Don’t shoot fleeing burglars
First, you might go to jail. And second, they might just sue you:
A burglar who broke into a Dunkirk mans garage has filed a lawsuit against the homeowner for shooting him.
Authorities said David A. Bailey, now 31, of Albany, broke into the garage of Dunkirk resident David McLaughlin on April 21, 2014.
McLaughlin, now 33, fired gunshots at the intruder he saw fleeing from his property, in the 400 block of West Commerce Drive. One of the bullets hit Bailey in the left arm as he ran down an alley.
In September 2014, a Jay Superior Court jury found McLaughlin guilty of criminal recklessness in the shooting. Judge Max Ludy later sentenced the Dunkirk property owner to 60 days in jail, to be followed by four months on home detention.
April 26th, 2016 at 7:22 pm
We don’t shoot people in the back. It’s the oldest code of ethics with guns.
April 26th, 2016 at 7:43 pm
There are exceptions to the rule of not shooting someone in the back. One example is an active shooter moving to the next room. Other examples abound and will be left as an exercise for the reader.
The better rule is that before you can legally use deadly force against someone they must be putting innocent life in immediate danger of death or permanent injury. Sometimes this is expressed via three components: Means, opportunity, and intent.
April 26th, 2016 at 9:09 pm
Joe – I hear ya. There is no limit to the number of situations one could find themselves in. That’s why I carry. Ethics requires judgement, that is why it’s not a rule, It’s an ethical judgement. In this case the threat left, was outside and running away with no apparent victim. I like to think in terms of the days before there were more lawyers than stars in the sky. It’s from the wild west code. I was born out of time.
April 26th, 2016 at 10:25 pm
“I feared for my life.”
If you can say that and the cops, God, and your heart know it’s true, it’s justifiable, if still regrettable, homicide.
April 26th, 2016 at 11:57 pm
Actually, it is from movies and TV. And even then, it was that you didn’t sneak up on someone and shoot them in the back. And that was only outside combat.
April 27th, 2016 at 9:46 am
Bad cases make bad lawsuits, as well as bad law.
April 27th, 2016 at 10:54 am
Actually the point is to know the laws of the state you are in. Texas allows for the use of deadly force to protect property. To wit:
Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property: (B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.
Texas average recovery of stolen property runs from 5-10%, so if someone gets out of sight your stuff is likely gone for good. So now you are back to the ethical question of do you shoot someone over property. Oh, and Texas has a law that makes a suit by a perp against a legal shooting impossible.
April 27th, 2016 at 12:47 pm
I like the rule that says;
“If you don’t want to get shot, don’t fuck with other people or their property.”
Avoiding getting shot is therefore simple and easy. Anyone can do it with a little bit of practice. For example; the time you’re walking past someone else’s property, stay out of it. See? No one gets shot. Following this simple rule may take some careful thought at first, but over time it can become almost second nature.
Also you will find this basic rule among the Ten Commandments, which when you think about it, could be seen as a fair good guide on how to avoid getting shot.
One problem with such a simple, obvious and easy-to-follow rule or set of rules is that our government’s function has devolved into doing mostly those kinds of things that tend to get people shot.
So the way I’d look at this as a jury member would be; the property owner is probably an asshole. Regardless, if the other guy didn’t want to get shot then he wouldn’t have been there. He was old enough to know better, so clearly he was looking to get shot.
April 27th, 2016 at 2:36 pm
“Legal” and “justifiable” are not synonymous terms.
Anecdote: In the 90’s I employed a former local cop as a manager of my pawn & gun shop. Since I had 30 years behind the counter without drawing down and he had two at gunpoint in one year I came to believe that not having had the opportunity to off anyone in his former job, he was looking for an opportunity to put one between somebody’s eyes in my store, in such a way that he was *legally* justified.
Hey, somebody comes out with a gun or otherwise overtly threatens, don’t wait, shoot his ass and stay alive to deal with the system later. But if a dude grabs a gold chain and runs out the door (real story) do NOT blast at his ass and chance killing an innocent bystander in the parking lot out front.
From a purely practical standpoint there is no way that chain is worth the ordeal and expense of the investigation, court, etc. no matter HOW legal it may be. And yeah, ethical? Moral? I do NOT want to face God, my kids, or myself in the mirror and try to ‘splain taking a life for a trinket. OTOH, as I said above, if I can truly say that I felt that it was him or me? I’d smoke him without second guessing (which can be deadly); I’ve got people depending on me to stick around for a while.