer would be fired and probably prosecuted for negligence at best and manslaughter or murder at worst.

This is not a case of a partial video where what happened before the video makes a difference. It doesn’t matter if he is the worst criminal in history. We know the crime was robbery not a homicide. The thief was fleeing. Thats a no shoot scenario.

The getaway car crashed into another vehicle. Suppose a family was killed as a result?

Nope. This is a bad shoot.

Nice try. Two times in six weeks this summer California cops shot innocent bystanders and saw no charges.   

   A civilian would be crucified. 

 

 Would I have taken that shot?  I can't say.  I don't know the facts.  I don't know what was in the line of fire.  I don't know what's at stake.    I do know im not going to presume I know what's going on without being there. 

[Utah Bob #35998]

3 minutes ago, evil dogooder said:

Nice try. Two times in six weeks this summer California cops shot innocent bystanders and saw no charges.   

   A civilian would be crucified. 

 

 Would I have taken that shot?  I can't say.  I don't know the facts.  I don't know what was in the line of fire.  I don't know what's at stake.    I do know im not going to presume I know what's going on without being there. 

You toss out two other cases without details as comparison?

I’m saying that I would not have taken the shot. Why? My department, as do many others, prohibited firing at moving vehicles. Because it’s so dangerous that the risk of injury to others far outweighs the benefit.

Bottom line is that if you’re going to carry a gun you better be very aware of the laws regarding use of deadly force.

[Badlands Beady]

1 hour ago, evil dogooder said:

Ok so in that ten second clip you were able to see all pertaining facts?   Could there have been a hostage in the car?   You don't know.  Could he have been aiming a gun at the owner or someone else?  Again You don't know.

  My whole point is too many are making assumptions without knowing the facts. 

You don't know, either.  You are the one making assumptions that there were mitigating factors outside of the video.  The rest of us (mostly) are confining our remarks to the known evidence as it is presented.  You cannot invoke your own ignorance to justify speculation.

[Henry T Harrison]

2 hours ago, evil dogooder said:

Nice try. Two times in six weeks this summer California cops shot innocent bystanders and saw no charges.   

   A civilian would be crucified. 

 

 Would I have taken that shot?  I can't say.  I don't know the facts.  I don't know what was in the line of fire.  I don't know what's at stake.    I do know im not going to presume I know what's going on without being there. 

Right now there is a police officer in a small department outside of Pittsburgh waiting to be tried for homicide . His crime was shooting an unarmed man fleeing from what he thought was a shooting. The law is very clear you can’t shoot a fleeing criminal who is no longer a threat to you and that hasn’t changed in 50 years.

As Bob said every department I knew of prohibits shooting at or from a moving vehicle, should you hit the driver you have just created a 3000 pound unguided missile, for which YOU are responsible. Also like Bob, I wore a badge for 38 years 

 

[Abilene Slim SASS 81783]

That violates about everything I was taught in my CCW class. Bet this guy didn't have a permit and just kept a gun under the counter. If he had a permit, he didn't learn the really important stuff.