The Sorry State of Today's Journalism

[dmccarty]

I do think it was wrong to shoot like that (shoot at the tires or radiator, if anything)...

Never shoot unless a life is on the line. Shooting out the tire radiator is a use of deadly force and can get one in deep trouble. Maybe five years ago, there was a case sorta similar to the chainsaw situation. A homeowner caught a man stealing his car, shot the thief and if I remember right, killed him. The homeowner/car owner said his life was threatened by the thief trying to run him over. The problem is that the evidence did not support his statement. I thought for sure that homeowner was going to be in big trouble but the DA said there was no way he could get a conviction in his county. It was a rural county.

When I first moved to NC there was a big case where a home owner shot and killed a teenager who had been in his garage. The home owner heard something in the garage, came out with a .22 rifle and saw two teenagers trying to steal his motorcycle. They ran from the garage, but in doing so, they had to run towards the homeowner and then away from him. He shot one of the kids in the back as they ran down the driveway. Now, there is a reaction time between seeing a threat, making a decision to shoot, and then shooting. A lot can happen in that split second but I had a hard time believing that was what happened in this case. The home owner was charged but was found not guilty at the trial and he was danged lucky. Very lucky. I don't think the outcome would be the same today. Well, scratch that. Today, NC has a Castle law that might help the home owner but it is problematic shooting someone running away from you and who is unarmed.

Just because the law says an action is legal does not mean a DA will not charge. There was a similar case in FLA decades ago where a man caught a thief stealing his TV set and shot the thug in the back as he ran from the apartment. FLA law at the time said the shooting was allowed but the DA charged the man and the case went to court. The TV owner was found not guilty but he paid a fortune defending himself.

The chain saw case is going to be interesting because of the NC Castle law and I bet this one is going to court. If the son had shot the guy while he was in the store, I would think the Castle law applies. Since the thief was shot in a car, where was the car, how far from the store, where the other thugs about to drive off, etc but the bigger question is how FAR from the initial incident does the Castle law apply? The NC law defines a home and workplace but one difference is a simple, but oh so important word, curtilage. Curtilage is the area around a house that could include other buildings. The NC law does not use curtilage to apply to a workplace...

I suspect curtilage is going to be key in this case. Flip this around a bit. Say the son was at home and he heard someone in his barn, looked out and saw them run out with his chainsaw. IF the barn could be considered in the curtilage of the house, using deadly force would be legal. But what if the house had a 1,000 foot long driveway that thief ran down, jumped into a car, and was then shot? Would the Castle law apply? Court Case Time and one don't want to be a court case.

Shooting the thief while he sat in a car is going to be key in this case. Is that car still in the definition of workplace? If not, well the son has a big problem. He needs a really good lawyer right now, and if the DA charges, he needs a REALLY good lawyer. That chainsaw is only worth a few hours of time for a REALLY good lawyer.

Later,
Dan

 

[smstonypoint]

Shooting the thief while he sat in a car is going to be key in this case. Is that car still in the definition of workplace? If not, well the son has a big problem. He needs a really good lawyer right now, and if the DA charges, he needs a REALLY good lawyer. That chainsaw is only worth a few hours of time for a REALLY good lawyer.

I have real doubts about whether the Castle Law applies in this case, but I like the chances that the owner's son will walk.

My farm is within one mile of the Alexander County line. If the Alexander County residents that I know are representative of the entire county's population, the prosecutor is going to have a hard time convincing a jury to convict the shooter, regardless of the law and the facts.

Steve

 

[Jstpssng]

Not quite the same perhaps, but the owners of an orchard near where I grew up were known to protect their crop from thieves with shotguns loaded with rock salt. One night the local town drunk got shot in the posterior... The shooter did 2 years in prison for assault with a deadly weapon.

 

[Sysop]

Unfortunately for the store owner, this appears to be well outside prudent parameters for defensive use of a firearm.

"He was stealing the food from my family's mouths. I was protecting my family."

It may not work in a court of law, but it is what is going through a person's mind in such a situation which is why laws referred to as "castle doctrine" should be in effect in all 50 states and should clearly state that use of force is justified to protect people and property anyplace you have a right to be. Additionally when force is required to cease the commission of a crime, the person using force to stop the crime should be protected against civil suits or criminal charges.

The store owner is the victim of this story. Here the remaining two robbers would be charged with their buddy getting shot. It was them who perpetrated the crime in which he was hurt/killed, therefore it is their fault. It is amazing how much difference a state line or two can make...

 

[k0ua]

People who commit crimes take no responsibility for those crimes. Did you notice what the perp in the car said? In his mind his friend was injured through no fault of either of them. After all he is just a criminal plying his trade. His life's work no doubt. Unfortunately many people will side with this train of thought, in fact many here will.

 

[TCJatko]

"He was stealing the food from my family's mouths. I was protecting my family."

It may not work in a court of law, but it is what is going through a person's mind in such a situation which is why laws referred to as "castle doctrine" should be in effect in all 50 states and should clearly state that use of force is justified to protect people and property anyplace you have a right to be. Additionally when force is required to cease the commission of a crime, the person using force to stop the crime should be protected against civil suits or criminal charges.

The store owner is the victim of this story. Here the remaining two robbers would be charged with their buddy getting shot. It was them who perpetrated the crime in which he was hurt/killed, therefore it is their fault. It is amazing how much difference a state line or two can make...

I agree with this 100 percent. However, sometimes the law doesn't.

 

[ovrszd]

"He was stealing the food from my family's mouths. I was protecting my family."

It may not work in a court of law, but it is what is going through a person's mind in such a situation which is why laws referred to as "castle doctrine" should be in effect in all 50 states and should clearly state that use of force is justified to protect people and property anyplace you have a right to be. Additionally when force is required to cease the commission of a crime, the person using force to stop the crime should be protected against civil suits or criminal charges.

The store owner is the victim of this story. Here the remaining two robbers would be charged with their buddy getting shot. It was them who perpetrated the crime in which he was hurt/killed, therefore it is their fault. It is amazing how much difference a state line or two can make...

I agree also. Along with JCJatko and James. But the looming problem with this nation is an increasing percentage of the population does not.

With our biased news media we'll never know the end result. But I predict the shooter will beat the pending charges. It'll just cost him his next ten years of store profit to do it. So the other side wins in the end. Very sad.

 

[texasjohn]

These were not young punks...older, balding fellows is what I saw.
Premeditated, brought bolt cutters to the scene.
There in strength...three of them...able to overpower one individual.
Deadly force used to protect property is reported.

Seems like a job of factual reporting to me...I see nothing biased by the report at this point.

That said, shooting when protecting property, not self, is not advisable, regardless of castle rule or amount of property involved.

A few days before last Xmas, I was at a Walmart. There was an (empty) police car outside parked at the entrance. I was standing near the exit when a fellow pushed a basket holding a large box of electronic equipment out the door, being followed by a store employee demanding that he "stop, sir"!! Employee had no weapon or camera and maintained a safe distance. Thief put box in car and drove away. Four police cars arrived within 3 minutes, but perp was already gone. Checking out later, I commented to the clerk, "tough night tonight!" He said, "Yes, THIRD TIME TODAY!!" I had no idea that such brazen thefts were so common.

It's a mystery and a conundrum! We staunchly believe in the Constitution, speedy trial by peers and the pursuit of life, liberty and of happiness. Oooops...unhappy thief seeks happiness by obtaining other's possessions, thereby making them unhappy, and preventative measures rob one of liberty, happiness and life if shot during the act. And, I know of nowhere in the USA that a trial is "speedy." In math, an equation with more unknowns than constants is considered an unsolvable equation.

IMHO, the NATURE OF MAN is an unsolvable equation. I would note that there are thousands in the middle east who now, hourly, face an eminently larger set of difficulties than either the chainsaw thief or store owner, either before or after the chainsaw theft.

 

[ovrszd]

These were not young punks...older, balding fellows is what I saw.
Premeditated, brought bolt cutters to the scene.
There in strength...three of them...able to overpower one individual.
Deadly force used to protect property is reported.

Seems like a job of factual reporting to me...I see nothing biased by the report at this point.

That said, shooting when protecting property, not self, is not advisable, regardless of castle rule or amount of property involved.

A few days before last Xmas, I was at a Walmart. There was an (empty) police car outside parked at the entrance. I was standing near the exit when a fellow pushed a basket holding a large box of electronic equipment out the door, being followed by a store employee demanding that he "stop, sir"!! Employee had no weapon or camera and maintained a safe distance. Thief put box in car and drove away. Four police cars arrived within 3 minutes, but perp was already gone. Checking out later, I commented to the clerk, "tough night tonight!" He said, "Yes, THIRD TIME TODAY!!" I had no idea that such brazen thefts were so common.

It's a mystery and a conundrum! We staunchly believe in the Constitution, speedy trial by peers and the pursuit of life, liberty and of happiness. Oooops...unhappy thief seeks happiness by obtaining other's possessions, thereby making them unhappy, and preventative measures rob one of liberty, happiness and life if shot during the act. And, I know of nowhere in the USA that a trial is "speedy." In math, an equation with more unknowns than constants is considered an unsolvable equation.

IMHO, the NATURE OF MAN is an unsolvable equation. I would note that there are thousands in the middle east who now, hourly, face an eminently larger set of difficulties than either the chainsaw thief or store owner, either before or after the chainsaw theft.

John, I'm sorry, I missed your point??

So is the store owner justified to defend himself or not??

I've been to the Middle East. I totally understand their methods of defense. They cut off your hands or hang you from the nearest elevated structure that will hold your weight.

Just trying to figure out your point or stance. No flame intended.

 

[smstonypoint]

These were not young punks...older, balding fellows is what I saw.
Premeditated, brought bolt cutters to the scene.
There in strength...three of them...able to overpower one individual.
Deadly force used to protect property is reported.

Seems like a job of factual reporting to me...I see nothing biased by the report at this point.

I agree. I was being facetious when I chose the thread title.:ashamed: My feeble attempt at humor was pointing out that the reporter did not give any details on the make and model of the chainsaw that was stolen -- info that TBNers might find interesting.

Steve